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

Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 381 posts

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#341

Post by arjie »

8note wrote: post #334
arjie wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this and so I decided to go look at my Facebook feed and it’s entirely people with their families posting completely innocuous photographs. The one exception is that Sadiq Khan the mayor of London is inexplicably on my feed eating at the restaurant Darjeeling Express. Did I follow him accidentally? Who knows. In any case, the reason I haven’t bothered is that the Facebook feed is entirely harmless.…

this sounds like you have some form of adblock installed that is removing half or more of the posts? the fundamental issue is that the user has no actual control over what ends up on the feed, and everyone's experience is based on what facebook decides you should see. i manipulated mine to show only leatherwork, but it'll never ever show me stuff from my friends. instead of showing me what my friends are up to - dele…

That's a fair complaint. I use the chronological feed on Twitter/X as well because the algo feed is kind of meaningless. I just want to know what people I follow are saying.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#342

Post by cycomanic »

marris wrote: post #335
Grombobulous wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business is not bound to any sort of freedom of speech. There is no such thing, it does not exist. The first amendment covers government actions only. If I owned a social media network, I wouldn’t let Nazis, MLM peddlers, transphobes, pro-gun advocates, or anti-vaxxers, among others, on my network. That’s where my moral compass lies. Now, you might say that’s unfair, that’s not an open forum. I’m not being open-minde…

I think you may be misunderstanding the post. He is not saying that Meta is prohibited from censorship by the First Amendment. He is saying that the US has free speech norms (not laws) where it is acceptable for people to get together and rant about X, Y, or Z. There are limits (e.g. calls for violence), but they are few. Anyone who does not like the speech can leave the room, try to argue with the speaker, or make t…

That is simply not true. One example is a hilarious skit by an Australian comedian (John Safran) going to salt lake city and knocking on doors asking if he could talk to people about atheism. The amount of violent threads he received is quite revealing.

In my personal experience having lived in the US and several other countries, I found officially people can say much more things (i.e. due to the strong freedom of expression laws), but in personal settings you are much more likely to be shut down, fired, threatened with violence, ostracized... for stating unpopular (in that social environment) opinions, in the US compared to the other countries.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#343

Post by bdangubic »

bdangubic wrote: post #88

If we were normal society company like Meta would be shut down and its CEO would be in Hague and prosecuted for crimes against humanity

very few things bring me more joy than seeing downvotes from Meta bot accounts :)

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#344

Post by carlosjobim »

acdha wrote: post #328
carlosjobim wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly deny the effect that gangster rap has, then I can't take your comment as honest. Then we might just as well say that ISIS propaganda also has no effect on their targeted audience, and their stuff is just for entertainment. Because what "citations" do you have that people can be influenced by ISIS propaganda. When a drill rapper makes a song threatening to murder specific people, and also posts these thre…

> If you truly deny the effect that gangster rap has, then I can't take your comment as honest I’m not denying anything, I’m asking you to support your claim. In particular, if an entire genre loved by millions of people causes this problem, why do we not see it very commonly or with such variability across countries? How can we say the problem is the music rather than other things going on in those people’s lives wh…

> why do we not see it very commonly or with such variability across countries?

If you don't see it, it is because you have closed your eyes. It is across countries and reported in main stream media all the time. Rap music is a core part of ongoing gang conflicts in many countries, apart from the general violence and sexual crime it inspires and glorifies.

> How can we say the problem is the music rather than other things going on in those people’s lives which are more unique to their experience than a musical genre?

Then how can we say that the problem is anything that somebody has posted on social media or broadcasted? If I make rap music about dealing drugs and killing people and I also deal drugs and kill people, and many of my listeners deal drugs and kill people. What is the difference if I make a social media post about killing people and then me and my audience kill people? The difference is that one behaviour is celebrated - and romanticized extensively by certain types of persons who feel no empathy at all for the victims.

