36 ms·

In what way? As it stands (or once stood), Facebook more or less permits free speech on its platform, modulo pornography and gun sales. I'm against algorithmic

In what way? As it stands (or once stood), Facebook more or less permits free speech on its platform, modulo pornography and gun sales. I'm against algorithmic "censorship" against their definition of "government propaganda." Let the educated reader decide that for herself (indeed, my Facebook friends -- who are also my IRL friends -- aren't agents of government propaganda by participating in our Democracy via discussing their rather-diverse political views over a public forum). It's a little too transparent that "government propaganda" here means Donald Trump. I hope that Facebook is merely acquiescing to bad PR from the left here with a faux apology. It's a shame that they were pressured to feel responsible when they are merely a communications medium. I don't recall telegraph operators feeling responsible for antebellum slavery or radio broadcasters feeling responsible for the rise of Adolph Hitler (of which Trump's mainstream democratic election as our President cannot even reasonably be held in comparison to either _actual_ historical atrocity). By writing this rather dissident post here, I am not "exploiting" Hacker News.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> It's a little too transparent that "government propaganda" here means Donald Trump. Donald Trump wasn't a government, or in a position to direct the propaganda efforts of one, at the time of efforts to manipulate the US elections, and has never been blamed for efforts to manipulate the French elections, so, no, that's probably not what "government propaganda" means. You may have confused Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  No. I try to be reasonable so I wasn't going to entertain conspiracy theories in my post (particularly when they are "convenient" scapegoats when combined with vague, evasive finger-pointing from Facebook HQ -- always be sure to ask yourself "Qui bono?" when reading these public statements). I am fully aware of FB's misguided definition of "government propaganda" and wholeheartedly feel that it is a gross misuse of the word, so yes I am aware that the ACTUAL "propaganda" here didn't come from an existing government (nor would I commit the transgression of calling the public content "propaganda"). Once there is real proof (and not the left's version of WMDs), I will happily revise my views (from the article, FB declined to provide any or even blame anybody specific). For now, I am outraged that FB even felt compelled by certain groups to publish their own propaganda (this article).
  - sprafa 10y ago
    The left's version of WMDs? It's funny that there wasn't a single propaganda campaign under Obama afaik that ever reached the depth of counterinformation as the Bush-Blair WMD campaign, yet everyone just uses the biggest lie the Bush administration ever peddled on Americans as some sort of evidence that every government does this. No they don't. Rumsfeld had to create a special office inside the Pentagon to manufacture evidence so the WMD case could be created. They didn't use the intelligence agencies, they went around them as much as they could to create "alternate facts". The idea that Obama has managed to do the same thing as Bush, but using 10 or so intelligence agencies to "manufacture evidence" is a lunacy. The Bush administration had to go through huge lengths to build up a false case for war. Obama just asked his intelligence agencies to give him their opinion. You can use the crimes of the Bush Admnistration to call anything and everything that comes out of government a lie. But all that you're doing is critiquing the Bush admnistration. Not all administrations are guilty of wildly deceiving the public.
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      Well, I just so happen to think undermining the American democratic process by calling into question the legitimacy of the (undesired) election results is pretty serious. This has happened time and time again anytime we somehow end up electing a Republican...
sprafa 10y ago
The connection between radio and Hitler is very much a point of discussion. The medium matters.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It's a little too transparent that "government propaganda" here means Donald Trump. Donald Trump wasn't a government, or in a position to direct the propaganda efforts of one, at the time of efforts to manipulate the US elections, and has never been blamed for efforts to manipulate the French elections, so, no, that's probably not what "government propaganda" means. You may have confused Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin.

Hydraulix989 10y ago
No. I try to be reasonable so I wasn't going to entertain conspiracy theories in my post (particularly when they are "convenient" scapegoats when combined with vague, evasive finger-pointing from Facebook HQ -- always be sure to ask yourself "Qui bono?" when reading these public statements). I am fully aware of FB's misguided definition of "government propaganda" and wholeheartedly feel that it is a gross misuse of the word, so yes I am aware that the ACTUAL "propaganda" here didn't come from an existing government (nor would I commit the transgression of calling the public content "propaganda"). Once there is real proof (and not the left's version of WMDs), I will happily revise my views (from the article, FB declined to provide any or even blame anybody specific). For now, I am outraged that FB even felt compelled by certain groups to publish their own propaganda (this article).
- sprafa 10y ago
  The left's version of WMDs? It's funny that there wasn't a single propaganda campaign under Obama afaik that ever reached the depth of counterinformation as the Bush-Blair WMD campaign, yet everyone just uses the biggest lie the Bush administration ever peddled on Americans as some sort of evidence that every government does this. No they don't. Rumsfeld had to create a special office inside the Pentagon to manufacture evidence so the WMD case could be created. They didn't use the intelligence agencies, they went around them as much as they could to create "alternate facts". The idea that Obama has managed to do the same thing as Bush, but using 10 or so intelligence agencies to "manufacture evidence" is a lunacy. The Bush administration had to go through huge lengths to build up a false case for war. Obama just asked his intelligence agencies to give him their opinion. You can use the crimes of the Bush Admnistration to call anything and everything that comes out of government a lie. But all that you're doing is critiquing the Bush admnistration. Not all administrations are guilty of wildly deceiving the public.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    Well, I just so happen to think undermining the American democratic process by calling into question the legitimacy of the (undesired) election results is pretty serious. This has happened time and time again anytime we somehow end up electing a Republican...

sprafa 10y ago

The connection between radio and Hitler is very much a point of discussion. The medium matters.