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

Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#471

Post by rayiner »

canjobear wrote: post #450
rayiner wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re mischaracterizing how free speech was viewed in the recent past. “Free speech” (as a cultural value, I’m not talking about the first amendment) was about the marketplace of ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas . It meant a free market in ideas, where the dominant ideas arise from competition. What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allow…

I understand the theoretical argument, but empirically do you think the quality of ideas that people believe has increased from (say) 2000 to 2020? It seems like there's a lot more going on than just faster dissemination, and the way information travels these days might have introduced new asymmetries and inefficiencies.

I think the quality of ideas has improved. We focus on disinformation, but social media gets used for a lot of other things. Reading a dry article on police brutality (which let’s face it, people just skipped over in the past) is a lot less impactful than seeing something shared by a friend.

I think we’re overestimating the effect of social media. A certain group of highly educated urban liberals is shocked by Trump. (And I don’t say this pejoratively. My college educated friends were literally despondent after he was elected.) And they’re looking for an explanation. And it so happened that social media became a major force around the same time. But I think that’s mostly, though not completely, a coincidence.

Social media didn’t create Trump. Right wing populism is happening all over the world, in Europe, India, etc. Its a reaction to liberalism and globalism that’s been brewing for decades. And social media didn’t create Trump’s audience. My mom, a 70-year old Bangladeshi woman who has voted straight ticket Democrat since she was naturalized, thinks Trump is too unpolished, but loves his “energy” and “vigor.” She thinks he would be a “great President” if he could “implement his ideas.” My mom doesn’t have a Twitter account. (I think she’d love Boris Johnson, i.e. Trump with a bit more polish and competent.) She didn’t get this from Breitbart. She watches CNN in a loop all day.

Social media isn’t not a factor, but I think folks overestimate how much of a factor.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#472

Post by cm2187 »

sailingparrot wrote: post #264
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

We are not talking about next video suggestion here. We are talking about censoring direct messages or feeds people deliberately follow. Tech companies inserting their political bias in direct communications. Not amplification.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#473

Post by colordrops »

2bitencryption wrote: post #230
Tallasatree wrote: post #214

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We've been watching this happen for a few years now, and some of us are actively paving the road.

Recently I've seen people invoking the term "slippery slope fallacy" to describe this phenomenon. It's really frustrating to see this. I think there was some stupid "list of fallacies" infographic popular on Reddit a few months back that spawned this notion that there's no such thing as a "slippery slope" and calling anything a "slippery slope" means you're wrong and your argument can be tossed out. But... that's exa…

"slippery slope" is not a fallacy. It happens all the time. It happened with privacy. Do you not remember when a printer driver phoning home with usage stats was a national news story? Now you are a a bad company if you don't do this.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#475

Post by colordrops »

interlocutor wrote: post #433

Societal attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. I believe this is related to technological advancement and the rise of social media. The advent of social media has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of hate and false information online. Malicious individuals and groups now have the power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. It started off innocently en…

The idea that speech should have limits was driven by the same think tanks that spread the lies and propaganda on social media. You are being played on both sides. The establishment is threatened by free speech since it is now accessible to everyone so they are painting it as dangerous.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#476

Post by antonfire »

hartator wrote: post #326
sailingparrot wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…

> I believe free amplification is terrible It's exactly what they were saying at the invention of the printing press. Amplification becoming too cheap. Maybe being on the side of censorship is always being on the wrong side of history no matter the issue. Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

> Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

Well, the honest answer to the "can you remember" question is going to be misleading. By the nature of the thing we're talking about, the historical things like that are things that people aren't going to remember.

If you believe in "to the victor go the spoils" on the information front, then successful censorship (and more generally propaganda) is always on the right side of history.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#477

Post by vonwoodson »

prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

It’s weird how happy people are to give up freedom, isn’t it? American Democracy is absolutely, 100% under attack on the internet today. We should be doubling down on the freedoms that make America the amazing place it is, rather than sowing the seeds of tyranny.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#478

Post by koolba »

canjobear wrote: post #450
rayiner wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re mischaracterizing how free speech was viewed in the recent past. “Free speech” (as a cultural value, I’m not talking about the first amendment) was about the marketplace of ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas . It meant a free market in ideas, where the dominant ideas arise from competition. What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient—it allow…

I understand the theoretical argument, but empirically do you think the quality of ideas that people believe has increased from (say) 2000 to 2020? It seems like there's a lot more going on than just faster dissemination, and the way information travels these days might have introduced new asymmetries and inefficiencies.

America is all about quantity. And the quantity of ideas has exploded in the 21st century.

We’re still figuring out how to find the pearls but giving carte blanche to a handful of tech monopolies is definitely not going to work.

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#479

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

donohoe wrote: post #449
prudhvis wrote: post #223

I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.

Its is not censorship. No censorship has taken place. The article still exists on the NY Post web site and their newspaper. Their audience is still sizable. Their article included personal information and was consistent with policies that have been in place for almost a year. Twitter is not a public utility in the way that phone services are. They were (rightly) criticized along with others for letting mis-informatio…

But that standard has never been used before and was manually engaged here.

Trump's taxes were repeatedly shared and there are photos of the content (not to mention the content itself, which is far more private than an email address).

This standard has never been applied like this, and you can still link to the Web Archive version without limitation - same content.

It's also not "limitation of deliberate misinformation" - that has never once been used on deliberate misinformation like the Steele dossier.

Ahmari of the NYP had a reasonably good counter: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/if-unreliable-is-the-issue-why...

Re: Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

#480

Post by waterheater »

codecrusade wrote: post #315
rtx wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why this election is so important. It will chart our paths for next 100 years.

China invasion of US. Sad.

China wants to, yes, primarily because they can't sustain their population with the farmland they presently have.

However, I am quite interested to watch the PLA--whose soldiers died of starvation three weeks into a battle with Vietnamese peasants--stare eye-to-eye with not just the US military but literally hundreds of millions of gun barrels.

Post reply on HN