9 ms·

What Stays on Facebook and What Goes? The Social Network Cannot Answer

66 points by panarky 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pwned1 8y ago
It's amusing to watch the old media pivot against free speech lately.
lmm 8y ago
This article actually made me more sympathetic to Facebook. These issues are not as simple as the NYT thinks, and Facebook seems to be making every effort to navigate them in a principled way.
- atomical 8y ago
  Isn't it pretty simple when a corporation is posting fake news? Shouldn't corporations know better and be held to higher standards than individuals?
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    I'm honestly not sure if you're speaking of Facebook or the New York Times here...
  - lmm 8y ago
    > Isn't it pretty simple when a corporation is posting fake news? By who's definition of "fake news"? Do you want anyone who contradicts the current US administration thrown off the platform? Anyone who contradicts current Facebook leadership? > Shouldn't corporations know better and be held to higher standards than individuals? Corporations aren't magic. I have a corporation, its HQ is my home and I pay ~$20 every year to stay registered, it's not like that corporation knows any better than I do. One of my hometown churches publishes a newsletter that's essentially whatever my dad wanted to write. I would expect a lot of niche or local news sources are similar.
    - athenot 8y ago
      "Fake news" is often interpreted as "news I don't agree with". That is not the definition. News can be defined as genuine if it's truthful, in reporting facts, in reporting uncertainties & limits of current knowledge, in reporting potential conflicts of interests and finally in explicitely outlining when unproven opinions are put forth, whether by the author or by an interviewee. News is deemed fake when it fails to be truthful. While there can be some grey areas, or perhaps poor journalistic standards, there are plenty of cases where articles fail to disclose conflict of interest, put forth unfounded opinions and intentionally mislead the reader to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is fake news.
      - lmm 8y ago
        > there are plenty of cases where articles fail to disclose conflict of interest, put forth unfounded opinions and intentionally mislead the reader to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is fake news. "Untruthful" is begging the question. For the rest of it, virtually all news articles fail to disclose the writer's personal biases, put forth unfounded opinions, and intentionally lead the reader to draw particular conclusions. Your proposed standard is hardly any better than "news I don't agree with" in practice.
        atomical 8y ago
        Could you give an example? For example, all news articles published by Reuters have an unfounded opinion in them?
        lmm 8y ago
        Sure. Let's look at the top article on Reuters as I write this, which happens to be https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-foreign-secretary-hunt-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-risk-idUKKBN1KD13J https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-for... Second paragraph opens "With just over eight months left until Britain is due to leave the EU, there is little clarity about how trade will flow" - sounds like unfounded opinion to me. Third paragraph talks about "a step that could spook financial markets and dislocate trade flows across Europe and beyond." which is either vacuously true (anything "could" anything else - but then why say so?) or baseless speculation. "few diplomats expect the deal to be struck until months later." is unsubstantiated opinion - even if it were possible to verify who these "diplomats" were, having a news article report an opinion second-hand doesn't make it any less an opinion. Likewise "some investors have said such a chaotic scenario would seriously damage both the economies of Britain and the EU over the short term.", and "they cast as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration.". I doubt the second half (below "DISORDERLY BREXIT?") will be much different. I'm not trying to attack Reuters here - they do better than many news sources - but any kind of substantive reporting requires making judgements on questions that are politicised or, often, inherently political. Even the most skilled journalist will make calls that eventually turn out to be laughable in hindsight. I want committed, engaged journalism - reducing reporting to a bloodless "A said this, B said that, readers at home must make up their own minds" would not be an improvement - but the price of that is that journalists must have the freedom to make honest mistakes. And that in turn means tolerating the dishonest kind, unless and until we can come up with some clear bright lines that separate the one from the other.
  - bena 8y ago
    Why? Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? I'll give you that a corporation with the goal of providing accurate information to people should have a higher standard of publishing information that is correct. But if, say, Heinz, wanted to say that people in China can't drive or that the Holocaust is a fiction, why is it the company's responsibility to get that right? Their responsibility is baked beans and ketchup. Like lmm, this article made me more sympathetic to Facebook. And that the NYT is sort of glossing over things. I'd like to hear their policy on "fake news" and all that. I applaud Facebook for defending InfoWars in this instance even though they disagree with them. I applaud Facebook for defending Holocaust deniers even though they disagree with them. It is the absolute hardest thing in the world to defend the worst when they've done nothing wrong. We glorify people who say things like "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". But when it comes time to actually put that sentiment into action, we waffle. Only allowing speech we agree with is not allowing speech to be free. Freedom must include the freedom to be stupid or it is no freedom at all.
    - pwned1 8y ago
      My downvoted to hell comment below is meant to point this out. I've been noticing large media companies, like NYT and even a New Yorker article I read this morning, subtly advocating in favor or limits on free speech, as though they (or people they agree with) should be arbiters of truth and virtue. The parent article even expands the idea of articles that should be banned into the realm of "conspiracy theories." To say that the article is simply reporting on the issue is false. There's a clear bias in the language of the article in favor of suppressing unpopular speech.
    - atomical 8y ago
      > Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? Their goal isn't to connect people. That sounds like something Zuckerberg would say. Their goal is to make money from their users data. Facebook is responsible because they have algorithms which show and hide items in the news feed. If they merely showed what was posted without any sophisticated algorithms I think they could claim some innocence. Facebook doesn't care about freedom. They care about not pissing off their conservative user base and losing them to other sites, like Gab, or perhaps Chinese clones that Zuckerberg is worried about.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  > Facebook seems to be making every effort to navigate them in a principled way I, an adult, can not share pictures of a certain part of day-to-day life with other adults. It is legal to do so and common on other platforms (e.g. Twitter). What principled position have they taken here?
dekhn 8y ago
having worked for a large internet company, I have to say the challenges of dealing with content like this is much more complicated than the NY Times appreciates.
- wbronitsky 8y ago
  I would be interested in what ways you think that silencing Nazis and Holocaust deniers is complicated. Can you explain? Edit: Thanks all. I'll know better than to kick the troll hive next time.
  - astonex 8y ago
    Why do you even want to silence anyone from posting in their own social network. I don't think companies should become moral authorities. Leave it to the network to naturally filter out content they don't want.
  - reuben_scratton 8y ago
    Who gets to define who a Nazi is? If I say that 4 million died in the Holocaust rather than 6 million, is that Holocaust denial?
    - wbronitsky 8y ago
      The issues raised by the article are not about morally grey areas, they are about overt Holocaust denial and InfoWars. InfoWars caused a person to shoot up a pizzeria. This is not a place where a slippery slope argument can be made. Edit: funny that people are downvoting me because they think I'm speaking against free speech, thus silencing my opinion.
      - ng12 8y ago
        You think some guy who's willing to shoot up a pizzeria is going to reevaluate his life choices because he can't post his conspiracy theories on Facebook?
orev 8y ago
