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

Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 381 posts

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#221

Post by malfist »

asdvsadnvs wrote: post #169
phatfish wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuck was gagging for the Trump 2nd term so he could go all in on this shit. Slow clap for the Meta employees that enable it.

[flagged]

> There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#222

Post by edgyquant »

windexh8er wrote: post #204
carlosjobim wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This type of comment is why K-12 education in the US really needs to start focusing on skills related to disinformation. The example given here is obviously an art vs disinformation/misinformation/psyops. They aren't the same and conflating them doesn't do anyone any good. Also, Meta does fund these initiatives. They choose who to give money to in these programs. You'd think that money being paid would also mean a hi…

Are you implying gangster rap wasnt cultivated and pushed to the masses by the large media companies? The only difference between then and now is the technology available and the name of the companies.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#223

Post by eigencoder »

bilekas wrote: post #150
iamnothere wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and…

> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.

COVID was accidentally released from a lab.

That statement was censored as "objectively false", but our best information says it's probably true, and it was probably true then, too. Censorship is a dangerous walk. I totally agree with you that harmful misinformation is a problem, and that we have a duty of care. The problem is "who fact-checks the fact checkers?", and what happens when political leaders can request certain topics "fact checked".

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#224

Post by gagan2020 »

thisislife2 wrote: post #176
mc32 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The egregious part is the amplification part. Profit derives from that. Transmission and protection are neutral and they are necessary for all information especially if there is a history of freedom of expression; though of course some governments and others like regulating permissible expression.

Don't forget the politics too behind it: - Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... - UN: Facebook had a ‘role’ in Rohingya genocide - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-r... - Rohingya refugees sue Facebook over genocide - https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refug…

Facebook is doing that in India as well. They are becoming Government Lap dog and do as its comfortable to their profits. Government of India able to suppress many dissent in recent years because of social media suppression. BTW Current government control News Channels by other means, we have term for Indian news channel as Godi Media. "Godi" in hindi literally means lap.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#225

Post by mrguyorama »

rayiner wrote: post #155
koe123 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate? You don’t think the creator of “You should self harm: the TV show” would’ve been regulated and held accountable for the detrimental consequences back in the day? Not saying it was perfect back then, but today I do think internet media companies are out of control.

We had “regulated media” before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code . Do you trust people to regulate your media? I don’t.

Uh, the Hays Code is actually a premier example of "Industry Self regulation", as well as it's replacement, the equally absurd and incestuous MPAA ratings system.

It's the exact "Industries have an incentive to self regulate" talking point that conservatives have long used to say industries should be less regulated

And you are pointing to it as an example that we shouldn't use the government to regulate media.

Meanwhile, I think the FCC does a pretty good job, where their regulatory bar is "You cannot blast boobs or these swears over the public wireless spectrum, everything else is fair game", including an entire TV channel called "Fox News" which has had to argue in court on at least one occasion that nobody would assume any program on "Fox News" was news, rather than entertainment.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#226

Post by wpietri »

beezlewax wrote: post #172
asdvsadnvs wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job Yes. This would be ideal.

And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity.

I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my checks and being an asshole." It's the people who expect us to pretend they're not asshole that get to me. They want the upside of bad behavior without the downside. Sorry bub, FAFO.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#227

Post by Bluestein »

mrguyorama wrote: post #210
JKCalhoun wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the OP understands this. Since few of those on HN (I am assuming) no longer have a FB presence, the question is why hasn't everyone arrived at this same conclusion and walked away from that addiction? Meta should really have gone the way of MySpace a long, long time ago.

People educated in math and probability are actually still prone to gambling addiction and things. It doesn't matter what your high level brain knows, there is a structure and organization of your brain that only changes on geologic timescales, and that structure has serious, easily attackable flaws.

I like your use of "attackable" (and of flaws, obviously).-

PS. F'book commoditized social interaction to their ends while abusing these attackable surfaces. Kalshi and that ilk have now done away with the whole pretense of communication itself and are abusing the same addiction mechanisms to commoditize OPINION to their ends. Opinions: Everybody has one.-

PS. At some point somebody is going to commoditize mere bodily movement wrapped into such an addictive mechanism and we will get people with "weird" performative "palsies" walking about.-

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#228

Post by diogenescynic »

We've become a provocateur type of society... Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Mr. Beast, Jake/Logan Paul... it's all the same thing at the end of the day. They harvest attention and in return funnel their audience towards ads, merch, OnlyFans, etc.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#229

Post by exhumet »

acdha wrote: post #205
exhumet wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats exactly what i was telling my wife, a casino is way more accurate than what i said. i was like it felt like signing on to Temu with all of the shit all over the place

I remember going to Las Vegas once after I turned 21, realizing that it totally wasn’t my thing, and especially being scared by the expressions on the zombie seniors sitting in front of the slot machines shoveling quarters in. I see that basically every day now with people watching TikTok or Instagram while walking, on the bus, or even driving, barely able to tear their attention away. It’s like a casino except that…

yeah its nuts. ive hard restricted any form of social media to 15 minutes a day combined for the remaining ones i have. its been extremely healthy tbh. ive felt much better in the almost two years ive been doing it!

and i get it! the zombified rapid button pressing over and over. when i went to japan we were stoked to go check out a pachinko hall and we walked in and it was overstimulation city lol. walking in through the front door directly out through the back door haha.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#230

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #195
xutopia wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Zuckerberg has a fiduciary responsibility to optimize shareholder value “Shareholder value” is ambiguous for good reason. It defers to the Board’s judgement. Fiduciary responsibility doesn’t excuse this sort of incentivizing of crime.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN