We can have democracy or we can have Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#311

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

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…

> if you don't like them, start your own institution

This point works against you, and actually supports the free speech advocates.

If you don't like facebook, and want to have a more censored platform, then leave and go make your own social media company.

But this whole thread is not about that. People do not want facebook to be allowed to support as much free speech as it is currently doing.

Why can't these pro censorship people just take their own advice? If they don't like free speech then feel free to make your own social media company.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#312

Post by nillium » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

But that all requires an informed populace. The problem with Facebook (and others, of course) is that it warps all financial incentives for the publishers, while sapping revenue away from them.

Now if you want any revenue at all, which is required for surviving, you need to have clickbaity headlines so you can get traffic to your page. And even that assumes that certain news can find an audience; local news especially tends to fail in that regard because it by definition appeals to a smaller group of people.

https://blog.nillium.com/news-was-never-meant-for-social-pla...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#313

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

Renaud wrote: post #235

lldbg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The french debate on the face-covering ban was well broadcasted internationally, and it was clear to me then that it was about burqas and niqabs. The law came in place when there were thousands of people wearing religious face coverings, not before. I do not agree with the sentiment of your first paragraph, in fact it seems to me that you are being either intentionally misleading or ignorant. https://www.theguardian.…

There were existing rules against covering your face in some situations but you are perfectly right that the law in 2010 was triggered by the rise of radical islam and the (perceived or real) problem that full head coverage place on Republican values[1]. >And he said that somehow it's not a religious symbol. The full sentence: "It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement." Basically, "some…

Oh c'mon.

If there were a law that banned cross shaped objects, and then someone said "well, we aren't banning a religious symbol! All things in a cross shape are banned" this would obviously be a dishonest argument.

We don't have to play games here, or be dishonest about what the purpose of the ban was.

> was triggered by the rise of radical islam

Ok, so then you agree that it was literally created to target certain religion practices... That is what people are saying. That is a target law, meant to attack a certain religious group, specifically that of "fundamentalist islam".

That is what everyone is saying.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#314

Post by fatnoah » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #229

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.…

>Fortunately, I know a trick that makes my feed better behaved in all of these ways.

I use a trick as well. I use the "Stop Showing Me This" option in the FB newsfeed. It took a couple days, but now I get zero political content.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#315

Post by sonotathrowaway » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #291

dyeje wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I’m not sure that you’re very well informed - your opinion is that theories of trump Russia collusion were baseless? Is that what you believe the Mueller report said?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#316

Post by DennisP » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

Partly Facebook is a problem because of their top-down profit-driven manipulation. But partly it seems inherent to any recommendation algorithm that gives weight to content you're more likely to share, reply to, etc. The stuff that outrages you is more likely to propagate.

So what would be a recommendation algorithm that does not have this effect? What would it measure and optimize?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#317

Post by rjsw » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #174

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

> Not that much has changed... Facebook is also a public forum. Normal folks talk about things they care about, including politics, on social media. Normal folks did not peer-to-peer discuss the sinking of The Maine in the pages of The New York Journal. So there was never the issue of The New York Journal promoting, hiding, or editorializing that peer-to-peer speech.

Normal folks could write letters to a newspaper, some were published in each edition.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#318

Post by Dirlewanger » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

Mysterise wrote: post #9

I think the "Facebook bad" horse has been beaten down to Earth's inner core. Yes, Facebook has its downsides just as any other social platform would. Yes, you can live without it. But I don't believe that the negatives Facebook has enabled comes close to the utility it has provided to society.

If by utility, you mean enriching the pockets of their shareholders, then sure. But that is not a net positive for society. People got along in the world before Facebook just fine.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#319

Post by sonotathrowaway » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #310

BrianOnHN wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the local "gun show." It's advertised on billboards all along the highway. No background check required!

The only way no background check is required is if you buy from an individual, not a dealer. The threshold to be considered a dealer is fairly low. If it's someone with a table, they're going to be a dealer. It's just that if an individual sells their personal firearm, they're not required to do a background check, and at gun shows you'll see a few people walking around with a rifle slung over their shoulder and a si…

How effective would you rate those federal requirements on fully automatic weapons? If a person wanted to illegally modify a semi-automatic weapon to create an illegal fully-automatic weapon, how feasible would that be?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#320

Post by martin_drapeau » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

>Can they prevent you from learning about a local city council candidate by blocking that person from advertising? Absolutely.

If you remove moderation rules, there won't be blocking. However we fall in the other extreme with fake news and obsceneties taking over. The loudest and most provocative win because that's what makes the news. At least that's the logic.

Is the root of the problem that no one elected Facebook to be moderators? And now that it is so big, it has become a problem because it has an overbearing affect on people?

So essentially the monopolistic argument is a justification for government to grab back control.

I can't help to see this as a growing pain for global companies becoming bigger than countries. FB has 2.9 billion users. Only 10% are in the US. It has such a reach beyond borders that countries are freaking out, afraid to lose sovereignty over their citizens.

Or am I reading too deep here?