I think Facebook is in a tough position. Making hard rules around what is allowed and what is not is very difficult, as there’s a whole spectrum of ideas that could or could not fall into them. It’s too easy to think that everything should be clear-cut, but reality is messy. I think Zuckerberg was also shaken by the Congressional hearing, and seems to be cowtowing a bit to Conservatives after the raking he got from Cruz. He is trying to avoid the appearance of being partisan, but also trying to uphold ideals of reason and truth. That’s a no-win situation when one side has made it their fundamental platform to oppose reason and truth.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > That’s a no-win situation when one side has made it their fundamental platform to oppose reason and truth. That's a fairly extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. Do you have any evidence of this? Care to share your most compelling piece?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - iron0013 8y ago
    mistermann, I've noticed that a lot of your activity on HN seems to consist of demanding that others do research for your own edification. I wonder if you'd consider, please, recognizing that other people also value their own time and energy, and actually expending some effort to educate yourself. It seems like the polite and responsible thing to do. Thanks!
    - mistermann 8y ago
      If you reread, I think you will find that I'm not asking people to do research, but rather to back up non-trivial claims of "fact" with actual evidence. Ideas matter. Culture is not an imaginary concept. It is real, and it matters. You can safely ignore it in the short run with few problems, but ignore it in the long run and you will may suffer dire consequences. Certain words have very precise meanings, that's why we have synonyms in our language. Improper choice of words matters, to varying degrees. As does improper "choice" of "facts". The degree to which an individual and overall collective society understands and correctly interprets (to the best of our ability) reality, and honestly acknowledges the that which they know to be true, matters. Some lying may be justified in an "the ends justifies the means" sense, sometimes, but be careful that you don't get into a habit of it lest you lose the ability to recognize when you're lying. This goes doubly, at least, for the media. Repeat something enough times and people start to believe it whether it is true or not. In practice, perception is reality, and I think you can observe this theory in action in any internet forum, including this one (on certain topics), as well as the overall political discourse we're enjoying in the West at the moment. And when I say this, I am keeping in mind this: https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html Censoring (via outright deletion/banning, or via imperfect downvote-based mechanisms) sincere and legitimate opinions that may differ from the current mainstream fashion can result in perception bubbles forming within social media communities. In the long run, this can affect people's perception of reality, and it matters. The universe doesn't care whether you agree or not. I hope you might reconsider the content of my past and future posts with these ideas in mind. EDIT (since I am currently censored): > Great! Both you and the guy that you are originally challenging seem to agree that facts and truth matter. So what's the problem? He is stating opinions as if they are facts, that's the problem. > I think I'll do you the favor of not addressing most of the rest of your post, which seems a little... unfocused. Consider the possibility that it isn't me that is in need of a favor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
deegles 8y ago
I saw it put succinctly like this: "Don't give a platform to people who wouldn't give you one."
- merpnderp 8y ago
  That certainly goes against the free speech traditions of Facebook's home country. Why should Facebook lower itself to the least common denominator? Why not act with integrity and principle and uphold dearly held values like free speech?
  - maym86 8y ago
    If someone came into your house and shouted rasist lies you're within your rights to kick them out. Free speech relates to protecting people from the government punishing or silencing people for what they say. It doesn't apply in the same way to private spaces or platforms. It's entirely reasonable to not provide a platform for antisemitism or other hate speech especially if it's reducing the quality of the platform for other users. Edit: clarity
