10 ms·

The risk here is not that the system will have bad goals, it's that it's easy for manipulation to redefine the core terms used to classify "bad" content. Even n

The risk here is not that the system will have bad goals, it's that it's easy for manipulation to redefine the core terms used to classify "bad" content. Even now, we regularly see even clear terms like "correct" or "incorrect" applied by fact-checking websites through a fairly biased lens. This is not a partisan issue, when you start down the road of handing the keys to shaping public thought to a powerful party, you're there when the power changes too. This is no different than being able to tell when someone is bullshitting just as you walk through every day life, and thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism. This is all obviously a big deal to old media, who have made an art not out of sharing incorrect truths, but of very selectively sharing truths, to the point that what emerges does not really represent the truth at all. They didn't lie, but they aggressively shaped. Of course democratic access to the pieces they'd rather suppress (on both sides) threatens that model. They'd love us to toss out this particular bath water.

stcredzero 9y ago
This is all obviously a big deal to old media, who have made an art not out of sharing incorrect truths, but of very selectively sharing truths, to the point that what emerges does not really represent the truth at all. They didn't lie, but they aggressively shaped. Well and empirically demonstrated in the 80's by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. http://a.co/7VVDGJz http://a.co/7VVDGJz
quoquoquo 9y ago
The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven for bad actors that goes unpunished. We can absolutely set definition for what is bad and what isn't bad. What is clearly bad is writing fake news about certain group of ethnic group you hate and manipulating others into believing your twisted idiosyncratic views about Jews, Hindus and Moors. edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods.
- wooter 9y ago
  sad to me that people are so quick to dismiss the principles of free speech on the basis that "the game has changed" after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)
  - quoquoquo 9y ago
    So do you support people manipulating and creating fake news but not the people who are trying to prevent it from happening? Facebook can absolutely kick out people who don't behave on their platform. Playing the freedom of speech card doesn't work when you actively try to oppress other's freedom of speech through tactical manipulation. Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech Punishing people for spreading information you don't like in the name of protecting free speech is double speak
      - quoquoquo 9y ago
        Punishing people who willfully concocts false information and disseminates for the purpose of spreading racist/intolerant views are very different than what you've highlighted. Thinking a group of people is lesser than you because of the arrangement of their skin color pigmentation, and crying freedom of speech is being attacked, is not going to get you a lot of sympathy, especially when you now try to actively shut people up who are calling you out on it. > freedom of speech means freedom to mislead sure, but don't get all up and mighty when you get called out and shut down.
JacobJans 9y ago
> This is no different than being able to tell when someone is bullshitting just as you walk through every day life, and thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism. There is a huge difference. If someone is bullshitting you in real life, you don't give them a giant microphone so they can reach millions of people. You ignore them, or politely engage in conversation with them, or maybe even try to help them see the errors of their ways. Why should Facebook be obligated to amplify deceptive messages? I don't see a reason.
- AckSyn 9y ago
  This isn't about giving people a platform but monetizing it. I'm against Facebook for this particular stance. They think people are idiots and try to shape their version of what they consider facts and truth to suit their own bias.
- wooter 9y ago
  of course they're entitled not to. however, they allow BS they agree with so they must accept that obvious bias will be called obvious bias.
  - quoquoquo 9y ago
    > they allow BS they agree What BS specifically do you disagree with? Do you realize your own bias with that statement?
    - wooter 9y ago
      yup, bias is unavoidable. human rights organizations are obviously biased and not only am okay with that, but I support it.
      - quoquoquo 9y ago
        that makes no sense.
    - 9y ago
sqeaky 9y ago
> thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism More than 30% of Americans still support Trump, clearly they do need adult supervision.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  People don't like this. Please respond and tell me why. Can you defend Trump? As near as I can tell he doesn't have any actual stances. He contradicts himself constantly. He acts like a child instead either a politician or a statesman. He turns down expert briefings. He appears to be embezzling money by having his security stay at his properties. He takes far too much vacation. He has a curiously large amoutn of ties to Russia and appears to have at least some unsavory ties with Russia. Anyone supporting this idiot is not qualified to pick a leader. I say that having voted for democrats an republicans.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    I think many people are having to face what their "side" has become, in a bit more clarity than they are comfortable with. The Republicans traditionally kept the fascism and racism hidden to some degree, but Trump simply isn't capable of that. So they retreat into philosophical arguments about how you can't deny Nazi's free speech, because that's unamerican and a slippery slope. While Republicans continue their decades of voter suppression in plain view, which is apparently cool. What about "I may not agree with your vote but I'll fight to the death to ensure it gets cast and counted"? No, they know they need the votes of Nazis and racists, they know they need to suppress minority votes. They know they need to tell horrible lies to get angry rubes to vote against their own interests. They know they need to demonise minorities. And they're slowly coming to terms with the fact that "their side" could never win without all this. But they still feel dissonance so they down-vote and try to think of a way to spin it so they have the moral high ground. As if Trump isn't going to remind us they don't, every single day.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      I think you are correct in several things, perhaps all things. I am cool with nazis voting and I even think nazis should have freedom of speech. What is not OK is calls to violence and any other form of speech that directly hurts people (doxing, revenge porn, etc...). This is already illegal in this country and is in no way a slippery slope. We just need to enforce existing rules and laws. You demand that we "kill all XXX" go to jail, end of story. That is not censorship, that is how you build a society.

