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

Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

444.hu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#71

Post by maym86 »

paulsutter wrote: post #70
maym86 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some case there is direct harm caused by the posts. Pizzagate was an example which led to a man turning up to a pizza shop with a gun based on the fake story and the business owners received death threats. Not everything is as easy as just unfollowing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory When it comes to hate speech, incitment to do harm or lies about elections a subset of people unfollowin…

Pizzagate was unfortunate and pathetic, but is controlling every post on the Internet the right response? Once censorship is in place, how do you prevent the wrong people from taking control of it? How would you even know?

> trying to control every post on the Internet

Did I suggest this? The point is just unfollowing people as you suggested doesn't solve the problem.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#72

Post by StreamBright »

jancsika wrote: post #16
Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite -- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around…

>> This article is about the opposite

Well no, this article is about moral policing you do not agree with.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#73

Post by briandear »

samstave wrote: post #69
gt_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your own government uses Facebook to communicate with it’s populace? (For example, this ) Are you recommending everyone just stop participating in politics? I can’t imagine a more sheltered perspective. I’m guessing you’re an American. If so, please, stop following this advice! The rest of the world is begging you.

Look at the tweets in the last days from Trump regarding Omarosa... Personally, I'm disgusted that twitter is the official medium of the POTUS.

It seems like Twitter is a good thing. It’s great that politicians and leaders and communicate directly with the public. In the old days, it got filtered through anointed gatekeepers that have the ability to filter and interpret based on their “angle.”

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#74

Post by NegativeK »

DanielGee wrote: post #45
Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. This is a classic case of the race to the lowest common denominator. When the "community" is so large and diverse and often in opposition to each other, there can be no good standard other than free speech. This is why we had such strange issues of white supremacist content along w…

> what are these tech companies going to do when pressured

Countries that wish to implement legal-based censorship don't care if an internet company has implemented moral-based censorship.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#75

Post by white-flame »

jancsika wrote: post #16
Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Moral policing? This article is about the opposite -- Facebook telling its "moral police" not to moderate posts from pro-government posters. The article also features a claim that someone at Facebook guided pro-government posters in the government to use dog whistles to get around…

This still reinforces that they do act as "moral police" and are practicing selectively enforcement by mandate. That is not a reasonable communications policy for anything of any scale or importance.

Facebook should not be tampering with and editorializing private communications or the public square, which they have become.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#76

Post by paulsutter »

maym86 wrote: post #71
paulsutter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pizzagate was unfortunate and pathetic, but is controlling every post on the Internet the right response? Once censorship is in place, how do you prevent the wrong people from taking control of it? How would you even know?

> trying to control every post on the Internet Did I suggest this? The point is just unfollowing people as you suggested doesn't solve the problem.

If you’re proposing a trusted third party, I’m calling it a security hole that might not turn out quite the way you hope

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#77

Post by pbhjpbhj »

samstave wrote: post #69
gt_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your own government uses Facebook to communicate with it’s populace? (For example, this ) Are you recommending everyone just stop participating in politics? I can’t imagine a more sheltered perspective. I’m guessing you’re an American. If so, please, stop following this advice! The rest of the world is begging you.

Look at the tweets in the last days from Trump regarding Omarosa... Personally, I'm disgusted that twitter is the official medium of the POTUS.

Are you sure it's the medium you're disgusted with?

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#78

Post by crankylinuxuser »

corerius wrote: post #55
Eochei5h wrote: post #4

The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. Imagine the leading social network weren't facebook but vkontakte or weibo and they imposed their own standards on billions of people communicating with each other. Filtering should be a tool available to individuals and delegatable to groups that are aligned with their own standards…

It also seems to me that people are quick to conflate censorship by Facebook with censorship by a state. It would be a cleaner argument if Facebook merely viewed itself as a platform and a government found the need to restrict it within their boundaries, but Facebook has it's own rather mysterious law that it applies in an arbitrary fashion.

Facebook and other megacorps are their own meta-nationstate built on top of physical nation states.

They only follow the law, kind of, or they skirt around it until someone holds a fire to them. And they can still threaten to pull out most or all economic activity from a country as "punishment".

It is clear to me that there is some sort of regulation that needs enacted against multi-homed and distributed companies. Now how that is enacted across most countries in the world, I don't know. Cooperation seems to be somewhat lacking these last few years.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#79

Post by pbhjpbhj »

18pfsmt wrote: post #24
Eochei5h wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selective choice of inaction and complaints about that all play into the same tune, that facebook is the one doing the policing (sometimes). That's the root problem. If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter this article wouldn't have to exist in the first place.

>If facebook were not the ultimate arbiter If people would stop using FB, rather than complaining about it, perhaps this would not be an issue?

To stop spam we can stop using email.

For hundreds of millions of people Facebook is the messaging system. There's postal, telephone, email, FB messaging. It's also the most used. I think you need to come up with solutions that assume it, or an equivalent, will continue to be a principle and primary means of communication for billions of people.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#80

Post by firemancoder »

Someguywhatever wrote: post #38
macintux wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution is not to trust anything you see on Facebook or to leave the platform entirely. Unfortunately neither does much good individually, because the real harm comes from the widespread acceptance of the lies.

Who gets to decide what are lies? Makes me think of this saying: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Yep and also, who gets to decide which opinion is correct?
Post reply on HN