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      But this isn't someone's house. This is a public square where nearly everyone is invited to speak, and also given tools to block people they don't want to hear. And I never spoke about the 1st Amendment or any of the free speech laws, but of governing principles of the United States - that Democracy only works when all voices are heard. People who don't have a voice might decide this whole Democracy thing isn't working for them and decide they should be heard through violence. And we had 300,000 years of that shit. Democracy is mind boggling special considering our history and every effort should be made to make sure everyone has a seat at the table. And like it or not, Facebook is one of the most important tables these days. Bad ideas should be discussed publicly so that all can see the arguments against. Covering up/hiding such speech doesn't end that speech, it just makes sure that those who believe it never hear a refutation.
      - 8y ago
bjt2n3904 8y ago
The problem that Facebook, Twitter, et. al have run into is this: curating, moderating, (dare I say, policing?) our own feeds of information. This gives them a share of the responsibility for what's posted on their platform, which is something they can't take on -- both practically, and logistically. Back in the day, if you ran an IRC server, you generally ran the service laissez faire. Your chief concern was providing the service. If someone was sharing illegal content, that wasn't your responsibility any more than state governments sharing culpability for roads that facilitate robberies. And behavior? Who cares what you do, unless you're attacking the service? Channels themselves could come up with their own set of rules, if they wanted. You want to restrict swearing? No problem. Only registered accounts? Fine. No discussion of politics? Who cares? If you came crying to the server administrators, because you were unfairly banned from #atheism/religion/linux for walking in and trying to have an honest debate, they'd shrug their shoulders. Not their problem! What a ridiculous state of affairs to have the service administrators make a network wide rule: "No saying untrue things", or "Don't be mean, but only to certain groups of people". It isn't their job to decide what is true, or what is hurtful. "Oooh, but bjt2n3904, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook! There's this great XKCD comic where he shows mean people the door, and..." -- Yes. I get it. But the fact remains, the 1A is a good principle to adhere to, even if you aren't the government. Policing your own little channel of the internet is feasible, if you so choose. Policing the entire internet is madness -- especially when it comes to subjective things like "hate". Everyone has a different level of tolerance for putting up with jerks on the internet. One person might feel they're being targeted with harassment, another might just call that "Monday". The solution isn't to have Twitter declare how everyone should behave, the solution is for Twitter to push that decision to the user, and provide them with effective tools for filtering and blocking people.
- superflyguy 8y ago
  "..curating, moderating, (dare I say, policing?) our own feeds of information. This gives them a share of the responsibility for what's posted on their platform" Is this actually true? I've seen it mentioned in a few places. Why isn't "obviously we can't vet every comment prior to it appearing but we do our best with a combination of humans and scripts to remove stuff that breaks our rules" an adequate defense?
Const-me 8y ago
The issue is very challenging, but it needs to be solved regardless. IMO, the key to do it right is transparency. For example, reddit does that, and unlike FB they’re not afraid to talk to journalists about their content policing, see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778 A quote from that article: Melissa Tidwell, Reddit’s general counsel, told me, “I am so tired of people who repeat the mantra ‘Free speech!’ but then have nothing else to say. Look, free speech is obviously a great ideal to strive toward. Who doesn’t love freedom? Who doesn’t love speech? But then, in practice, every day, gray areas come up.”
- thomasmeeks 8y ago
  I am really impressed that Melissa is not only living in the gray, but defending the wisdom of doing so.
nabla9 8y ago
The size and reach of FB poses new questions: - Is it (de facto) public utility. - Does it have a public service responsibility. - Should there be "program content regulation" equivalents for internet social media? - Should FB stick to removing only illegal content, or should it start doing social control. Misinformation is not generally illegal and what is not socially acceptable is much larger set than what is illegal. Removing Holocaust denials is a start, but what if all FoxNews content disappears too?
extralego 8y ago
Is the reason for the curated/managed feed related to what type of original content advertisers want their ads beside? Or is it merely that curating the feed allows for retaining a user’s attention? If truly the latter, that is just atrocious.