I never said that rap music is the only thing causing people to commit crime.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#346

Post by carlosjobim »

windexh8er wrote: post #327
carlosjobim wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In real life right now and for many years, we have gangster rappers (or drill or trap, whatever you'd like to call it) who are funded by record companies, broadcasted everywhere, and praised by the mainstream. Including being broadcasted and celebrated by public service stations. In their records they rap about murdering people and raping women, and also threatening to murder specific individuals or bragging about ha…

> In their records they rap about murdering people and raping women, and also threatening to murder specific individuals or bragging about having done such. Among other things. Ahhh, yes this trope. You do understand their target market, right? There are people that grow up in unfortunate circumstances that live through those lyrics regardless of these music-led influencers you speak of. People relate to those lyrics…

Gangster rap strengthens it, just like social media posts strengthen movements and actions that might or might not have happened regardless.

> There are people that grow up in unfortunate circumstances that live through those lyrics regardless of these music-led influencers you speak of.

Yes, do you think they enjoy hearing rap music from the gang that murdered or raped one of their family members being blasted, where the rappers brag about murdering and raping people? Then a bunch of people who are comfortably isolated from that kind of violence praise these rappers to the skies, give them industry awards, and so on.

> Also, why stop here? Let's ban all books that encroach on this topic!

Some countries ban music which glorifies violence, but I haven't called out for the ban of anything. I'm making comparisons.

How come people and governments and courts are blasting Instagram for giving young girls eating disorders because models are uploading bikini photos, but at the same time everybody turns a blind eye to music where the artist raps and brags about drugging, raping, beating and murdering women? Or men. When these artists are often guilty of these crimes or strongly affiliated with gangs doing these things.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#347

Post by acdha »

carlosjobim wrote: post #344
acdha wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you truly deny the effect that gangster rap has, then I can't take your comment as honest I’m not denying anything, I’m asking you to support your claim. In particular, if an entire genre loved by millions of people causes this problem, why do we not see it very commonly or with such variability across countries? How can we say the problem is the music rather than other things going on in those people’s lives wh…

> why do we not see it very commonly or with such variability across countries? If you don't see it, it is because you have closed your eyes. It is across countries and reported in main stream media all the time. Rap music is a core part of ongoing gang conflicts in many countries, apart from the general violence and sexual crime it inspires and glorifies. > How can we say the problem is the music rather than other t…

> If you don't see it, it is because you have closed your eyes. It is across countries and reported in main stream media all the time. Rap music is a core part of ongoing gang conflicts in many countries, apart from the general violence and sexual crime it inspires and glorifies.

It’s weird how this is simultaneously a “core part of ongoing gang conflicts” and something you can’t support in the slightest.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#348

Post by asdf88990 »

acdha wrote: post #329
asdf88990 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a big difference between fiction when the viewer knows it’s make believe and when it’s presented as factual. The difference is far more nuanced and borders on inconsequential when it comes to mass media influence on society. Just because something is presented as fiction or for entertainment doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact your psyche or your perception of the world and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

It’s complicated, yes, but my point is essentially just that someone saying “ are stealing our country! Force them out!” is specifically calling for violence directed against that group in a way that, say, a movie full of mayhem probably isn’t. That’s because, say, Paramount has editorial control and will never greenlight anything close to what many Facebook / X accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers say ev…

The movie builds the narrative and the subconscious biases which is more sinister.

This isn’t dismissing what Meta is doing, but Cinema in the West has been just as complicit and involved.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#349

Post by wpietri »

consensus1 wrote: post #266
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course publish it. Logically we might expect Meta to get into selling narcotics next. "It is not Meta's role to police drug use"

The constitution guarantees free speech, but not free drug use (though maybe it should). So I don't see any contradiction here. Meta has every right to police speech as it is a private company, but it has no obligation to do so.

It has no legal obligation. Participants in a society have a moral obligation not to harm that society. People not heeding that is how we ended up with most of our laws, so Facebook could well end up with legal obligations here if they keep this up.

Re: Controversial creators are benefiting from monetization programs run by Meta

#350

Post by wpietri »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #298
wpietri wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Something they already do extensively. [1] [1] https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/

They are a choice, yes, the same way anything is. They are neutral choices in the same way roads and other infrastructure "permitting" criminals to use them are. The fact that Meta does not choose to be neutral in all such cases is not an argument against that.

It is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
Post reply on HN