stcredzero 9y ago

This is all obviously a big deal to old media, who have made an art not out of sharing incorrect truths, but of very selectively sharing truths, to the point that what emerges does not really represent the truth at all. They didn't lie, but they aggressively shaped. Well and empirically demonstrated in the 80's by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. http://a.co/7VVDGJz http://a.co/7VVDGJz

quoquoquo 9y ago

The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven for bad actors that goes unpunished. We can absolutely set definition for what is bad and what isn't bad. What is clearly bad is writing fake news about certain group of ethnic group you hate and manipulating others into believing your twisted idiosyncratic views about Jews, Hindus and Moors. edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods.

wooter 9y ago
sad to me that people are so quick to dismiss the principles of free speech on the basis that "the game has changed" after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)
- quoquoquo 9y ago
  So do you support people manipulating and creating fake news but not the people who are trying to prevent it from happening? Facebook can absolutely kick out people who don't behave on their platform. Playing the freedom of speech card doesn't work when you actively try to oppress other's freedom of speech through tactical manipulation. Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech Punishing people for spreading information you don't like in the name of protecting free speech is double speak
    - quoquoquo 9y ago
      Punishing people who willfully concocts false information and disseminates for the purpose of spreading racist/intolerant views are very different than what you've highlighted. Thinking a group of people is lesser than you because of the arrangement of their skin color pigmentation, and crying freedom of speech is being attacked, is not going to get you a lot of sympathy, especially when you now try to actively shut people up who are calling you out on it. > freedom of speech means freedom to mislead sure, but don't get all up and mighty when you get called out and shut down.

JacobJans 9y ago

> This is no different than being able to tell when someone is bullshitting just as you walk through every day life, and thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism. There is a huge difference. If someone is bullshitting you in real life, you don't give them a giant microphone so they can reach millions of people. You ignore them, or politely engage in conversation with them, or maybe even try to help them see the errors of their ways. Why should Facebook be obligated to amplify deceptive messages? I don't see a reason.

AckSyn 9y ago
This isn't about giving people a platform but monetizing it. I'm against Facebook for this particular stance. They think people are idiots and try to shape their version of what they consider facts and truth to suit their own bias.
wooter 9y ago
of course they're entitled not to. however, they allow BS they agree with so they must accept that obvious bias will be called obvious bias.
- quoquoquo 9y ago
  > they allow BS they agree What BS specifically do you disagree with? Do you realize your own bias with that statement?
  - wooter 9y ago
    yup, bias is unavoidable. human rights organizations are obviously biased and not only am okay with that, but I support it.
    - quoquoquo 9y ago
      that makes no sense.
  - 9y ago

sqeaky 9y ago

> thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism More than 30% of Americans still support Trump, clearly they do need adult supervision.

sqeaky 9y ago
People don't like this. Please respond and tell me why. Can you defend Trump? As near as I can tell he doesn't have any actual stances. He contradicts himself constantly. He acts like a child instead either a politician or a statesman. He turns down expert briefings. He appears to be embezzling money by having his security stay at his properties. He takes far too much vacation. He has a curiously large amoutn of ties to Russia and appears to have at least some unsavory ties with Russia. Anyone supporting this idiot is not qualified to pick a leader. I say that having voted for democrats an republicans.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I think many people are having to face what their "side" has become, in a bit more clarity than they are comfortable with. The Republicans traditionally kept the fascism and racism hidden to some degree, but Trump simply isn't capable of that. So they retreat into philosophical arguments about how you can't deny Nazi's free speech, because that's unamerican and a slippery slope. While Republicans continue their decades of voter suppression in plain view, which is apparently cool. What about "I may not agree with your vote but I'll fight to the death to ensure it gets cast and counted"? No, they know they need the votes of Nazis and racists, they know they need to suppress minority votes. They know they need to tell horrible lies to get angry rubes to vote against their own interests. They know they need to demonise minorities. And they're slowly coming to terms with the fact that "their side" could never win without all this. But they still feel dissonance so they down-vote and try to think of a way to spin it so they have the moral high ground. As if Trump isn't going to remind us they don't, every single day.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    I think you are correct in several things, perhaps all things. I am cool with nazis voting and I even think nazis should have freedom of speech. What is not OK is calls to violence and any other form of speech that directly hurts people (doxing, revenge porn, etc...). This is already illegal in this country and is in no way a slippery slope. We just need to enforce existing rules and laws. You demand that we "kill all XXX" go to jail, end of story. That is not censorship, that is how you build a society.