66 points by panarky 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pwned1 8y ago

It's amusing to watch the old media pivot against free speech lately.

lmm 8y ago

This article actually made me more sympathetic to Facebook. These issues are not as simple as the NYT thinks, and Facebook seems to be making every effort to navigate them in a principled way.

atomical 8y ago
Isn't it pretty simple when a corporation is posting fake news? Shouldn't corporations know better and be held to higher standards than individuals?
- mieseratte 8y ago
  I'm honestly not sure if you're speaking of Facebook or the New York Times here...
- lmm 8y ago
  > Isn't it pretty simple when a corporation is posting fake news? By who's definition of "fake news"? Do you want anyone who contradicts the current US administration thrown off the platform? Anyone who contradicts current Facebook leadership? > Shouldn't corporations know better and be held to higher standards than individuals? Corporations aren't magic. I have a corporation, its HQ is my home and I pay ~$20 every year to stay registered, it's not like that corporation knows any better than I do. One of my hometown churches publishes a newsletter that's essentially whatever my dad wanted to write. I would expect a lot of niche or local news sources are similar.
  - athenot 8y ago
    "Fake news" is often interpreted as "news I don't agree with". That is not the definition. News can be defined as genuine if it's truthful, in reporting facts, in reporting uncertainties & limits of current knowledge, in reporting potential conflicts of interests and finally in explicitely outlining when unproven opinions are put forth, whether by the author or by an interviewee. News is deemed fake when it fails to be truthful. While there can be some grey areas, or perhaps poor journalistic standards, there are plenty of cases where articles fail to disclose conflict of interest, put forth unfounded opinions and intentionally mislead the reader to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is fake news.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > there are plenty of cases where articles fail to disclose conflict of interest, put forth unfounded opinions and intentionally mislead the reader to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is fake news. "Untruthful" is begging the question. For the rest of it, virtually all news articles fail to disclose the writer's personal biases, put forth unfounded opinions, and intentionally lead the reader to draw particular conclusions. Your proposed standard is hardly any better than "news I don't agree with" in practice.
      - atomical 8y ago
        Could you give an example? For example, all news articles published by Reuters have an unfounded opinion in them?
        lmm 8y ago
        Sure. Let's look at the top article on Reuters as I write this, which happens to be https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-foreign-secretary-hunt-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-risk-idUKKBN1KD13J https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-for... Second paragraph opens "With just over eight months left until Britain is due to leave the EU, there is little clarity about how trade will flow" - sounds like unfounded opinion to me. Third paragraph talks about "a step that could spook financial markets and dislocate trade flows across Europe and beyond." which is either vacuously true (anything "could" anything else - but then why say so?) or baseless speculation. "few diplomats expect the deal to be struck until months later." is unsubstantiated opinion - even if it were possible to verify who these "diplomats" were, having a news article report an opinion second-hand doesn't make it any less an opinion. Likewise "some investors have said such a chaotic scenario would seriously damage both the economies of Britain and the EU over the short term.", and "they cast as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration.". I doubt the second half (below "DISORDERLY BREXIT?") will be much different. I'm not trying to attack Reuters here - they do better than many news sources - but any kind of substantive reporting requires making judgements on questions that are politicised or, often, inherently political. Even the most skilled journalist will make calls that eventually turn out to be laughable in hindsight. I want committed, engaged journalism - reducing reporting to a bloodless "A said this, B said that, readers at home must make up their own minds" would not be an improvement - but the price of that is that journalists must have the freedom to make honest mistakes. And that in turn means tolerating the dishonest kind, unless and until we can come up with some clear bright lines that separate the one from the other.
- bena 8y ago
  Why? Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? I'll give you that a corporation with the goal of providing accurate information to people should have a higher standard of publishing information that is correct. But if, say, Heinz, wanted to say that people in China can't drive or that the Holocaust is a fiction, why is it the company's responsibility to get that right? Their responsibility is baked beans and ketchup. Like lmm, this article made me more sympathetic to Facebook. And that the NYT is sort of glossing over things. I'd like to hear their policy on "fake news" and all that. I applaud Facebook for defending InfoWars in this instance even though they disagree with them. I applaud Facebook for defending Holocaust deniers even though they disagree with them. It is the absolute hardest thing in the world to defend the worst when they've done nothing wrong. We glorify people who say things like "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". But when it comes time to actually put that sentiment into action, we waffle. Only allowing speech we agree with is not allowing speech to be free. Freedom must include the freedom to be stupid or it is no freedom at all.
  - pwned1 8y ago
    My downvoted to hell comment below is meant to point this out. I've been noticing large media companies, like NYT and even a New Yorker article I read this morning, subtly advocating in favor or limits on free speech, as though they (or people they agree with) should be arbiters of truth and virtue. The parent article even expands the idea of articles that should be banned into the realm of "conspiracy theories." To say that the article is simply reporting on the issue is false. There's a clear bias in the language of the article in favor of suppressing unpopular speech.
  - atomical 8y ago
    > Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other? Their goal isn't to connect people. That sounds like something Zuckerberg would say. Their goal is to make money from their users data. Facebook is responsible because they have algorithms which show and hide items in the news feed. If they merely showed what was posted without any sophisticated algorithms I think they could claim some innocence. Facebook doesn't care about freedom. They care about not pissing off their conservative user base and losing them to other sites, like Gab, or perhaps Chinese clones that Zuckerberg is worried about.
forgottenpass 8y ago
> Facebook seems to be making every effort to navigate them in a principled way I, an adult, can not share pictures of a certain part of day-to-day life with other adults. It is legal to do so and common on other platforms (e.g. Twitter). What principled position have they taken here?

