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

Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#201

Post by erichocean »

creato wrote: post #164
jfengel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the polling really all that different from this point in 2016? As I recall, in 2016, the eventual winner was way down in the polls right up until election day.

By the time of the election, the polls had narrowed considerably. There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot, but people that actually understood statistics and polls had the race a lot closer to a coin flip at the time of the election (IIRC 60-40 odds).

> There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot

Is that what we're calling the New York Times these days? How the might have fallen…

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#202

Post by erichocean »

tehjoker wrote: post #161
Izkata wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. It's a little over 1/2 for presidential elections (over 2/3 in some states). Midterm elections are what's around 1/3. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout...

Thanks! EDIT: I would point out that this means that every four years, about 25% of the population picks the president. Ideally, we would be somewhere north of 40%. This bare majority participation occurs admist one of the biggest extended and hyped media events in the world. Other countries routinely get above 60-70% participation with far less nonsense.

I live in California. My preferred candidates win the vote almost 100% of the time no matter if I vote or not.

That's true in many, many states.

Not voting is pretty rational for most people. (I still vote anyway, mostly out of habit, even though I know it makes no earthly difference whatever to the outcome.)

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#203

Post by bhupy »

drak0n1c wrote: post #200
bhupy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The steel-man argument is that the President's statements practically amount to an indirect call for violence. There's no other way for the state to enforce laws except to use the messy apparatus of the police, which may result in collateral damage/violence.

The truly steel-man assessment of the President's statement of "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is that he meant it empirically, not normatively -- describing what inevitably occurs in an environment of sustained looting (shootings committed by people guarding property, looters, and law enforcement). If you want to be extra charitable, he possibly made that statement empirically to describe a tragic sit…

Yeah that's the steel-man counterargument.

My steel-man was an attempt to justify the deletion of Trump's post: by making the best possible case that it's actually a normative call to violence (even if indirect).

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#204

Post by erichocean »

ciarannolan wrote: post #111
lallysingh wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does low voter participation de-legitimize the election? Separately, if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Similarly in rural for an R?

> [...] if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Good point. No reason voting in CA, NY, or other states since your vote is basically meaningless. > Similarly in rural for an R? Same as above. Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic if millions more people end up voting for the "loser" of an election.

> Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic

Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. That's literally why it exists, to curb majority rule by cities at the expense of rural voters, who occupy the majority of the land and—more importantly—are cannon-fodder for our military and thus need a seat at the table if we city-goers hope to continue sending them off to die.

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#205

Post by erichocean »

bhupy wrote: post #203
drak0n1c wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truly steel-man assessment of the President's statement of "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" is that he meant it empirically, not normatively -- describing what inevitably occurs in an environment of sustained looting (shootings committed by people guarding property, looters, and law enforcement). If you want to be extra charitable, he possibly made that statement empirically to describe a tragic sit…

Yeah that's the steel-man counterargument. My steel-man was an attempt to justify the deletion of Trump's post: by making the best possible case that it's actually a normative call to violence (even if indirect).

Since Trump literally explained his comment, your steel-man seems entirely wrong/misplaced.

I'd rather Twitter just ban Trump entirely because he's an asshole and they don't like him. Such a policy would be far more honest.

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#206

Post by seneca »

bhupy wrote: post #199
seneca wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, absolutely. I am just following that argument to its logical conclusion and was intentionally pointing out that it doesn't make a lot of sense. I think you were pretty close in your summary down-thread: > The issue is whether advocating for the legal use of force constitutes "inciting violence" ... > The central debate is: should the ToS disallow incitements of violence, even if it's actually legal? In reality, m…

It's true that the people arguing against the President's statements aren't necessarily arguing from a principled stance, but that's true of any group that uses the levers of regulation. The Terms of Service, to a company, is sort of like laws to a state. Laws are important because they are instruments that can be used by everyone , and the government in theory ought to consistently apply them. Take anti-discriminati…

Completely agreed, and well stated.

However, in this case, I don't think it's that Facebook doesn't want to apply their ToS consistently. I believe it's that activist employees, and opportunistic companies feigning boycotts, don't want them applied consistently.

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#207

Post by erichocean »

Talanes wrote: post #171
nailer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the screenshot you're referring to is "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" (oddly this isn't placed next to the assertion of threat probably to avoid the comparison): a) this is not directed at George Floyd protestors as the article suggests, but at looters b) stating that violence with be responded to with force is a factual statement, and that response is entirely within the remit of law enforcement. T…

Since when is gunfire an appropriate or legal response to theft?

Since forever. Are you entirely unfamiliar with the law in most US jurisdictions, and the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition in general?

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#208

Post by ciarannolan »

erichocean wrote: post #204
ciarannolan wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Good point. No reason voting in CA, NY, or other states since your vote is basically meaningless. > Similarly in rural for an R? Same as above. Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic if millions more people end up voting for the "loser" of an election.

> Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. That's literally why it exists, to curb majority rule by cities at the expense of rural voters, who occupy the majority of the land and—more importantly—are cannon-fodder for our military and thus need a seat at the table if we city-goers hope to continue sending them off to die.

> Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic.

Yes, that's why it's bad.

I don't think occupying a lot of land or joining the army at a higher rate entitles rural voters to more power than anyone else. If we're going down the route of determining whose vote should count for more, those two qualities seem to be near the bottom of the list.

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#209

Post by kccqzy »

jcroll wrote: post #129
artfulhippo wrote: post #44

I loved Max Wang’s point that Facebook has chosen to focus on political engagement over social engagement. Like many people who used FB early, I remember when it was more about friends than allies (and opponents). Facebook profits massively from the politics of outrage, and for Zuckerberg to claim that Free Speech is a moral imperative is for him to take a Strategy Credit[0]. While I strongly believe that Free Speech…

Facebook makes decisions on a profit basis and by that metric is meteorically successful. These Facebook employees that spent years collecting their $500k pay cheques might want to consider this before posting their videos criticizing the company's direction

Max Wang, the person who posted the video criticizing the company, left the company.

Re: Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built

#210

Post by jcroll »

kccqzy wrote: post #209
jcroll wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook makes decisions on a profit basis and by that metric is meteorically successful. These Facebook employees that spent years collecting their $500k pay cheques might want to consider this before posting their videos criticizing the company's direction

Max Wang, the person who posted the video criticizing the company, left the company.

My argument is you can't have it both ways. You want to collect $500k salaries you're going to have to live with your employer pursuing immense profits
Post reply on HN