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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#311

Post by dgregd »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

> Actually, just people in general these days

This is how people almost always behaved. In the Middle Ages the term "heresy" was used, today only slogans have changed, the social mechanisms are the same. Of course there is a group of opportunists, but there is also a large group that really believes their ideology (it used to be some religion) will do good.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#312

Post by justanotheranon »

throwaway123x2 wrote: post #158
rswskg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burning of american cities by antifa could not have played into trumps hands any better. I almost wonder if right wing organisations are behind them sometimes.

What burning? I asked my friend in Portland about how the anarchy in Portland is, and he responded, "Eh, a bunch of people are pissed in about one city block." Here in Chicago, things are completely fine and have been except for the day or two after George Floyd was murdered.

40 people being shot every weekend in Chicago is "fine"?

Murders are up 55% in Chicago this year. CPD clearance rate for solving murders is 45%.

citation: https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/a...

that is not "fine." the Left choose to ignore reality and see a happy little tree illusory version of reality. that is why the Left keep losing elections.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#313

Post by quattrofan »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

Because it's their platform not "ours", if you decided to start Twatbook for instance you could decide what was acceptable to post on your platform.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#314

Post by mrguyorama »

pjc50 wrote: post #127
mythrwy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like those folks endorsing Biden might be a signal that something is wrong with the Biden camp to people who actually want change.

Biden is the "things don't get worse" candidate. Positive change is simply not on the agenda.

If you wanted positive change this time you should have voted for positive change harder last time but alas, apparently people just stayed home instead. Nothing Trump has done has truly been a surprise. We knew his brand of bullshit and grifting from the beginning, and warned our fellow countrymen and women that this is what would happen.

Apparently that just wasn't good enough for some people, so now we are in a desperate fight to prevent the absurd backslide of the US

Re: Mark in the Middle

#315

Post by jariel »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

It's worth considering:

1) A distinction between 'opinions' 'facts' and 'hate speech'.

and 2) Media is an existential power, almost like a wing of government. If you control the media, you can control a nation. Which is why authoritarian states take a very active role.

FB and others already do have policies against very aggressive speech, for example, if you start calling people the 'N-word' - you'll get banned.

But where 1 and 2 collide is on the issue of factuality.

Take the pandemic: it would be quite easy for 'big name politicians' and others to outright lie about the nature of COVID. These lies perpetuate into behaviours and outcomes which are very bad for everyone.

I'm not sure if the statement 'COVID doesn't kill anyone' is much of an opinion, more or less statement of fact. (Edit: which is wrong of course, I hope that is obvious)

When you take this information and push it into the political arena, where facts are harder to discern ... it becomes a problem.

This ultimately is the crux of the issue.

We have no choice but to 'call out bad information' or it will hurt us severely. We did this traditionally by forcing some kind of consent and responsibility with the major news outlets - they were 'free' but responsibly managed.

Press owners, are kind of 'part of the elite' - they have a kind of status of responsibility.

Once there's no control, you have 'Democracy by TikTok' and it's not good.

It's an issue we have to deal with.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#316

Post by lightgreen »

tyingq wrote: post #290
lightgreen wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It simply means, they get their bonuses, nothing more.

Okay, it reads like everyone's review says "Exceeds", or whatever the top mark is. That's not fair to those that are actually "Exceeding".

It's tough question. I mostly agree with you, because I was the one who was exceeding during COVID.

But some people objectively could not because of stress and family distractions and living conditions (eg no separate office room).

Socialists (who drive most SV companies) consider that an unfair disadvantage (like being a woman, or being black, or being gay), thus that unfairness need to be compensated.

It is similar to a compensation for parenting: only parents get paid parenting days, while childless people don't get it, and it may be considered unfair.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#317

Post by toxik »

danudey wrote: post #252
umvi wrote: post #180

If I had to guess it's because facebook has a larger portion of older conservative folks than other social media platforms? If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources) which is probably because older conservatives don't use reddit? It can't be healthy for entire social media platforms to be completely dominated by one party or the other.

You can see /r/conservative is more than a little active. Maybe the problem is that /r/politics moderators want reliable sources? I mean, if you take a look, /r/conservative isn't exactly a bastion of lucid discussion. Case in point: https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/iytx49/locati... Implying that protesters are out there burning down houses (they aren't) and that the huge increase in size and number of…

This is simply not true, if you try to explain the reasoning behind any "unwanted" policy or idea, you get downvoted. It doesn't matter if you advocate for it or not; you simply get shot down for making the enemy look less like a monster.

The "lunatic fringe" applies equally to the other end of the spectrum, by the way.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#318

Post by triceratops »

oxymoran wrote: post #270
grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any improper editorial decisions that they make in the same way that a newspaper would be via civil suit.

> if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform.

This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for:

"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish.

BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#319

Post by jamiequint »

patmcc wrote: post #206
jamiequint wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's actually not, because people have different moral foundations, and many people value loyalty/authority/sanctity over care/fairness. It doesn't mean they don't care about care/fairness, it just means they don't make it their moral priority. If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.

If someone has "moral foundations" that cause them to think that, for example, a particular race of people is not worthy of life, I will refuse to engage with them in reasonable debate. There's no midpoint between nazis and non-nazis; the nazis are wrong and should be handled by force. This may or may not be the case with ICE, the GOP, etc. but fundamentally there are some people who should not be engaged with in thi…

How many people in the GOP/ICE/etc do you actually think believe "particular race X is not worthy of life"?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#320

Post by pm90 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #251
shadowgovt wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's "people these days;" I think it was the norm that has been disrupted by modern technology. Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint. Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time…

The problem is that facebook has partially replaced both broadcast television and private conversations people would have in person or on the phone. Historically, nobody would batt and eye about a network policing the opinions represented in its programing. However, there would be uproar if a phone company controlled what was said in a call. Facebook fills so many roles that a single solution does not exist.

Solutions exist, more likely Facebook is not interested in them, as it may affect their bottom line.
Post reply on HN