71–80 of 174 posts
I'm surprised that the general sentiment on HN right now seems to be that Facebook should act gatekeepers, something that traditionally has been one of the major fears.
People's political positions are mostly formed via induction from the pundits of their tribe, whether it be individuals like John Oliver or Sean Hannity or newspapers like the NYT or the WSJ, which in turn form their positions through a complex calculus of tribal affiliations, but never based on axiomatic moral values. The values are only retrofit to provide a veneer of logic to the process. These positions then flow down the influencer pole until the average Joe is virtue signaling about them to his 5 friends.
Not only this, there isn't any feeling of cognitive dissonance when these political stances clash, because they were never really about a logical moral system to begin with.
Thus we see people saying both that:
* "Freedom of Speech" is great but FB should censor individuals based on the speech fashion of the day.
* We should "believe all women" but only if they can lead to the potential cancelation of Brett Kavanaugh, not Joe Biden.
* You were a terrible human being for spreading COVID if you so much as left the house 2 weeks ago but now you are terrible human being if you don't go out and congregate in groups of hundreds and thousands for the protests.
The mistake is assuming there is a logical thought process as opposed to mere tribal affiliation and signaling.
Growing up, I was taught (not in those words, but by implication) that burning books was one of the most symbolically powerful and worst non-violent acts an oppressing regime could do. It's saddening to see that metaphorical books are still being burnt, but by a different set of people.
> I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, Facebook systematically promotes and propogates the most inflammatory content posted on its platform. Why? Because it is the most engaging. This is part of the intentional design of Facebook, and is the fundamental reason there are so many problematic things happening on the platform. Mark's "thoughts" on the topic do…
The vast majority of FB users use it for staying in touch with friends and family. The cynical framing we encounter on HN isn't actually representative of the experience of most FB users.
I'm lucky that I have such a good relationship with my family that they're willing to come to me as a source of truth for some of those things.
> I have confidence in the election integrity efforts we've implemented since 2016. We've played a role in protecting many elections and now have some of the most advanced systems in the world. You have to be f kidding me. Voter suppression (asking for paid fines, takin out poll places in particular communities), gerrymandering, foreign interference etc etc
He is clearly viewing this as another technical problem to solve. He's a highly technical person; this follows. But the issues he's being confronted with aren't technical issues of permissions and algorithm tuning; they're societal problems of power dynamics and information manipulation. These are human traits. They aren't problems that are "solved." They're issues that you have to take a stance on. Do you believe in…
>> He's a highly technical person; this follows. Is Zuckerberg even that technical? I’m aware he worked on the site originally, but never got the impression that he was highly talented (compared to, say, Google’s founders).
I'm surprised that the general sentiment on HN right now seems to be that Facebook should act gatekeepers, something that traditionally has been one of the major fears.
A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up the "true threat" doctrine. I'm not surprised that HN sentiment has a similar exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you haven't been radicalized on FB doesn't mean it's not a real problem.
Yeah, same goes for books. You know how many people have been indoctrinated and persuaded by books? Let's burn those while we're at it.
Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.
It's nothing of the sort. Moderation is critical, or it would degenerate into garbage. Dan does an excellent job on this site, for example.