Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 549 posts

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#191

Post by smsm42 »

nindalf wrote: post #110

Huh, never thought I’d see XCheck in a news article. I used to work at Facebook and spotted abuse of this system by bad actors and partly fixed it. It’s still not perfect but it’s better than it used to be. I think I might have agreed with the author of this article before working in Integrity for a few years. But with time I learned that any system that’s meant to work for millions of users will have some edge cases…

I think people that work on this feature mean well - or at least they think that they mean well. But as a result, we have a two-tier system where the peasants have one set of rules and the nobility has an entirely different one. It may have started as a hack to correct the obvious inadequacies of the moderation system, but it grew into something much more sinister and alien to the spirit of free speech, and is ripe for capture by ideologically driven partisans (which, in my opinion, has already happened). And once it did, the care that people implementing and maintaining the unjust system have for it isn't exactly a consolation for anybody who encounters it.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#192

Post by pempem »

fallingknife wrote: post #134
metalliqaz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anyone walking around that actually believes that rules and laws apply to the elite? Some seem to think that the reason this is excused is because (in the US at least) every poor schmuck seem to think they they will be rich and powerful someday and get to partake. I've never found that very credible, but smarter people than me seem to think so.

A simpler explanation would be that it's just the way it works in every human society ever.

Maybe we could consider it an easier explanation rather than a simple one. It seems like splitting hairs but its important

The rule of law however has been continuously pursued across centuries and different societies in an attempt to subvert this 'default' operating mechanism.

I would argue the nature bit is where you favor yourself. Its hard to find people who will disfavor themselves in the name of egalitarianism.

The rest is the result of resources/funds being concentrated in the hands of people who also end up with power due to said resources/funds.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#193

Post by cratermoon »

jdavis703 wrote: post #174
metalliqaz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anyone walking around that actually believes that rules and laws apply to the elite? Some seem to think that the reason this is excused is because (in the US at least) every poor schmuck seem to think they they will be rich and powerful someday and get to partake. I've never found that very credible, but smarter people than me seem to think so.

Yes. Donald Trump was impeached twice and has an unknown number of civil and criminal investigations ongoing. If a billionaire and the leader of a major political party is in this much trouble, it kind of shows that elites do get in trouble.

Oh but that's part of the fiction and the rigging. If he were a poor non-white person, he'd have been in prison for the last 30+ years, or after whenever his first swindle and self-aggrandizing fraud happened.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#194

Post by smsm42 »

nindalf wrote: post #164
gkop wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy relating to Zuckerberg is absurdly tone deaf.

I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. And more pertinently, there’s no plans to fix it for him specifically just because he’s the CEO. It’s better to spend time making the account compromise system better for the vast majority of users instead.

The problem is not account compromise. Nobody is complaining about inability to compromise Zuckerberg's account or it being to hard to register a new device or anything like that. The issue is question is the two-tier (or maybe multiple-tier) system of rules that secretly exists inside Facebook while the public materials falsely claim all users are guided by the same rules.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#195

Post by metalliqaz »

jdavis703 wrote: post #174
metalliqaz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anyone walking around that actually believes that rules and laws apply to the elite? Some seem to think that the reason this is excused is because (in the US at least) every poor schmuck seem to think they they will be rich and powerful someday and get to partake. I've never found that very credible, but smarter people than me seem to think so.

Yes. Donald Trump was impeached twice and has an unknown number of civil and criminal investigations ongoing. If a billionaire and the leader of a major political party is in this much trouble, it kind of shows that elites do get in trouble.

Another way to look at it is that an elite mired in so much corruption and antisocial behavior was rewarded by being elected POTUS and allowed to finish his term and orchestrate an insurrection without consequence.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#196

Post by nradov »

paulluuk wrote: post #149
threatofrain wrote: post #127

I’m not sure how we can ever expect FB to treat everyone fairly; there isn’t a system on earth which does so, including any judiciary ever. Imagine that I were treated the same as a president or king.

Why should you be treated worse than a president or king?

Because Facebook is a for-profit private business, not a charity or government.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#197

Post by IntrepidWorm »

davidkellis wrote: post #85
throwawayboise wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put all of the companies you name in pretty much the same basket, and avoid them as much as I can. I don't shop on Amazon, I don't use Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter. I don't use Apple products. I do use Android and Google Docs/Drive/Mail but my next phone will probably be an open one and I could drop the GSuite stuff without too much pain, mostly laziness that I haven't already.

I'm in the same boat. Trying my best to de-FAANG my life. Self hosting as much as possible, with as little management overhead as possible, but I'm still stuck on Android and I don't know how to break free.

De-Googled android distros are definitely out there, but I also think flip phone plus small portable laptop is a very powerful combo.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#198

Post by nradov »

CreateAccntAgn wrote: post #50

If these are known misleading public statements then can SEC prosecute them? I'd think these statements can affect the stock price and this is securities fraud.

The SEC doesn't conduct criminal prosecutions. They can only bring civil actions for securities law violations. If they do find evidence of criminality they pass it to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#199

Post by JadeNB »

Aunche wrote: post #111
cratermoon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, why do we continue to accept the fiction that rules and laws apply to the elite as for the masses? Even the not-so-elite, the Stanford swimmer who brutally raped and assaulted Chanel Miller, though convicted, was given light sentence because of his "bright future", according to the judge.

Brock Turner wasn't elite in any sense besides his acceptance into Stanford, which had been revoked. His father was an electrical engineer and his mom was a nurse. Also, the judge who made the ruling was fired.

> Also, the judge who made the ruling was fired.

Just as a matter of terminology, I think one doesn't usually speak of judges being fired. He lost his seat in a recall election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Persky#Repercussions_to_...

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#200

Post by nindalf »

otterley wrote: post #177
nindalf wrote: post #110

Huh, never thought I’d see XCheck in a news article. I used to work at Facebook and spotted abuse of this system by bad actors and partly fixed it. It’s still not perfect but it’s better than it used to be. I think I might have agreed with the author of this article before working in Integrity for a few years. But with time I learned that any system that’s meant to work for millions of users will have some edge cases…

You haven’t really touched on the main problem discussed in the article, which is that to Facebook, there are special users - mainly celebrities and politicians - who get to play by different rules than the rest of us. Social media was supposed to help level the playing field of society, not exacerbate its inequalities.

I did touch on that problem. Like I pointed out Zuckerberg can’t log in on new devices anymore. That’s because of the thousands of attempts per second to log into his account. Those attempts happen because he’s a celebrity. His experience is objectively different because of who he is.

It’s the same with Neymar. How many times do you think his profile is reported for any number of violations by people who don’t like him? If an ordinary persons account got 100 reports a minute it would be taken down. Neymar’s won’t be.

I don’t know how every Integrity system could be modified to make an exception for any of these classes of accounts or how to codify it in a way that would seem “fair”. If you have an idea for a better way, you should share it.

Post reply on HN