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

Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

i.postimg.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 654 posts

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#521

Post by emodendroket »

perl4ever wrote: post #453
emodendroket wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.

I think a lot of people would prefer a Facebook that showed what your friends post in chronological order, and wistfully say so now and then. I'm not sure, but it might have once been that way, before I used it. There is a string you can append to the URL (?sk=h_chr) to get a chrono view, but it doesn't seem to work well; for instance it doesn't go very far back and it's not clear to me that it's complete. If my frie…

A lot of people do say that but I frankly don’t believe them when they say it. It’s well known inside and outside of technology that customer descriptions of their own behavior are often far out of step with reality and I think people would find Facebook less engaging and fun to use if it didn’t tune what it showed them based on their perceived interests and their activity. I would guess most people are friends with people they know but don’t actually want to hear from all that much, and it wouldn’t be ideal to be put in a position to have to remove family members because their posts are boring.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#522

Post by emodendroket »

rayiner wrote: post #439
emodendroket wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you say, but is there really? What about hate speech? Should that go there? If not, now we need to decide what is and isn't hate speech, which is itself contentious. And material "deemed indecent" could also be newsworthy, so it's not really simple to apply even this standard. It's a pretty clear trend: every supposed "free speech platform" ends up having to have active content moderation to actually make it a sit…

> So you say, but is there really? Yes. The US has managed fine with exactly such a dichotomy. The reason it’s easy to draw a bright line at obscenity/porn is because you know it when you see it. > What about hate speech? Should that go there? No, but speech inciting violence is pretty easy to recognize. Again, First Amendment jurisprudence has developed clear rules for this.

It’s not illegal to post shock videos. It’s protected by the first amendment. The same is true of porn, for the most part (while “you know it when you see it” is a suggested standard for obscenity the concept differs greatly from one observer to another — see what answers you get from Los Angeles and Karachi about what’s manifestly obscene and I bet the answers are different). I still don’t think most people want to go to a site overrun with this kind of content.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#523

Post by emodendroket »

raxxorrax wrote: post #496
emodendroket wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.

Censoring opinions isn't equivalent to removing scam and spam.

I don’t find it very persuasive for people to baldly post “that’s different” when my whole idea is that the line between these things is not so bright as we like to imagine.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#524

Post by emodendroket »

kortilla wrote: post #457
emodendroket wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.

Your friends post spam, porn, and shock videos?

Do you never use features like groups and pages?

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#525

Post by emodendroket »

kortilla wrote: post #459
emodendroket wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I never hear the term "virtue signaling" again it will be too soon. Adds about as much to the conversation as calling someone a sissy (or other ruder names I'm sure you can think of) for caring about something and the intent is hardly any different.

Caring about something and announcing that you care about something are two very different things.

It seems unreasonable to expect people to never talk about something they care about.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#526

Post by morpheos137 »

majewsky wrote: post #505
morpheos137 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me at pack it out. Do other animals pack it out?

The purpose of a nature preserve, unsurprisingly, is to preserve nature as it exists within this space. Any human interference with nature inside the preserve runs the risk of tipping the scales of the natural lifecycle's balance. If someone were to bring their dog into the preserve and hunt and kill some rabbits, it would probably be quite obvious that they would be disturbing the natural balance that the nature pre…

Are humans not part of nature? What evidence do we have that nature is ever at any time "in balance?" This is a common trope that is deeply rooted in the western mind. Perhaps it is connected to old ideas like geocentrism.

Here is another way of looking at things: the world is constantly changing. Do I advocate pooping on a crowded beach? No. Is the ocassional defacation of a back country backpacker a problem? No.

It is not like humans are some toxic alien not native to planet earth.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#527

Post by Shish2k »

perl4ever wrote: post #453
emodendroket wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.

I think a lot of people would prefer a Facebook that showed what your friends post in chronological order, and wistfully say so now and then. I'm not sure, but it might have once been that way, before I used it. There is a string you can append to the URL (?sk=h_chr) to get a chrono view, but it doesn't seem to work well; for instance it doesn't go very far back and it's not clear to me that it's complete. If my frie…

> I think a lot of people would prefer a Facebook that showed what your friends post in chronological order

A lot of people say they want this... but so far every study has come back with the result of “even the people who say they want it, consistently rank their experience as lower-quality when they get it”

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#528

Post by acdha »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #398
acdha wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I think it’s important to do that by relying on reason and evidence. Anyone known to repeat lies is unlikely to be right about deep secrets, just as the Snowden leak didn’t validate the people convinced that the government was reading your emails on behalf of the Trilateral Commission and aliens in Area 51.

I mean... didn't it? One of the things Snowden revealed was an international conspiracy called Five Eyes, where intelligence agencies across the Anglosphere coordinate to covertly guide world events in their preferred direction, leaning on each other to handle things such as domestic espionage which would be illegal in their home countries. I'm not sure we can mark this as a loss for the conspiracy theorists, even if…

I don’t think it validated anyone: they didn’t contribute any new facts about the groups, reasons, or methods. The fact that there was a government spy agency spying doesn’t mean any of those details were less wrong or that the conspiracy theorists are trustworthy sources of information about anything in the future.

Part of what makes conspiracy theories spread well is mixing in real details to make the invented parts sound reasonable. Five Eyes and ECHELON weren’t secret so they were great for making it sound more like you knew what you were talking about, things like PRISM, MUSCULAR, and XKeyscore were but none of the conspiracists had detailed anything like that.

This is the same dynamic we’re seeing now with antivax and QAnon types digging through things like CDC bulletins. They can use details to sound like they’re more informed and find odd phrasing or terms of art which can be confusing to normal people in a way which supports their narrative. Imagine how it’d sound if someone started writing stories about a dark cannibal-murder conspiracy among Linux admins forking and killing children, based on someone’s mailing list posts about troubleshooting some C code. If they correctly identified fork(2) and you knew that Reiser had actually killed someone, would that make you trust them about anything because a few details could be stretched to cover something real?

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#529

Post by wffurr »

coryrc wrote: post #276
Terretta wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not making the connection between an algorithmic feed and anything I wrote. > The title of this thread is 'Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”'. > I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without subst…

I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?

Ask the prolific poster to turn it down or unfollow them. Wham, solved.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#530

Post by Terretta »

coryrc wrote: post #276
Terretta wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not making the connection between an algorithmic feed and anything I wrote. > The title of this thread is 'Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”'. > I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without subst…

I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?

Before the algo feed they’d already implemented filtering so you could stop seeing social addict connections’ posts. You could also do groups with different notifications and post filtering. If you really wanted to catch up on your wife’s cousin’s train-wreck of thought, you could still click into her.
Post reply on HN