3 ms·
I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbel
by fwn 11y ago
I don't know if I am somehow particular guilty of creating factions. Look at this thread or most of the links posted on Facebooks initiative. They are all unbelievable biased and political. (From both sides!)
There is little to no actual argumentative exchange in those pieces. Repetition trumps dialogue in public policy. Just compare it to some technical threads on HN.
Therefore I'd say factions are just a realistic description in this case.
> The very idea of "free basics" is about normalizing the idea that Facebook can prevent who people can access.
I don't know.. You would agree that this is rhetoric? The gesture of reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Consider explaining your local bakeries expansion towards delivery by saying "The very idea of their delivery is about normalizing the idea that you don't go out to buy bread."
It tells us what you want others to believe the bakery is doing instead of what the bakery is actually doing.
While you are right to say that internet providers already exist, I am sure you would agree that this is not introducing your next claim which is "Facebook is abusing their position [...] to manipulate people into supporting their plan."
"Somebody manipulating others for support" is biased rhetorics for "Somebody is lobbying for his cause which I don't like."
Of course they do need lobbying, which is what both sides currently do. Both do things that can be seen as manipulation. It is, however, unconnected to the first part of the sentence. Maybe to make it sound as if there is a causal relationship?
"They can do this because being a gatekeeper of social interaction is one of the most powerful political tools known to man.'
Of course every interest group, big or small, can lobby. But it's probably advisable to name the opponents size if it can be used to create a big against small emotion or to introduce size-based exceptionalism.
> [...]tactics such as lying to users saying their friends support "free basics".
Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button and I guess you know that. It's simply a form designed to be sent by users. Software paternalism might be controversial, it however doesn't take away peoples autonomy in deciding to press the blue "send" or "sign" instead of the small grey x. This is also how parts of change.org work.
Of course nudges convert to lies, lobbying converts to propaganda the moment the opposing campaign gets to describe them.
You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. However, market theory is only tangentially relevant for the policy decision on banning facebooks initiativ or the analysis of it's consequences. This is also true for the "the homo economicus is wrong" and the "but there's no perfect information" memes.
- pdkl95 11y ago> They are all unbelievable [sic] biased and political. Of course they are. Everything is political, because everything affects people. The idea that some people have that technology (or anything else) is somehow not political is extremely naive. The point of my comment was that you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic instead of discussing the subject matter itself. Your new reply does a lot of the same. > reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it? Obviously. Are you suggesting that any critique must be made in the framing Facebook has been setting with their propaganda? Facebook gets to control the stage? > Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button Quite a few people are claiming otherwise. Did you miss Facebook's scandalous "emotional contagion" experiment? Or the various other stories about how they manipulate what people see? As usual, Facebook likes to fall back on calling these tactics "an accident" when they are caught. > size-based exceptionalism WTF are you talking about? Why are you inventing a straw-man big-vs-small argument while ignoring that they are a gatekeeper with the power to monitor and manipulate social interaction. > You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists. Nope. That was 100% based on your suggestions that the market would sort this out.
- fwn 11y ago> Everything is political, because everything affects people. You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a public/private distinction. The latter (the one you'd probably consider "extremely naive") is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal democracies. > [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...] Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic. People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case Facebooks "Free Basics" project. That's it. All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc. are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides. Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia) for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that. What else? We can make a list; I bet it's rather unspectacular. > Quite a few people are claiming otherwise. Right.. https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png > [...] your suggestions that the market would sort this out. You might want to recheck who you think came up with a market argument, because I think you are mistaking our debate with another. > > size-based exceptionalism > WTF are you talking about? If you could elaborate on what you weren't able to grasp I'd have the opportunity to explain it further. :)