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

Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 271 posts

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#221

Post by lsh123 »

scrollaway wrote: post #213
JSONwebtoken wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary is a democrat, Bernie Sanders is an extremist. So the mantra stands.

As a european it's always funny hearing some americans call Bernie an extremist. Here he's just an average left-leaning politician, we elect plenty of people like him all the time. US politics are so absurdly shifted right it's mind blowing. Edit: Does anyone here actually disagree with this or am I just being downvoted because people are upset this is the case?

European politics is so stupidly shifted left, it’s mind blowing.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#222

Post by qubex »

slavik81 wrote: post #118
qubex wrote: post #39

Facebook’s Community Standards are a total joke... no later than two days ago I came across a cartoon of a guy on public transport taking an ’upskirt’ without the woman’s consent only to start puking when he saw on his phone that she was menstruate (I kid you not). I of course reported it instantly. I promptly got an anodyne notification that ”I had done the right thing” reporting it it but that it was found ”not to…

From your description, it sounds like you abused the reporting tool by reporting content that you knew did not violate the stated guidelines. Their response was to temp-ban you. To me, that seems reasonable. It doesn't really matter that it was a shitty, gross joke. That's not the criteria for removal, and they told you that before you reported it again. Though, a temp-ban might be a little harsh. If the only problem…

I was unbanned within a couple of hours and the cartoon was nowhere to be found when I was allowed back in, probably because there was a deluge of coincident reports.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#223

Post by scrollaway »

lsh123 wrote: post #221
scrollaway wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a european it's always funny hearing some americans call Bernie an extremist. Here he's just an average left-leaning politician, we elect plenty of people like him all the time. US politics are so absurdly shifted right it's mind blowing. Edit: Does anyone here actually disagree with this or am I just being downvoted because people are upset this is the case?

European politics is so stupidly shifted left, it’s mind blowing.

No, actually, in this case the wording applies. It's one of the only countries in the world with such conservative stances on health care, guns, drugs and religion and really the only country with the aggregate of it all.

Comparatively, Europe is shifted left for sure, but you can't start doing something differently and then claim others are the ones doing it differently.

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#224

Post by lsc »

meri_dian wrote: post #30
lsc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating... but my personal hope is that the current election was a fluke caused by things like facebook advertising being so new; The theory, of course, being that we build up immunities to certain kinds of advertising; there's always a race between us humans building up that immunity, and advertisers striving for novelty. If that theory holds, advertisers have a huge advan…

Or maybe there's nothing flukey about it. Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way. You may disagree with his approach, but others appreciated he was at least talking about things they cared about. Sure Hillary talked about those issues too, but she wasn't able to set a clear vision or ground her campaign in clearly defined and solid themes. We can only learn from failu…

>Trump talked about things people cared about in a straightforward, albeit bombastic, way.

My impression was that the man rarely said the same thing twice.

My theory was that he campaigned in the style that was popular before national media, wherein you say different things to different audiences, and that this meshed really well with facebook style targeted advertising, as he could, at least on facebook, give people the message tailored to what they wanted to hear.

My theory is that because most of my media still doesn't come from facebook, and the national media outlets I follow would report everything he said, to me? he seemed like a man who didn't have any coherent beliefs.

(This, assuming that Trump is cleared of collusion with the Russians, is what I feel was wrong with the current election. I feel that having the national media point out when a candidate makes conflicting statements is a good thing; I think it was a big step forward over what came before.)

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#225

Post by lsc »

hkmurakami wrote: post #38
lsc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating... but my personal hope is that the current election was a fluke caused by things like facebook advertising being so new; The theory, of course, being that we build up immunities to certain kinds of advertising; there's always a race between us humans building up that immunity, and advertisers striving for novelty. If that theory holds, advertisers have a huge advan…

You don't think real people in this country had real grievances?

You will have to do a lot of talking to convince me that the people with real grievances voted for deep tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to social programs for the poor.

My theory is that the average Trump voter made more than the average Clinton voter. There is some evidence for this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#226

Post by simula67 »

abritinthebay wrote: post #93
H99189 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read the "journalists lean left, owners lean right" mantra many, many of times over the last 10 years on various boards, yet the overwhelming majority of network news and shows, cable news and entertainment shows dump on Republicans/Conservatism and fawn over Democrats/Liberalism. IMO, it's a very misleading idea meant to deceive people into thinking their sources of news or entertainment are somehow more honest…

You're mistaking "Republicans are right now a steaming heap of awful" with "News and shows are left-leaning". I'm a huge fan of having a principled, Conservative, political group. They are there to help provide measured, sane, grounding and represent the status-quo in opposition to those who would change it. That's actually a good thing for Progressives - it helps test the ideas, to forge them into concrete and relia…

