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

91–100 of 114 posts

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

#91

Post by paulsutter »

empath75 wrote: post #87
paulsutter wrote: post #61

Is it really that hard to unfollow? Worked for me. I’ve unfollowed people for sportsball and I’ve unfollowed people for racism. Worked for both.

https://www.concordia.ca/research/migs/resources/rwanda-radi... > From October 1993 to late 1994, RTLM was used by Hutu leaders to advance an extremist Hutu message and anti-Tutsi disinformation, spreading fear of a Tutsi genocide against Hutu, identifying specific Tutsi targets or areas where they could be found, and encouraging the progress of the genocide. In April 1994, Radio Rwanda began to advance a similar mes…

This is a interesting example, quoting from the article so more people can see it

> [Radio Rwanda] was barred from continuing to disseminate hate propaganda. This led the Hutu Power circle around President Habyarimana and his wife to found RTLM as a private radio station. RTLM became immensely popular as a young, hip alternative to the official voice of the government. It played popular music, and encouraged the public to phone in and participate in radio broadcasts. Amongst its listeners, RTLM attracted the unemployed youth and Interhamwe militia.

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

#92

Post by d4l3k »

menacingly wrote: post #81
danijelb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.

They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.

To be fair, the position of most governments is that Facebook isn't doing enough to censor fake news, hate speech, drug selling etc. I don't think having the government step in is going to fix any of these problems.

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

#93

Post by joshuamorton »

menacingly wrote: post #81
danijelb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook is not a worldwide communication channel. It's a social network/community owned by a single company and its shareholders. Internet is the worldwide communication channel. You can "filter" it and make sure it aligns with your own standards by simply choosing to visit and use websites, communities and services which do align with your standards, and by avoiding those which don't align.

They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.

What scale is that? As far as I know, within the US, fox has wider reach than Facebook, and it's under no such obligation, and the US is perhaps the only nation that's going to force the definition of free speech you propose on Facebook. Europe certainly won't.

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

#94

Post by the-dude »

TimMurnaghan wrote: post #59
the-dude wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The migrants are very satisfied, thank you.

nhanq is a one day old account posting fake news. Let's hope that the trolls don't take hold here on HN too. There are many valid criticisms of these kind of surveys, but crime, which is the hook that the anti-migrant posters like to use, is one of the criteria - so the idea that "It's getting bad there" is the one that needs rapid rebuttal.

Don't worry, we don't have to rely on experiences from Vienna. It is obvious in NL too.

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

#95

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

nhanq wrote: post #2

What does the video say and why do they want it removed so bad?

I think the video is fine but it’s ridiculously wrong. They were trying to paint Vienna as some immigration caused hellhole and why Budapest is so much better.

As someone living in Vienna I found it mostly amusing considering how many Hungarians immigrate here.

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

#96

Post by samstave »

briandear wrote: post #73
samstave wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

I actually debate with friends about this.

Yes, it is good to have more transparent insights into what the POTUS is doing. I just think that Twitter being an official policy platform for the country is concerning. Further, I think the impulsive and childish nature of the current POTUS should be severe cause for alarm.

I think it actually speak volumes about those who surround the POTUS and what a poor job they do as "handlers" -- shouldn't we have far more professionalism at that level?

But to your point, it was previous that this made it easier to spin the angle that the public sees...

It just makes me lose faith that anyone at the supposedly most elite positions really know what they are doing - they all seem so incompetent and looks like idiots, and it makes me want to acquiesce to their authority even less. Basically, it undermines and de-legitimatizes the power structure.

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

#97

Post by nebolo »

nhanq wrote: post #8
stockerta wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lazar, who was a minister back then went out to Vienna and made a video that said the city is flooded with migrants, it isn't safe and Budapest is much better, safer and such. Oh, also he didn't feel safe in it too.

I see. I have a female friend in Vienna, she's said similar stuff to me. Things are getting bad there.

I live very close to Vienna, visit often, and things are perfectly fine. Safer than any US city I've been to.

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

#98

Post by reitanqild »

joshuamorton wrote: post #93
menacingly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.

What scale is that? As far as I know, within the US, fox has wider reach than Facebook, and it's under no such obligation, and the US is perhaps the only nation that's going to force the definition of free speech you propose on Facebook. Europe certainly won't.

There are currently realistic alternatives to fox for anyone.

The same cannot be said for Facebook or Google at the moment even if some of us prefer Google+, HN, Twitter and Duckduckgo personally.

(That said Duckduckgo can go mainstream soon for what I know and Google+ is IMO constantly one or two good and well timed moves away from eating Facebooks userbase.)

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

#99

Post by [deleted] »

reitanqild wrote: post #98
joshuamorton wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scale is that? As far as I know, within the US, fox has wider reach than Facebook, and it's under no such obligation, and the US is perhaps the only nation that's going to force the definition of free speech you propose on Facebook. Europe certainly won't.

There are currently realistic alternatives to fox for anyone. The same cannot be said for Facebook or Google at the moment even if some of us prefer Google+, HN, Twitter and Duckduckgo personally. (That said Duckduckgo can go mainstream soon for what I know and Google+ is IMO constantly one or two good and well timed moves away from eating Facebooks userbase.)

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by gnode »

smt88 wrote: post #90
menacingly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.

So if I want a non-neutral carrier, I have to go to a niche social network? Forcing channels like Facebook to be neutral carriers only makes sense if they're a natural monopoly, which they aren't.

Arguably, due to the network effect, social networks like Facebook are natural monopolies / oligopolies. Niche networks function in a way that relies less on network effects to have value to users, e.g. it doesn't matter if all your friends aren't on Hacker News.
Post reply on HN