601–610 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true - these things might be better implemented as regulations out of the Executive branch - but that would still require legislation authorizing somebody to implement the regulations.
Interesting that the US governance model is devolving to "decrees from the king" thanks to exec orders
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would rather take the stance of feed algorithms and moderation logs be PUBLICLY available. Transparency instead of censorship. I think that removing CDA Sec 230 protections for algorithmically-curated feeds is the answer. It's one thing to have a basic FIFO feed, it's another to hide or reveal content based on your own internal engagement/revenue targets. At the point where you're crafting bespoke engagement-maxi…
Your proposal would make HN-style comment ranking illegal. Do you really want to live in the world you propose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tobacco and alcohol cause measurable societal harm And if I choose to smoke in the privacy of my own home (or yard)? What societal harm am I causing? As for alcohol, the societal harm caused is a laundry list of already illegal behaviors that are illegal regardless of alcohol's involvement with the exception of sin tax avoidance. Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? > e.g. an alcohol excise tax going towards r…
>Why not outlaw the societal harm instead? Weren't you just saying how you don't want the state legislating what you put in your body and mind? That's why.
If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.
The other problem is informed consent. Kids don't have the mental defences to avoid the dopamine trap. Whether parents allow the kids is beside the point. A parent can allow a kid to have sex but it's still illegal because the kid isn't capable of consenting.
I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your proposal would make HN-style comment ranking illegal. Do you really want to live in the world you propose?
I considered the widely-used 'hot' algorithm and I don't think that really qualifies as a 'creative work' on the part of the site. The 'top from last hour/day/month/year' and 'hot' algorithms are really elementary sorting methods that are in the same league as FIFO.
All a ranking algorithm is doing is making suggestions that certain content be read before other content. That's protected speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on H…
If you don't believe NYT is liberal, you're just refusing to recognize the reality. You may love NYT, you may agree with what they say 100 times out of 100, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact they are a liberal media outlet and have been since forever. If you ignore that, you're just voluntarily skewing your picture of reality. Maybe you think "liberal" means "bad" (which would be weird as I suspect your o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're doubling down on your whataboutism and deflection. The key difference between Facebook's "news" feed any mainstream television and print news is visibility. If I record every minute of cable news and subscribe to a bunch of newspapers I can tell you the exact contents of each. If any of them wants to espouse a narrative it's pretty easy to see just by looking at what they've aired/printed. That's not possible…
You are pointing out scale and impact which I agree with. I am pointing out economics. Both have incentives which are driving outcomes that are undermining civility and cooperation.
A cable news network has very little ability to perform dog wagging. While they can use incendiary lead-ins for stories or hire divisive commentators (not news people) to get viewers to stick around while they run ads, they can't really drive anyone to buy a Chevy truck or shop at Target. Cable news also has to toe a line of legality with respect to defamation, see for instance Dominion's cases against Newsmax and OANN. For as bad as you think cable news networks or newspapers are, they do have some accountability.
Facebook on the other hand has little to no accountability for "news" they push. These leaks show they literally know that peddling falsehoods and divisive content is harmful but choose to do it because it makes more money. They also have the ability to wag the dog because their algorithms stick people in echo chambers that just reenforce negativity. They can and do drive people to radicalize because incendiary content drives "engagement" which makes Facebook more money.
Suggesting Facebook and cable news (or newspapers) are somehow comparable in their toxicity is a bit ridiculous. You're also doing so in a thread about a Facebook whistleblower. When a CNN or Fox News whistleblower leaks a bunch of documents saying they knowingly aired false or defamatory content to make more money, you can tell about them all you want.
Imagine unironically whistleblowing and stoking outrage that the censorship isn't enough. It is bad that the company knew that Instagram is harmful to teenagers' mental health and still marketed to them anyway. But "Facebook doesn't do enough to stop the spread of misinformation" is the most ridiculous narrative on something like this I've ever heard, and honestly I'm not surprised such a narrative got a 60 minutes s…
Anecdotally, all of the people I know who are addicted to FB (and they were before COVID) are also all anti-vax.
If you don’t like Facebook just don’t use Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram. Don’t know why so many people here think parents and adults are not capable of regulating themselves and their kids. It’s honestly condescending to think you know better than your fellow citizens if you’re arguing for government intervention.
If you don't like Oxycontin, just don't use Oxycontin, Dilaudid, or Fentanyl. Don't know why so many people here think adults are not capable of regulating themselves.