dekhn 8y ago

having worked for a large internet company, I have to say the challenges of dealing with content like this is much more complicated than the NY Times appreciates.

wbronitsky 8y ago
I would be interested in what ways you think that silencing Nazis and Holocaust deniers is complicated. Can you explain? Edit: Thanks all. I'll know better than to kick the troll hive next time.
- astonex 8y ago
  Why do you even want to silence anyone from posting in their own social network. I don't think companies should become moral authorities. Leave it to the network to naturally filter out content they don't want.
- reuben_scratton 8y ago
  Who gets to define who a Nazi is? If I say that 4 million died in the Holocaust rather than 6 million, is that Holocaust denial?
  - wbronitsky 8y ago
    The issues raised by the article are not about morally grey areas, they are about overt Holocaust denial and InfoWars. InfoWars caused a person to shoot up a pizzeria. This is not a place where a slippery slope argument can be made. Edit: funny that people are downvoting me because they think I'm speaking against free speech, thus silencing my opinion.
    - ng12 8y ago
      You think some guy who's willing to shoot up a pizzeria is going to reevaluate his life choices because he can't post his conspiracy theories on Facebook?

orev 8y ago

I think Facebook is in a tough position. Making hard rules around what is allowed and what is not is very difficult, as there’s a whole spectrum of ideas that could or could not fall into them. It’s too easy to think that everything should be clear-cut, but reality is messy. I think Zuckerberg was also shaken by the Congressional hearing, and seems to be cowtowing a bit to Conservatives after the raking he got from Cruz. He is trying to avoid the appearance of being partisan, but also trying to uphold ideals of reason and truth. That’s a no-win situation when one side has made it their fundamental platform to oppose reason and truth.

mistermann 8y ago
> That’s a no-win situation when one side has made it their fundamental platform to oppose reason and truth. That's a fairly extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. Do you have any evidence of this? Care to share your most compelling piece?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- iron0013 8y ago
  mistermann, I've noticed that a lot of your activity on HN seems to consist of demanding that others do research for your own edification. I wonder if you'd consider, please, recognizing that other people also value their own time and energy, and actually expending some effort to educate yourself. It seems like the polite and responsible thing to do. Thanks!
  - mistermann 8y ago
    If you reread, I think you will find that I'm not asking people to do research, but rather to back up non-trivial claims of "fact" with actual evidence. Ideas matter. Culture is not an imaginary concept. It is real, and it matters. You can safely ignore it in the short run with few problems, but ignore it in the long run and you will may suffer dire consequences. Certain words have very precise meanings, that's why we have synonyms in our language. Improper choice of words matters, to varying degrees. As does improper "choice" of "facts". The degree to which an individual and overall collective society understands and correctly interprets (to the best of our ability) reality, and honestly acknowledges the that which they know to be true, matters. Some lying may be justified in an "the ends justifies the means" sense, sometimes, but be careful that you don't get into a habit of it lest you lose the ability to recognize when you're lying. This goes doubly, at least, for the media. Repeat something enough times and people start to believe it whether it is true or not. In practice, perception is reality, and I think you can observe this theory in action in any internet forum, including this one (on certain topics), as well as the overall political discourse we're enjoying in the West at the moment. And when I say this, I am keeping in mind this: https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html Censoring (via outright deletion/banning, or via imperfect downvote-based mechanisms) sincere and legitimate opinions that may differ from the current mainstream fashion can result in perception bubbles forming within social media communities. In the long run, this can affect people's perception of reality, and it matters. The universe doesn't care whether you agree or not. I hope you might reconsider the content of my past and future posts with these ideas in mind. EDIT (since I am currently censored): > Great! