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

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#221

Post by anovikov »

lldbg wrote: post #74
anovikov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Wh…

So free speech was good, when it was restricted to the elite (those of means and intellect). Now that the unwashed masses, the plebs, have access to it, it's no longer good?

Exactly! And so was the democracy itself (in Washington's times, only 3% of people could vote and it was great, in Andrew Jackson's, 15%, and it was still sort of OK, but anything more was a disaster waiting to happen)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#222

Post by solaarphunk »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #190

Honestly, americans who are thinking in all seriousness that "we can have democracy or we can have Facebook" are just deluding themselves. I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated ne…

Russia, and many populist/extremist political campaigns, literally manipulate European elections by employing content farms to push out controversial content. Internet Research Agency, Cambridge Analytica, etc.

How do you think populist leaders gain such a large voice so quickly in those EU countries? You're kidding yourself, if you don't think the same tactics are being deployed in Europe, and amplified via platforms like Facebook.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20191007IP...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#223

Post by feralimal »

firepoet wrote: post #69
feralimal wrote: post #24

Yuck. Neither democracy nor facebook, thanks. Nor any nannying or moralising about hate speech. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me. Or you.

Boy do I hate that phrase. It's absolutely incorrect from a neuroscience perspective. Words can in fact hurt you, and, depending on circumstances, cause long term psychological damage. Here's a place to start to learn more if you want: https://www.td.org/insights/the-neuroscience-of-reward-and-t...

Really? Did my saying that phrase make you feel threatened? Did I cause you psychological damage? Perhaps my opinion should be squashed? To keep you safe (in your delusions...)

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#224

Post by feralimal »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #183
firepoet wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boy do I hate that phrase. It's absolutely incorrect from a neuroscience perspective. Words can in fact hurt you, and, depending on circumstances, cause long term psychological damage. Here's a place to start to learn more if you want: https://www.td.org/insights/the-neuroscience-of-reward-and-t...

Case in point: hate speech like death threats can be so harmful that is made illegal almost everywhere in the world.

Well, if governments (that claim the right to use actual force) have made it illegal, say no more! That's all I needed to hear. The government is my authority, they made it illegal, I should just switch off my brain and accept their pronouncements!!!

/s

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#225

Post by rmrfstar »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #190

Honestly, americans who are thinking in all seriousness that "we can have democracy or we can have Facebook" are just deluding themselves. I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated ne…

> Don't blame the mirror for what you see in it.

Agreed, Facebook is just exploiting weaknesses that already exist in American minds. Those problems exist elsewhere, but have not advanced as far.

There will be a silver lining in the Facebook case though. We're going to see a lot of emails and depositions that end the "Mark Zuckerberg is a uniquely competent person who earned an empire through ability" myth. That's good enough for me.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#226

Post by adnzzzzZ »

onethought wrote: post #208
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone is being manipulated how do you stop misinformation in a fair manner? We can't even agree on what is information and what is misinformation. Surely you understand how stopping misinformation is bad if people can't agree on what it actually is, right?

There are some pretty easy non controversial ones. Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science. I didn’t agree that everyone is being manipulated, nor did you show that. There is objective truth, that is the bar for misinformation.

>Controversial ones can prove themselves with facts/science.

The details matter, but as a rule I disagree with this. Some facts are obvious, like pigs not growing on trees, but others aren't, like climate change. Science has been corrupted for decades and I don't believe it to be a proper arbiter of truth in certain areas, particularly ones that can't be tested against reality easily, such as climate change.

You probably disagree with me, which makes my "bar for misinformation" different than yours. And I'm guessing that we won't be able to bridge that gap through reason and logic.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#227

Post by [deleted] »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #190

Honestly, americans who are thinking in all seriousness that "we can have democracy or we can have Facebook" are just deluding themselves. I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated ne…

[deleted]

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#229

Post by notacoward »

solaarphunk wrote: post #42

This person is confusing ranked newsfeeds with free speech. Ranked newsfeeds are the actual poison, because they are their own form of censorship and amplification for exploitative purposes. It’s fine if someone says something horrible or false on the internet, it’s not fine if a ranked newsfeed amplifies that message to millions of people because it’s engaging. This free speech or not argument is a complete straw ma…

I don't think it's really ranked newsfeeds. It's also newsfeeds that pull in stuff you didn't specifically express an interest in. It starts with showing you stuff your friends merely liked or commented on, but didn't repost. Then it's things that they merely looked at, and groups that overlap with ones you're already in. Then posts that share some arbitrary characteristic with those you've read or liked. And so on. If I were only shown things that my friends actually posted, I'd be mostly OK with ranking them except that the ranking seems unstable and ends up reshuffling everything all the time. Not pulling in random crap would also slow or reduce the spread of disinformation. It would still exist, certainly, but without being able to exploit the Facebook equivalent of SEO it might not have quite the toxic effects that it does currently.

Fortunately, I know a trick that makes my feed better behaved in all of these ways. Some day they're going to kill it (they briefly did break it once already due to sheer incompetence) and then Facebook will become unusable again.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#230

Post by cookieswumchorr »

jariel wrote: post #114
cookieswumchorr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

censorship is connected to regimes who killed (and continue to kill) way more people then all the terror attacks combined. Also, if you let out governments and look at non-government terror, those who are internet-rooted, are a tiny fraction, and a joke compared to the real terror networks. It's been a year since the Halle attack, the attacker is a joke: a typical internet incel as you would picture him. Infantile, i…

"censorship is connected to regimes who killed (and continue to kill) way more people then all the terror attacks combined. " Every state and institution in the world 'censors. The BBC, ABC news, Fox News, the government, every corporation, Facebook, Twitter, Google. Every single one. Stop talking about this absolutist stuff - it's not helping the argument. You, as an individual, can stand outside your home and say q…

I was replying mainly to parent's statement that privacy and freedom focused platforms end up having a specific audience. And I don't want us to lose any of those platforms. Facebook & twitter can do whatever they want, there is no reason to be there in 2020 unless it's part of your job in the marketing department.
Post reply on HN