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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#361

Post by jdminhbg »

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…

Trying to redefine the political landscape according to your niche views is really pointless. Obviously the conversation is being conducted with the understanding that the US left/right/center are the reference points. There's no more point to this comment than there would be to a libertarian saying that Facebook shares are all from "statist" news sources.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#362

Post by mrguyorama »

compscistd wrote: post #245
neonate wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that there's no middle ground if you set it up that way, but the trick is to look for ways of framing an issue that do allow for middle ground. For example, we could ask which specific political consequences ought to follow from the fact that Black lives matter, and in which order. There's lots of room for middle ground there. It's a question of whether we want to find it or not.

Certainly, there's middle ground (concessions) in several issues like tax rates, zoning, visa policy. Rights-based positions, on the other hand, are no-compromise by their premise. They're binary issues. "Women/BlackPeople/Felons/OtherGroup should be allowed to vote." "Women/BlackPeople/Felons/OtherGroup should not be allowed to vote." Sometimes you have what looks like a concession in these issues but it's really ju…

Segregation was one of those specific "fake concessions" you pointed out. It was meant to change slavery very little in any way other than name.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#363

Post by notacoward »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #273
notacoward wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Even the people who train the models and code the algorithms don't have a lot of control over how they respond to ever-changing inputs - and that's kind of the real problem IMO. There was a recent thing on Twitter, where someone discovered that it would consistently generate thumbnails focused on white faces when both white and black faces were present. At a gross level this is clearly because of inadequa…

Wow! That's really an argument someone is prepared to make. One role a CEO can play is to direct a company to act in particular ways. The responsibility for anything Facebook does or doesn't do absolutely lands squarely on the companies leadership. Saying something like: 'welp, it's too complicated to understand, but fuck me look at all this money and power ... Isn't going to convince me .

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that Facebook should give up. Everyone there should make every effort to improve. My point in bringing up complexity is that it's going to take a lot more than Mark waving his hand and magically making everything better. This isn't some video game where one player hits a button and thousands of minions instantly rearrange themselves and all of their actions are resolved in milliseconds. Anyone who knows anything about complex systems - especially those involving people - knows that's not how they are.

In reality, no matter what leadership says or does, actual change will still require continuous effort from literally thousands of engineers, data scientists, and others. It will take time, as all such things do. Petulantly demanding that things happen faster than they can happen isn't going to make it so.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#364

Post by FillardMillmore »

shadowgovt wrote: post #213
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…

I don't think it's "people these days;" I think it was the norm that has been disrupted by modern technology. Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint. Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time…

I think the issue of political polarization is multifaceted, and social media and decentralized technological mediums are part of the cause.

Another one that may be worth mentioning is the elimination of the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. This doctrine used to hold news companies with a broadcast license to a certain standard which is now gone - effectively allowing them to report on things with whatever amount of slant and bias they choose.

> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

So effectively, we have echo chambers on TV and social media fed by algorithms and analytics, wherein people can participate to confirm their biases and preconceptions without having them challenged.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#365

Post by RangerScience »

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…

> What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others?

This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit?

> believe it's their right to enforce their views

IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl".

Like, Manifest Destiny was literally this backed up with guns. Jim Crow was this backed up by laws. McCarthyism was this by congressional committee.

What's novel here isn't enforcing views on others.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#367

Post by sg47 »

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.

Pro-human, Pro-democracy, Pro-equality. Not anti-Trump but I can see how it might appear like that. :)

Re: Mark in the Middle

#368

Post by ThomPete »

AlexandrB wrote: post #328
ThomPete wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talk about all forms of cancel culture and don't care which side of the political ail it comes from.

But you said: > A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people? Are you referring to NFL executives? I suspect not.

The context of this is the employees at Facebook, I don't think there are many NFL executives employed at Facebook.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#369

Post by ant6n »

dimgl wrote: post #329
isoprophlex wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're actually advocating for censorship on a global scale. We've truly regressed.

Uh no. Changing the algorithms to not push you into filter bubbles isn’t censorship.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#370

Post by xtian »

slg wrote: post #322
echelon wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very nuanced analysis! Fantastic. In the past, the effects of freedom of speech were bounded by the cost of communication. Very few people could afford a soapbox with which to reach the world, so only certain messages were broadcast widely. Now everyone can send (and even amplify) messages quickly and easily. Previously celebrities, politicians, the media, and advertisers had a wide channel. Now interest groups, stat…

>My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want. Are you being facetious with this? This has been a long documented behavior of Russia. The future you fear is already here.

Long-documented behavior of the US to other countries as well.
Post reply on HN