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

Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 903 posts

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#421

Post by J_Shelby_J »

mgraczyk wrote: post #359
kahnclusions wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yeah, but you could also do a lot of high powered randomized trials about kinds of cookies and learn that 80% of people always prefer eating the cookies with cocaine in them.

That's a different argument, and not one I really care about. It's no more "addictive" than tv and way less harmful

I think the point is: were the experiments testing whether people said they liked X better and immediately engaged or were you testing whether or not the user felt good about the experience and wanted to come back long term.

My experience is meta prioritizes instant gratification, which yeah people and their immediate actions says they want. But also I’ve completely stopped using Facebook and instagram because it became clear it’s of limited value to me. Yeah, i might mouse over a piece of salacious content because it’s salacious. But i know it’s low value to me. And most of my peers are in the same boat.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#422

Post by ProjectArcturis »

turquoisevar wrote: post #414
rayiner wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many The phrase has its origins in Arab nationalism. It was coined in 1960 by the PLO to refer to the goal of an Arab state that occupies the entirety of what was Mandatory Palestine. If you ignore the subtext of “what happens to the Jews in that situation” I suppose you can make a case for it. It’s like the confederate flag. In the 20th c…

[flagged]

>Which answers the question of “what happens to the Jews”, they’d live in the democratic secular state of Palestine the PLO aimed to achieve.

This is laughably false.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#423

Post by mgraczyk »

fshr wrote: post #385
mgraczyk wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a different argument, and not one I really care about. It's no more "addictive" than tv and way less harmful

To push back, it does seem like you care. You've created rationalizations and offer them up unprompted. I think most people would argue for allowing both settings and having the app default to the one the internal research found more preferable and more profitable. Not offering the setting is telling.

I meant I don't care to argue. I've had this conversation too many times, and it does have the setting. You can Google it to figure out how to change it.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#424

Post by mgraczyk »

J_Shelby_J wrote: post #421
mgraczyk wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a different argument, and not one I really care about. It's no more "addictive" than tv and way less harmful

I think the point is: were the experiments testing whether people said they liked X better and immediately engaged or were you testing whether or not the user felt good about the experience and wanted to come back long term. My experience is meta prioritizes instant gratification, which yeah people and their immediate actions says they want. But also I’ve completely stopped using Facebook and instagram because it bec…

We ran experiments that lasted up to 5 years. People who have ranked feeds self report a better experience after using the product for years, although you have to be careful with these sorts of things because the chronological users are more likely to churn, which biases the results

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#425

Post by mgraczyk »

calamari4065 wrote: post #390
mgraczyk wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did work on ranking at Meta. The vast majority of people really do not prefer the chronological feed. We validated this by extraordinarily high powered randomized trials, including with surveys. No more than 20% of people preferred a chronological feed in any experiment I saw.

Were you measuring what users like , or what they "engage" with ? If I see a post on mastodon, it's from someone I follow or a post that someone I follow thought was worth sharing. That's a genuine interaction between humans. I get to decide what's in my feed based on who I follow and the filters I set up. The system is designed only to connect me with people I choose to follow. Meanwhile, an algorithmic feed with no…

We ran lots of experiments, including asking people survey questions, monitoring usage, asking people offline to try both, etc

You're wrong about the design of algorithmic feeds. I worked on them, that's not how we designed them.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#426

Post by mgraczyk »

ekianjo wrote: post #339
mgraczyk wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did work on ranking at Meta. The vast majority of people really do not prefer the chronological feed. We validated this by extraordinarily high powered randomized trials, including with surveys. No more than 20% of people preferred a chronological feed in any experiment I saw.

20% is far from small...

Typically less, depends on the surface.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#427

Post by CuriousCosmic »

tylerchurch wrote: post #291
mcny wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but this doesn't scale for humans reading it, especially as you follow more people. Just having the option to not see anything I am not explicitly following and always seeing posts in reverse chronological order would be nice. Right now I barely ever go to Facebook because my timeline is a mess. I've manually unfollowed all my friends and yet the spam comes through.

> I've manually unfollowed all my friends and yet the spam comes through. If you've unfollowed everyone what do you expect to see?

I expect if you unfollowed everyone for it to show absolutely nothing, leaving a "consider following these people" prompt. And otherwise when I reach the end of new content, show me a "you reached the end of your unread content, consider following these people to add more".

Having a clear "you are caught up" point probably isn't positive for engagement metrics so I understand why they don't do it but I'd rather the app be oriented towards UX than to be oriented towards engagement metrics.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#428

Post by dlubarov »

sudosysgen wrote: post #303
dlubarov wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree Israel ought to be able to prevent similar ground invasions, but what about rockets? The Iron Dome has been relatively effective so far, but the technological gap won't last forever. Hamas has already acquired rockets like the Fajr-5, despite the blockade. Once they start using guidance systems, the destruction will be much greater, and 90% interception rate won't be good enough. Even if Israel could limit th…

How would guidance systems increase the destruction? If anything, history has shown that precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties - there isn't much of a point building a single precision guided missile, instead of 100 imprecise dumb rockets, when your goal is terror bombing (the calculus is slightly different for bombs, however). > Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem p…

> precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties

Yes, but normally the user is targeting military assets and trying to minimize collateral damage. I think it's clear that Hamas has the opposite goal, since they typically lob unguided rockets in the general direction of population centers.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#429

Post by hfaklimarse »

whats_a_quasar wrote: post #90
mc32 wrote: post #2

What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? The fact is people are unprincipled and will either complain about free speech or will clamor for it, or complain about censorship or clamor for it depending on point of view. I wish people were principled and stood on principle and not what dog they have in a fight.

The platforms are large enough now that there is a public interest in the moderation decisions that they make. Like a utility or a mail carrier or an internet service provider, if you reach a certain size in an industry that tends towards a natural monopoly, then the public has an interest in regulating your behavior towards neutrality.

[flagged]

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#430

Post by tadfisher »

sudopluto wrote: post #418
CommanderData wrote: post #211

[flagged]

People always talk about ending the killing of children... I think the best way to stop children from being in harm in the first place. Hamas's strategy of using children as human shields will be validated if they escape destruction, inviting them to do it again and again. War is hell, in this case I have zero sympathy for the people who have repeatably started war after war after war, condemning the future of their…

The only reason that strategy is viable is because the Strip exists. Cram 2 million people in 140 square miles, and heavily restrict border traffic, then claim killing children was inevitable when you bomb the place.
Post reply on HN