Mark in the Middle • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark in the Middle

#341

Post by justanotheranon » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #114

pjc50 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of kids have grown up with "disagreement". The leading edge of this is trans people; if you're trans you'll find that basically everyone "disagrees" with that, sometimes to the point of violence. I think people are very used to dealing with that kind of "disagreement". What they would like is for it not to be based on prejudice, wrong assumptions, and cruelty, and to be able to get on with their lives without h…

Given that there aren't "a lot" of transpeople I am not sure I understand your point is, care to elaborate?

trans are 0.06% of the US population. that is 1.6 million people. when i was 30, i could count on my hands the number of times i had even saw a trans.

it is absolutely narcissistic for the tiniest sub-sub-sub population minority to always interject and make every discussion about broad whole-society trends be about trans.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#342

Post by carterklein13 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

isoprophlex wrote: post #274

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…

Some opinions are toxic due to their memetic power, their ability to rapidly spread amongst a population whilst evading critical reflection. We're a global species. Technology made us become larger than the sum of our parts. It is our moral duty to police those opinions that are so polarizing, or so devoid of empathy, that they do harm. "Policing" can be milder than all out censorship. Personalized feed algorithms ca…

I think the question isn't about "can or can't" but about "should or shouldn't."

In my opinion, 24-year-old Stanford grads getting paid upwards of six figures directly out of college should not have any say in what people are or are not privy to seeing, hearing, or reading.

You mention it is "our" moral duty - who is the "our" here?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#343

Post by umvi » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #292

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.

> If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources) Is this actually true? I get that there's usually one or two left-leaning sources on there, but more than half of the stories on /r/politics (the top 30 stories, as of 9/24 in my browser) are from centrist / conservative-leaning news sources. The real problem seems to be that the overton wind…

Let me put is this way - of the top 30 stories as of right now (24 Sep 20) on /r/politics, regardless of source:

- 20 are anti-Trump articles

- 6 are pro-Biden articles

- 1 is anti-Police

- 1 is anti-Barrett

- 2 are misc. politics (covid, etc.)

Compare to the most popular articles shared on facebook mentioned by GP and you can see /r/politics is the polar opposite of facebook.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#344

Post by throwaway2048 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #250

okprod wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.

You completely missed the point of GP's comment. They never said Facebook can't do whatever they want. Just that Facebook employees shouldn't feel like they get a say in it. edit: btw I'm not saying it is GP's opinion that Facebook can do whatever they want. I have no idea what GP thinks about that. I'm only saying their argument wasn't specifically about that.

Why shouldn't employees get a say in the actions of their employers?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#345

Post by jrm4 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

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…

This, rather incorrectly, presumes that the default mode of Facebook is "non-censorship," i.e. something resembling fairness in terms of what gets popular and what doesn't.

This is a huge farce, of course, it's all completely unfair pay to play and black-box algorithms.

Now, I could be wrong about this -- but it would be incumbent UPON THEM to prove that, by opening up and showing us how they do things. Barring that, I very much welcome insiders in Facebook applying pressure.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#346

Post by RangerScience » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

dsbleia wrote: post #223

I think this actually made Zuck's leadership look solid. Of course it's a little naive to say "we aren't political", but he's probably just doing that because it's the calculated thing to say. Almost every other company says things like that, except for a few ideological ones in Silicon Valley. I don't know how anyone takes these employees at FB seriously. They are complaining about the lack of free snacks? Anyone co…

Free snacks, and their quality, is a complex signal. They're some of the first things to go as cash tightens up, and they're a decent rubric as to how much leadership actively gives a fuck about employees. Or they're a garnish on a pile of shit.

It does definitely depend on the goals regarding company/employee relations: is this a job for which I'm paid money, or is it supposed to be more than that? If the former, how're the salaries - actually? If the latter, are they actually putting in effort to deserve it?

Like proper code indentation. Yeah, you can just fix it yourself pretty easily, but it signals things.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#347

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

thissitecensors wrote: post #247

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…

People criticizing censorship on this website make me laugh. Hackernews is the most heavily censored website I've ever encountered. The way this website treats unpopular opinions is like Mao's China.

I wouldn't go that far, but the website has a purpose and dang is very clear about keeping conversation within the guardrails of that purpose. It's not an open forum to discuss anything.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#348

Post by throwaway2048 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #343

maxsilver wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources) Is this actually true? I get that there's usually one or two left-leaning sources on there, but more than half of the stories on /r/politics (the top 30 stories, as of 9/24 in my browser) are from centrist / conservative-leaning news sources. The real problem seems to be that the overton wind…

Let me put is this way - of the top 30 stories as of right now (24 Sep 20) on /r/politics, regardless of source: - 20 are anti-Trump articles - 6 are pro-Biden articles - 1 is anti-Police - 1 is anti-Barrett - 2 are misc. politics (covid, etc.) Compare to the most popular articles shared on facebook mentioned by GP and you can see /r/politics is the polar opposite of facebook.

Anti-Trump isn't synonymous with left wing, nor is being pro-biden

Re: Mark in the Middle

#349

Post by chris11 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

starkred wrote: post #334

chris11 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was republished by Henry Ford as part of a series of anti-semitic articles. The decision to publish them was immoral and is evidence of Ford's racism. I'm sure employers at the Economist would be angry if it started to run articles that would be a better fit for the National Enquirer. Facebook is kind of different, it…

> There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law I don't necessarily disagree and I'm sure there were plenty of reputable publishers who wouldn't touch the protocols. But should the agency who did published it have been hauled up before a congressional investigating committee?

I wouldn't expect much from a congressional hearing. Especially since it would start out extremely political. But Facebook should be questioned over things like how they handle things like health conspiracy theories and blatantly fake political conspiracies.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#350

Post by nxc18 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

supercanuck wrote: post #306

RobRivera wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my conversations, such employees don't believe they have the right, they believe their political positions are objectively morally superior and hold an 'ends justifies the means' opinion on influence.

[flagged]

[flagged]