We can have democracy or we can have Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#71

Post by Blikkentrekker » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:55 AM UTC

mhoad wrote: post #7

The case for free speech absolutism has never looked more questionable than it does right now. Every online platform that has tried to market itself as a “bastion of free speech” has become overrun with the absolute worst of society and as of 2020 is directly implicated in multiple real life terrorist attacks including most recently in the Nez Zealand government’s post-mortem on the Christchurch shootings here https:…

I never understood how the Christchurch Shooting would argue in favor of putting tighter controls on 8chan or abolishing it altogether.

The way I understood it, the shooter placed a manifesto there before shooting, that, if anything, could have given the enforcement a way to stop it if they were fast enough — it enhanced their chances of doing so.

8chan allowing anything and everything hardly caused the shooting, and gave enforcement a possible window to stop it.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#72

Post by dTal » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:56 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #57

lldbg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed millions. Little by little the western freedoms are being taken away. And you want it to go faster? Rap music which idolizes violence is allowed, despite thousands dying every year in connection to crimimal enterprise. The case to ban rap is just as naive as th…

Yup. I think it’s absolutely shocking that people think that with free speech “this time it’s different” and it’s time to further restrict freedom of speech. The thing that really pushed me over the edge was the poll that said “98% of people don’t believe what they read on the internet”.[1]. Unlike many people, I actually have faith that people will accept the truth, eventually. It may take time and it may be messy a…

>Unlike many people, I actually have faith that people will accept the truth, eventually.

It is ironic that you use the word "faith", which is a word that means "steadfast belief in spite of lack of evidence, or indeed countervailing evidence".

What would it take to convince you of the truth that people do NOT always accept the truth "eventually"? Anything? Or is your faith unshakeable?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#73

Post by mnd999 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:56 AM UTC

eptcyka wrote: post #62

mnd999 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not outnumbered though. They’re backed up by sock puppet accounts, nation state funded propaganda / troll organisations out to cause trouble and well funded PR companies pushing populist agendas. It’s not a question of free speech vs censorship, it’s which type censorship do you prefer? The corporate kind or the shitposting bullying trolling kind?

What makes you think that it's just the baddies that employ troll farms?

IMHO trolling is bad by definition.

But it doesn’t really matter whether you consider it the goodies or baddies, it’s still a form of shutting down speech.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#74

Post by lldbg » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:57 AM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #34

lldbg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed millions. Little by little the western freedoms are being taken away. And you want it to go faster? Rap music which idolizes violence is allowed, despite thousands dying every year in connection to crimimal enterprise. The case to ban rap is just as naive as th…

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Wh…

So free speech was good, when it was restricted to the elite (those of means and intellect). Now that the unwashed masses, the plebs, have access to it, it's no longer good?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#75

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:57 AM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #34

lldbg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the case for free speech has never looked as good. A few (even hundreds) of murders are an acceptable cost of free speech. Restricted speech has killed millions. Little by little the western freedoms are being taken away. And you want it to go faster? Rap music which idolizes violence is allowed, despite thousands dying every year in connection to crimimal enterprise. The case to ban rap is just as naive as th…

The free speech is well... a lot like right to bear arms. While you only had muskets, right to bear arms had a clear benefit (ability to quickly raise reasonably trained militia ready to fight in days) and little risks. Now that you can buy assault rifles, and war has become so high-tech that people who are trained to use small arms and nothing else aren't of any benefit in it - it has become a different thing.... Wh…

Now that literally anyone can invent his own conspiracy theory and post it on facebook... people are right to be concerned.

People always had the right and capacity to make conspiracy theories. They deeply believed myths, and could just as easily be manipulated. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the conspiracies that sprung up from the moon landing or the assassination of JFK.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#76

Post by arethuza » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:57 AM UTC

lldbg wrote: post #61

Renaud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean Religion is banned in France? I'm curious about what sort of twisted broad exaggeration and misunderstanding do you have to believe to drop something like that?

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words considering HackerNews nitpicking, but in france display of religious symbols (such as wearing a cross) is banned in public places (mostly). I wrote it that way for effect, thinking that people would be familiar with the french laws. I have no "twisted broad exaggeration and misunderstanding" of belief. I don't think this chain of comments has a good tone, and won't reply further…

There seems to be a ban on "conspicuous religious symbols in schools" - that's hardly most public places?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c...

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#77

Post by lebaux » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:57 AM UTC

gjulianm wrote: post #39

throw_m239339 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is even worse because of the format. At least with facebook people can have their own private spaces with only the people they trully know. Twitter is a just a machine to get people outraged and pissed off and yell at each other. Yet I see very little pieces written against Twitter, probably because Twitter bought the media with the blue check system, creating an 'elite' class within Twitter.

I think there are several reasons: - Twitter relationships are based on interests mostly. If I follow people who tweet about math I will see tweets about math. Facebook relationships are based on real-life relationships so the topics in my news feed will be more heterogeneous. - In Twitter don't see as many content from people I don't follow directly. Sometimes I will see tweets that other of my followed liked or rep…

Very succinct description of twitter. I use it mainly for work and I mostly see work related stuff that is trending.

Facebook likes mashing your whole life together, so one post is from a group, another from your high school weirdo that sells MLM products and another one from your racist uncle.

Honestly, Google+ "circle" concept was ahead of its time and I will die on this hill.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#78

Post by markdown » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #50

eptcyka wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that free speech exclusively attracts the scum of the earth? Maybe these hate bubbles wouldn't proliferate if they had to co-exist on a platform with a diverse set of opinions. These people are heavily outnumbered. But of course, all the major platforms are so successful because they aggressively silo people into pigeonholes via curation.

Not the OP, but no, not "exclusively". But sites that espouse that principle end up attracting them in droves because they're shunned everywhere else. And then people who believe in free speech but don't intend to use it to be assholes don't feel comfortable there, further making those sites hives of ... well, whatever bad adjective you want to assign.

> hives of

scum and villainy.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#79

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

solaarphunk wrote: post #42

This person is confusing ranked newsfeeds with free speech. Ranked newsfeeds are the actual poison, because they are their own form of censorship and amplification for exploitative purposes. It’s fine if someone says something horrible or false on the internet, it’s not fine if a ranked newsfeed amplifies that message to millions of people because it’s engaging. This free speech or not argument is a complete straw ma…

[deleted]

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#80

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #60

I am sick that "hate speech" is an alleged problem because some people read something on the net they didn't like. I also don't like the people that write it. But the reaction to it is just infantile and the exchange of ideas is degraded. The nature of the medium has intrinsic properties and that means that if you broadcast opinions, you always get pushback. It doesn't mean there is or is no justification for it. It…

I think that the issue is misinformation and propaganda not hate speech.

Perhaps a start would be forbidding PACs, lobbyists, and politicians from posting things that are factually untrue. That wouldn't fix everything since the majority of misinformation is twisting facts rather than outright falsehoods, but it could at least help.