5 ms·

I love your comment but disagree on one point. I don't think Facebook has ANY obligation to improve the quality of the "news" shared on it. I favor freedom of

I love your comment but disagree on one point. I don't think Facebook has ANY obligation to improve the quality of the "news" shared on it. I favor freedom of speech and freedom of association. If I have a friend who keeps posting BS articles from shady sources (and I do) then I just block them from my feed or simply ignore their posts about current events and conspiracy theories. I think asking FB, or any other platform, to start policing the quality of what we post is dangerous. What happens is if a story breaks that official authorities deny, but which is actually true. Would you want FB being the arbiter of truth, in such a case, or would you prefer for individuals (preferably alot of them) to be free to do their own research and to come to their own conclusions?

jpk 9y ago
The trouble with this, of course, is that you build an echo chamber for both yourself and your friend. You no longer see the posts you think are BS, and you preclude yourself from challenging your friend's BS in comments. I agree that delegating to Facebook judgement of what speech is acceptable or not isn't a good idea, but the flip side of that is you have to take a slightly more active role in cultural discourse if you have any desire to see society converge on good ideas, and eschew harmful ones.
- personjerry 9y ago
  Whose responsibility is it to ensure you don't have an echo chamber? Yours, or Facebook's?
  - jpk 9y ago
    A little from column A, a little from column B. We're all in this together.
- taysic 9y ago
  So policing FB creates less of an echo chamber? Huh? It’s perpetuating the echo chamber of whoever gets appointed by the gov.
  - jpk 9y ago
    No? I don't follow. Did you reply to the wrong comment?
burkaman 9y ago
But they aren't just an anonymous background hosting provider, they algorithmically promote some posts over others. If Facebook just hosted static pages where all posts were treated equally I might agree with you, but they're actively seeking out "good" content and pushing it to other people. Imagine you run a coffee shop, and a local political group hosts a weekly get together there. They're weird people, always talking about crazy theories and plans, but they're not hurting anyone and they're great customers, so you don't want to kick them out. If some other people come in and start getting freaked out at the conspiracy talk and "time to march" proclamations, shouldn't you walk over and say "hey don't worry about them, this stuff is completely crazy, I actually looked it up myself since they talk about it every week. I'd be happy to show you some articles if you're worried." Maybe you're not technically endorsing their ideas, but you're hosting them, serving them, giving them a prominent place in your shop. You could put a sign out front that says "I don't endorse anything said in my shop", but that just protects you, not your customers. Now imagine it's not just a coffee shop, but the only coffee shop, everyone in town goes there, and half of them get all their news just by talking to other patrons. Is there any obligation to pay attention to what's being said and who gets to reserve your best tables? If you didn't want to be involved in this, you should have grown so much. If you buy up every other shop and meeting place in town, you have to accept the responsibilities that come with all that power.
- GuiA 9y ago
  If you run a coffee shop where Nazis regularly come to hang out, hold their group meetings, spread their propaganda, etc all while wearing swastika tee shirts, people will call your shop a Nazi coffee shop, and they will be very right to do so - even if you swear that you are not a Nazi and are just doing your best to protect freedom of expression. This is what Twitter and Facebook are today (Twitter will even hide these accounts in their German digital coffee shop, where spreading Nazi propaganda is illegal, but are fine letting it be for the rest of the world).
  - burkaman 9y ago
    Agreed, but I'm trying to be persuasive and jumping to Nazis usually doesn't help.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jpk 9y ago

The trouble with this, of course, is that you build an echo chamber for both yourself and your friend. You no longer see the posts you think are BS, and you preclude yourself from challenging your friend's BS in comments. I agree that delegating to Facebook judgement of what speech is acceptable or not isn't a good idea, but the flip side of that is you have to take a slightly more active role in cultural discourse if you have any desire to see society converge on good ideas, and eschew harmful ones.

personjerry 9y ago
Whose responsibility is it to ensure you don't have an echo chamber? Yours, or Facebook's?
- jpk 9y ago
  A little from column A, a little from column B. We're all in this together.
taysic 9y ago
So policing FB creates less of an echo chamber? Huh? It’s perpetuating the echo chamber of whoever gets appointed by the gov.
- jpk 9y ago
  No? I don't follow. Did you reply to the wrong comment?

burkaman 9y ago

But they aren't just an anonymous background hosting provider, they algorithmically promote some posts over others. If Facebook just hosted static pages where all posts were treated equally I might agree with you, but they're actively seeking out "good" content and pushing it to other people. Imagine you run a coffee shop, and a local political group hosts a weekly get together there. They're weird people, always talking about crazy theories and plans, but they're not hurting anyone and they're great customers, so you don't want to kick them out. If some other people come in and start getting freaked out at the conspiracy talk and "time to march" proclamations, shouldn't you walk over and say "hey don't worry about them, this stuff is completely crazy, I actually looked it up myself since they talk about it every week. I'd be happy to show you some articles if you're worried." Maybe you're not technically endorsing their ideas, but you're hosting them, serving them, giving them a prominent place in your shop. You could put a sign out front that says "I don't endorse anything said in my shop", but that just protects you, not your customers. Now imagine it's not just a coffee shop, but the only coffee shop, everyone in town goes there, and half of them get all their news just by talking to other patrons. Is there any obligation to pay attention to what's being said and who gets to reserve your best tables? If you didn't want to be involved in this, you should have grown so much. If you buy up every other shop and meeting place in town, you have to accept the responsibilities that come with all that power.

GuiA 9y ago
If you run a coffee shop where Nazis regularly come to hang out, hold their group meetings, spread their propaganda, etc all while wearing swastika tee shirts, people will call your shop a Nazi coffee shop, and they will be very right to do so - even if you swear that you are not a Nazi and are just doing your best to protect freedom of expression. This is what Twitter and Facebook are today (Twitter will even hide these accounts in their German digital coffee shop, where spreading Nazi propaganda is illegal, but are fine letting it be for the rest of the world).
- burkaman 9y ago
  Agreed, but I'm trying to be persuasive and jumping to Nazis usually doesn't help.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]