Facebook's “see no evil” strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#61

Post by bigtex1988 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #44

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

> The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice. Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it…

Last I checked, pregnancy isn't contagious. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Who was told to "go to hell"? There were plenty of recounts in all of the close states. Even the recent farcical commission checking fraud in Arizona didn't find anything.

As to the "spike" in that picture, a simple Google search of "Michigan spike voting" produces plenty of resources showing how the "spike" was not fraud. And if you're so worried about the spike in Biden votes later in the process, why are you not also worried about the spike in Trump votes at Nov 3 21:00 (on the graph on the right)?

You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#62

Post by gonehome » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #4

klausjensen wrote: post #2

Referenced column by Kevin Roose (behind NYT paywall): https://archive.md/As8DH

> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actu…

> "These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was amplifying harmful content."

I don't work at FB, but I suspect this is bullshit.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#63

Post by gunapologist99 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

Hokusai wrote: post #53

zohch wrote: post #46

What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to not see? And how would making reach data available make it easier for Facebook to see evil? Or if Facebook is trying to hide the evil, what evil is it they are trying to hide? What will the reach data reveal that is so evil? And if the evil is manifest without reach data, why does it matter?

> What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to not see? I see that you are new here, this is not Reddit. You should read the linked article before posting, there you can find the answer to this question and others. Be informed, be polite.

> I see that you are new here, this is not Reddit.

It seemed like an honest question; this response may have been a bit harsh to a newbie. (if it even really is a newbie and not just a new account.)

"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#64

Post by bigtex1988 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #45

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

You mean the recent very secure elections where 120 000 test votes snuck in? The very secure elections that are so secure in some counties that nobody is allowed to verify? I don't think there was substantial election fraud but I must say America keeps trying to convince me otherwise. Couple this with media who is unable or unwilling to tell us what is done to prevent fraud (the only thing I have actually learned was…

Are you talking about the same "recent very secure elections" where the processes in place worked as intended? Those test votes were found and were taken out, specifically because there are processes in place to check and double-check and triple-check the count.

America does not keep trying to convince you that there is "substantial election fraud". It is clearly one political party and their friends at Fox News that are trying to convince you of this. Reality is the antidote to their poison.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#65

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #29

dfadsadsf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is defining harmful content. For some it's china lab theory, for others CRT/anti-racist propoganda or stolen election. What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad at it. FB can't win here. Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China,…

What a lot of people mean by "Harmful content" isn't opinions and discourse on whether something is good or bad. Harmful content is disinformation about what something is. It's a concept that can be abused for certain, and I suppose that makes it dangerous. Unfortunately, there's also dangers in not intervening. Every space in which valuable discourse takes place has to take some form of order including restraint ser…

> ... and some have decided on a posture that lets them push the drama that FB is biased against them no matter what FB's actual policy is.

"The only way to find the limits of what's possible is to push past them to the impossible." I forget who said it, but some people will push what they can get away with as far as possible, and then try to go farther. No matter where FB sets the line, they'll try to go past it, because they care about winning, not about civil discourse or reasonable standards or fairness or anything like that. (Rules are for the other side.) The fact that they can then play the martyr that FB is oppressing is a side benefit.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#66

Post by the_optimist » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #35

hammock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my moral value is based on what I read? If I read the wrong thing I might as well be second-class citizen?

You are (perhaps intentionally) confusing correlation and causation. You're also trying to transform a conversation about predicting stupidity, gullibility, and superstition into a conversation about whether some people are more valuable than others because the latter argument is easier to win.

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data?

Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"?

Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" are associated with the most horrific, unspeakable crimes against humanity that have occurred repeatedly in human history?

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#67

Post by gonehome » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #51

thereisnospork wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance

>Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Yes, 100%. How can it, if we agree all human life is sacred? Are some people more sacred than others? Holier than thou? (getting downvoted for this) All men are created equal. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Ephesians 6:9 "Slave owners, you must treat your slaves with this same respect. Don't threaten them. They…

You're getting downvoted because you're not arguing in good faith.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#68

Post by splitstud » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

It's good that we're only talking about censoring things you don't agree with.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#69

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

thereisnospork wrote: post #27

hammock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my moral value is based on what I read? If I read the wrong thing I might as well be second-class citizen?

Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance

This kind of thinking completely discards the concept of intent. People read things for all kinds of reasons. I have a family member who was an avid reader of the "Weekly World News", yet he did not believe in aliens, "Bat Boy", or the illuminati. I used to regularly read conservative blogs and listen to Fox News to keep up with what people I disagree with are doing/saying.

So the problem is that you can make some statistical predictions about what someone's views are based on their reading habits. But you can't morally judge them on that basis because you don't (and can't) know why they read something and what they thought about it. This is similar to how BMI is commonly misused. BMI is a fine indicator of population health, but is not always indicative of individual health.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#70

Post by Auracle » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #40

war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.

This is a weird argument to make when the lab leak “conspiracy” was censored the same way.

Also, there was election fraud. There always is. Was it enough to turn the election? Who knows. To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. The only way we can have trust in our election process is if we can ask questions.