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

Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 472 posts

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#351

Post by frockington1 »

cal5k wrote: post #122
IgorPartola wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knives can be used to kill people. But a lot more knives are used in cooking. So we see knives as tools that are relatively rarely used to do bad things and mostly used for good things. Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose. That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks. Facebook is seen closer to knives. Parler was mostly guns.

> That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks. No, it's because Amazon doesn't sell guns. There's also no reason to own 10 of the same firearm - it's not like you're setting your dinner table with handguns. As for guns being "mostly used to kill people", that's just not true. My gun collection has only been used to kill paper targets and, occasionally, deer. Properly used they are no…

Same with cloud services deplatforming.It's free advertisement for the competition. When I heard about AWS denying service I immediately looked into alternatives that could be used

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#352

Post by dhimes »

smolder wrote: post #125
nip180 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuking your RSUs will also make an enemy of every other person in your company with RSUs. You might not be fired, but you’ll likely lose most of your social capital at the company.

Just in case anyone is left wondering, RSU stands for restricted stock unit.

Thank you

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#353

Post by mancerayder »

Twitter is full of hostility, threats, doxxing, and violent comments. As well. Justice would have that banned, or nothing banned.

The call of journalists wanting to shut down, regulate and censor is deeply disturbing. One argument is that these are mainstream media outlets (NYT, WP, Fox, MSNBC, etc.) up against and wanting to use various "unassailable" arguments to shut down alternative new media.

When we call for banning things, we should not just look at how bad and awful the stuff we're asking to be banned is (even if it is absolutely terrible), but what are the long-term consequences for stuff-that-isn't-harmful but simply alternative once the precedent has been set.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#354

Post by trianglem »

mrweasel wrote: post #14

So is Google going to throw them out of the Play store? What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler. I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform. Is it…

Parler/fab were made to serve fascist rejects from those main social networks. Those discussion make a small segment of facebook’s overall discussions.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#355

Post by trianglem »

ctrlp wrote: post #131
shlant wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't deny there is probably some favoritism going on, but is Facebooks willingness to moderate their content not at least part of the reason? Parler was completely hands off when it came to any sort of moderation of the content its users were posting (by design) which allowed for threats of violence to go unchecked and flourish within the platform. That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering…

That's false. Please don't spread false information, whatever your politics. Parler had very similar terms of service to other content companies prohibiting illegal, violent, or copyrighted content. They also paid a team of content moderators to adjudicate flagged posts. They worked happily with their reps at Apple, Google, and AWS right up until the Friday Night Massacre. They were a small company experiencing massi…

Absolutely misleading. They were warned many times and took no action.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#357

Post by jf22 »

ctrlp wrote: post #287
jf22 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not confused. It's just curious to tell people to not spread false information and then admit you may be spreading false information.

I apologize if English isn't your native language but it is a simple fact satisfied with the simplest google search that Parler does moderate its content. Therefore it is false to say they do not. Please don't spread "known false" information. Pretty simple. What follows my caveat is supported by evidence and testimony. If the testimony was false, then my intel may not be reliable. I don't believe that to be true but…

My English is good enough to understand your reply is thinly veiled insults without any substance.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#358

Post by dragonwriter »

marcusverus wrote: post #310
dragonwriter wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s the argument for banning one social media and not another. The argument for Parler from at least some platforms seems to have been that they were unable or unwilling to police content after they had actual notice. Whether it is as sufficient or not may be debatable, but Facebook has at least visibly made steps to address the problem as attention has been focussed on it.

By "actual notice", I assume you're referring to the paltry 24 hours notice provided by Apple. To my knowledge, Google did not provide notice.

> By “actual notice”, I assume you’re referring to the paltry 24 hours notice provided by Apple.

No, I mean actual knowledge of the content, by whatever mechanism.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#359

Post by samizdis »

> Over the past week, they’ve [Trump supporters] flocked to an array of other platforms, including encrypted text-messaging services like Signal and Telegram, which were among the most popular apps in the country this week.

That statement is a bit annoying, given that a fair few people have been switching to Signal/Telegram et al in the same time period for another reason - namely WhatsApp's changes to its terms to allow more data-sharing with FaceBook.

Edited to add this:

Regardless of what I might think of the people highlighted in the NYT article, I found this affecting:

He’s paid a price. He said he lost a few customers of the credit repair business he runs, which he also promotes on Facebook. And members of his family started distancing themselves. After his cat died in December, Mr. McGee said, no one in his family offered condolences.

A bereavement is horrible, and I'd offer condolences to anyone who had lost a friend, relative or pet, regardless of what I thought of their behaviour or views. The feeling of loss is, I think, something common in humanity. It should make us reach out - even in this case if, as I am, you are a dog person rather than a cat person (and definitely not a Trump person). I would definitely have commiserated. Shame on his family.

Re: Facebook Incubated the Insurrection

#360

Post by redisman »

btbuildem wrote: post #159

So.. suppose you're Superman, and you can just burn every last Facebook data centre to the ground. Would removing FB from the internet help, or is it too late at this point?

I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. If FB was forced to shut down tonight, there would be a new FB-clone in a few weeks gaining traction. It's fairly trivial for a bunch of coders to re-implement something that's already been done multiple times.

The only way out is some kind of a healthier platform that people move willingly to or maybe social media will just lose its interest at some point. It's hard to see that second option though since it gives people such strong emotional rewards.

Post reply on HN