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

291–300 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#291

Post by bitwize »

dyeje wrote: post #279
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…

Yes, there are problems in the United States but I do believe Facebook is accelerating the polarization significantly. We have widespread belief in voter fraud based on no hard evidence. This was simply not even conceivable 4 years ago. Just because there's a fire burning already doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to those who pour gasoline on it.

We had widespread belief in Trump-Russia collusion despite no hard evidence too. There's a word for a baseless conspiracy theory that implicates the right: "fact".

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#292

Post by themaninthedark »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #164
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 understand the obsession some people have with ranked newsfeeds. I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. What content that is always depends on the user themselves. If they've liked a lot of horrible stuff before, they'll get more horrible stuff, if they've liked a lot of thoughtful stuff before, they'll get more thoughtful stuff.

What is content I want?

I might think I am interested in learning about how 5G spreads COVID or about Vaccines causing autism but both of those things are fictions.

The idea that the web needs to be helpful and start showing me more of something I have looked at or even searched for needs to die.

Just because I geolocate as being in Japan does not mean I want my search results in Japanese first, especially when I specify English(Google).

Just because I clicked on a funny looking mousepad that has an ass on it does not mean that I wan advertisements and suggestions for similar things for the next several months(Amazon).

In the name of user engagement and trying to figure out how to capture revenue, I feel that tech is losing sight of how to be a good service. We all railed on Microsoft when Clippy would patronizingly pop up to try and help you write a letter but think we have improved service when we search for one thing and have it show up a number of competing products.

Sorry for being all over the place, I agree that we should be showing people what they ask for but also think that is as far as it need to go. Don't follow them down the street and shove more of the same in their faces.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#293

Post by themaninthedark »

nmfisher wrote: post #182
ViViDboarder wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see what's wrong with showing people content they want. Showing them what who wants? The users? That’s be great, but today they are trained to show what the company wants, and the company wants to keep you on the site as long as possible to generate ad clicks. It’s designed for making you spiral into a topic.

If the users didn't like, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to avoid that scenario. I know you don't like it, but this very clearly is content that people want to consume.

If people don't like smoking, they would quit.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#294

Post by visarga »

dwiel wrote: post #217
nmfisher wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the users didn't like, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to avoid that scenario. I know you don't like it, but this very clearly is content that people want to consume.

Let's say a food manufacturer finds a chemical that is tasteless but addictive and starts adding it to all their food. Would you also argue that this is very clearly food the people want to consume?

A compelling analogy. We need tools to monitor what they put into our feeds.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#295

Post by esja »

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…

It's sowing discord everywhere, because the design is the same everywhere, and humans have the same psychological vulnerabilities everywhere.

Maximum profit requires maximum engagement. This requires creating filter bubbles and prioritising emotional content. From there, the social fracturing is inevitable... only the topics differ from country to country.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#296

Post by nillium »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #160

> The business model is to divert revenue that used to go to newspapers and publishers to themselves. And so by manipulating people in this specific way that they do, which is to keep them using their system and keep surveilling them so that they can target them with ads, they are, in the process, crushing newspapers and publishers, who no longer have any financing, particularly local newspapers and niche publication…

This is more like Amazon diverting the money that used to go to the book authors back to themselves, and then when the authors and publishers start layoffs and go bankrupt, people ask why the writing is so bad.

Shameless plug, but we're working on something to take the good of social without the predatory leanings or misaligned interests: https://blog.nillium.com/why-were-building-forth/

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#297

Post by wry_discontent »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #255
giantg2 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better. I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people w…

Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual,…

Unpatriotic college grad here, I think you're missing the "most basic fact", that the government obviously doesn't work for you and me. What's the point of getting involved with all this political junk, spending my time on it, when they're all in it for themselves, for their donors? That's a real question that's totally legitimate for most people. They're busy, the issue isn't education, it's a totally corrupt system that works for the wealthy.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about non-electoral politics? I've found that sort of engagement is much easier to get traction for from normal people. It's easy to see the effects of your actions.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#298

Post by wry_discontent »

viridian wrote: post #281
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual,…

I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated…

I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested?

It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't.

In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#299

Post by nondeveloper »

America is and has always been predicated on the idea that the ordinary person has the capacity to make decisions that guide the republic, either as elector or elected. This idea is the basis of all democracies, generally.

Whenever I read that people “aren’t educated” enough or are “unduly influenced” by media, e.g., newspapers, television, or social media, I like to remind myself of this.

I notice that there is, and maybe always has been, a vocal group of people who believe that we should only elect and appoint experts, highly-trained specialists in their area of government. Heinlein reminds us that “specialization is for insects”.

I’ve come to know many politicians in the past few years, some of them nationally prominent. And I can say without hesitation that the average person is as qualified to make decisions about governance as the average professional politician.

Crowds can be pretty smart. Not faultless, but smart. That idea has been fashionable for a few years now but it’s definitely not new. Its implementation has changed from democracy to democracy. But as a general principle it’s been broadly and effectively applied.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#300

Post by stale2002 »

detaro wrote: post #180
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I did clearly say that; what's unclear? The federal assault ban covers fully automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. Here's a pretty good explanation of the differences. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/02/difference-be...

From what I understand, you claim there is a clear legal category of "assault weapon" you base the definition on. So where is that defined? Your link only talks about fully- vs semi-automatic, the NFA linked from there doesn't use the term, ... Whereas past laws that used the term clearly considered it not to be fully-automatic only. E.g. the law that's commonly known as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (1994-2008)…

The "assault weapons ban" basically cosmetic features illegal. Which is silly.

This is precisely the problem that people have with the term "assault weapon".

If you are using the words "assault weapon" you are basically saying that you want to ban guns that look scary, because this is what the original assault weapons ban did.

Post reply on HN