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

331–340 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#331

Post by nafey »

mikkergp wrote: post #248
yorwba wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if users didn't like anything they see on Facebook, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to make money and they can't make money if people leave, so they try to avoid that scenario. But that doesn't mean all content is something people want to see, because Facebook can't make money either if users only consume content that doesn't make Facebook money, so they try to avoid that scenario. The profit-maximizing strate…

This applies to all media though. I love the discovery channel but not all commercials. I love “Life Below Zero” but it’s filmed in a way to maximize the chance you turn to it when channel Surfing, and getting you to watch ads. it’s not optimized for long term viewing.

It's not the same in two key ways: 1. Not everyone can broadcast on discovery channel. 2. Not every click/scroll/interaction is recorded by discovery channel.

Include these two ingredients and you essentially get YouTube.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#332

Post by macspoofing »

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…

>I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord"

Because it's not Facebook.

Notice that in US, one side (Democrats, media conglomerates and their 'journalist' employees) are pushing for Facebook to censor, de-platform, or 'rank down' independent, conservative and progressive outlets. It is this group, author of the post included, that keeps calling Facebook, YouTube, Twitter (and even first amendment) divisive or undemocratic as a cynical, self-serving strategy to move the needle in their direction (for Democrats, it means more political power, for media conglomerates, it means less competition for eyeballs, and more revenue).

Meanwhile conservative and progressive outlets are calling for less Facebook censorship because they see themselves under constant attack, even when they report factually correct news.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#333

Post by nopriorarrests »

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #325
nopriorarrests wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do you think populist leaders gain such a large voice so quickly in those EU countries? There are two options here. 1. People are not really happy with current status quo so they are looking to choose alternative leaders via elections, just as expected in democratic countries. 2. Some bad guys post bad stuff on Facebook and, like, 30% of german voters read it and march to election booth like zombies to vote the…

Are you under the impression that 30% of the vote is insignificant? What if I told you that Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote in free and fair elections?

30% is HUGE, and this is why I do not buy the idea that you can get such percentage of votes because of some evil state actor who posts ads on facebook, with independent press, TV, all being available and popular as well.

If some party got 30% of votes in Germany, stop blaming facebook and 'state actors'. Germans are better then this, they are not zombies, and they have a lot of information sources to pick up news/opinions from.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#334

Post by matz1 »

geertj wrote: post #191
lordnacho wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same inclinations as you. I see there are various kinds of bias from different sources, and that you have to be able to think critically in order to maintain some sort of perspective. I also think that we need a bunch of different perspectives, so in that way it's good there's a lot of people talking. But we also live in a world that is more educated than ever, and a lot of those people who went to school…

How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.

The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high.

Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it.

Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference.

This will always cause conflict.

This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner.

Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#335

Post by blisterpeanuts »

snarf21 wrote: post #305
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…

There is no such thing as news anymore. It is infotainment designed to shock, outrage and be sticky for the sole purpose of selling advertising . Additionally, the FTC and SEC have failed us in letting such enormous consolidation. Just look at something like Parler that got popular for a hot minute but will fade back to obscurity whence it came. We need to start taxing advertising revenue aggressively to make disinfo…

I suspect that Parler along with other alternative social media sites like Gab will be with us for a long time. They fill a need. If you've been banned from Facebook, you have to go somewhere and right now these alternative sites fill that gap. I don't see Parler having a billion users any time soon, though.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#336

Post by another_sock »

Information used to be hard to reproduce and disseminate across geography. This is no longer the case, and now exploits in human psychology that weren't really feasible to exploit in the past are available.

The "problem" isn't facebook or any social media company, it is with humans as a whole, and it isn't really a problem, just an evolutionary bottleneck. Selection pressures have changed and certain traits that used to be a net positive are now net negatives. People will adjust generationally as those resistant to mass hysteria from information overload succeed and get rich while everybody else (most people on HN included) fail and get poorer. Until the adjustment to the new ecosystem is complete, expect instability and uncertainty.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#337

Post by dfxm12 »

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…

The best and only way to defend and nurture it is education.

If one accepts this premise, it's important to pay attention to who is advocating for and making it easier to get an education, vs those who downplay its importance, let it get prohibitively expensive or put up other roadblocks.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#339

Post by makomk »

humanrebar wrote: post #162
dingaling wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainstream media is no better, look at how many pages of newspapers are dedicated to columnists, editorials and opinions instead of news. Why aren't they being criticised? It's exactly the same principle. In the end it comes down to the fact that people are being conditioned that they should have an opinion or position on everything, because "everything is politics". And many people fall for that and therefore search…

> Why aren't they being criticised? Because newspapers have editorial boards, ombudsmen, and liability (in the form of libel) for what they print. Facebook has the conceit that it doesn't have any perspective, that it's just a carrier of speech of others. The concern is that Facebook (and YouTube and Twitter) already has preferences (such as for controversy over dry facts) and is developing more (curation through fac…

In the US - which tends to be the main country articles like this on efocus on - it is almost impossible for public figures such as politicians to sue newspapers for libel, and any suggestion of changing this is immediately met with sinilarly outraged articles about it being a danger to democracy. Also, the editorial boards are just as keen on pushing their preferred narratives regardless of the facts as the papers themselves.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#340

Post by dweekly »

What a bizarre set of beliefs and claims.

1. That Facebook is maliciously and mostly singlehandedly responsible for the death of the newspaper and journalism.

Except newspaper readership has been on the decline since the 90's. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation... - the article frames Facebook's grand plan as taking money from newspapers, but Facebook's revenues in 2019 were nearly twice what the whole newspaper industry had as revenue in 2008. In that same window of time the ad industry grew 50%. Facebook makes money by making products that engage people and then presenting them with ads that are of interest to the individual in question. That makes them in the broader attention market but the framing of "Facebook versus newspapers" seems peculiar here.

2. That "monopolism" is rampant and anti-democratic.

Besides the fact that this is poorly defined in the article (perhaps as incentive to purchase his book?), it sure is an curious turn of phrase that there are "endless numbers of monopolists" in healthcare. Perhaps one could say there are millions of monopolists in music because each work is copyright? Over what does the author claim Facebook have true monopoly? On attention? On information dissemination?

3. The thread of conversation implies that breaking up Facebook will somehow help, for example, the decline of the newspaper industry. It's not clear how any of the author's goals will be accomplished by this and the OP alludes to this in "there's a lot more you need to do than just break them up". But what?

If the point of the article is to claim Facebook's present mode is a threat to democracy (claimed in title) they A: need to actually articulate this case and B: ought make an argument for how they'd propose to remedy the situation. Instead the former was done barely at all and the latter was omitted.

Post reply on HN