As far as I can understand, this is the wrong way to think about conservatism in the United States. Conservatives are not 'just interested in preserving the status quo'. They are interested in conserving liberty. This is because the nature of liberty is to yield, every time a law is passed it is a limitation on liberty. This is why Reagan said 'libertarianism is at the heart of conservatism' [1]

If conservatives can notice that the government has made massive incursions into liberty they have to challenge the status quo and try and roll back some of these restrictions

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYwQxvFAIJY

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#227

Post by raverbashing »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #168
linkregister wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Iraq WMD situation unfolded, it was met with plenty of skepticism. “MSM” gave it air time, but it was overcome by the deception of the administration at the time, e.g., Sec. Powell’s statements and the cherry-picked CIA assessment. Your example actually undermines your argument. If anything, we need honest actors around to poke holes in narratives produced by authorities, not ones with the goal of weakening…

It was "overcome" because the reporting had little backbone to begin with. Most of the rest of the world was demanding proof but the MSM did little to make the American public aware of that. Powell, the IC statements, etc. were just part of the theatre, part of the spin. The bottom line was, the MSM was on board and played a key roll in the WMDs snow job.

Yes and not everybody bought what msm sold

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#228

Post by katastic »

exogen wrote: post #203
katastic wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel does. http://www.newsweek.com/israels-fake-news-war-how-idf-uses-s... China does. And we have documented proof of their MAJOR interference in US elections in 1996. They also have recently stolen nuclear secrets and billions worth of weapons research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi... How come nobody is talking about them? Did China magically stop being the bad guys after their las…

I don't know what you think I said, but yes, sure, investigate all of them, that sounds great? What is your point exactly? Nobody ever said Russia is unique in this regard. That doesn't make it a waste of time to investigate the extremely current and ongoing Russian interference. It's literally affecting people's everyday lives at this very moment. Priorities are a thing.

My literal point was that China _is_ affecting our elections RIGHT NOW. So any discussion of election interference should include ALL nations that are doing it.

NK and China both directly interfered in our 2016 election:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/north-korea-china-i...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/09/china-just-won-the-u-s-e...

Did you know that already? Or are you enacting the entire flaw I'm talking about? That everyone is so focused on ONE country that they're forgetting the others that are doing the exact same thing.

And when China isn't apart of the discussion, my second point is this: Who has the most to gain by keeping the discussion on a DIFFERENT country (Russia) than themselves? China. I would not be surprised at all to know that the kings of nation-state hacking themselves, would also be fanning the "Russia is the threat (so don't look at any other threats!)" narrative to keep the heat off themselves.

I've got sources and logic on my side here. Are you really going to continue arguing that other nations don't matter, because "somehow" Russia is an even bigger threat--even when they do the same evil actions as Russia? At that the country with the largest military on the planet that is "at technological/effective parity" with US forces, doing the same evil actions, is somehow not a threat to us?

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-military-near-parity-w...

So is this really about politics and logic, or is this simply a matter of projecting still bitter wounds about the Trump election, and you don't "know" that China got him elected so they don't matter? What if you found out China DID get him elected, will you suddenly care then? I just proved that China interfered in our elections. So is this really about elections, or, simply, a Russia hate bandwagon and sharing the limelight with China would dilute it?

Be honest. When was the last time you saw a major discussion on HN, or the news, about China's interference in our elections? Did you even know it happened? If you found out Uber/Dick Cheney/Facebook/whatever skewed the elections and wasn't reported anywhere, wouldn't you wonder why there's that omission?

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#229

Post by raverbashing »

tajen wrote: post #177
Steeeve wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine... If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points. Or a network like Fox or MSNBC went all in on party loyalty and based all their content on party talking points. Or a media conglomerate like Sinclair or Clear Channel pushed out political messaging to their affiliates in small markets that had to be aired during prime viewership. oh…

I’m happy 52m voters still voted for Trump, despite all media being on Hillary’s side (TV, social networks, Hollywood, etc, except what, FoxNews and Breitbart which wouldn’t have an audience if people weren’t disgusted of MSM). It proves people don’t vote what they’re told to. Note: If you don’t believe it, try to listen to conversations in uncensored areas, places where there’s no social push to behave in a certain…

Oh big media have Trump a big push as well

When they bought every bait and switch from him

When they blew several of his tweets out of proportion

When they demonized some of his opinions or sided with the more extreme ""leftist"" opinions

Re: Facebook’s Political Unit Enables Propaganda

#230

Post by raverbashing »

DigitalJack wrote: post #59
hkmurakami wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think it makes him more "relateable" by making him not "the enemy" for viewers

>Honestly I think it makes him more "relateable" by making him not "the enemy" for viewers Does this mean you think all viewers are democrats (or even most) and that republicans are the enemy?

On the Netflix subscriber, likely to watch new shows demographic?

I believe betting on "most side with Democrats" is a safe bet

Post reply on HN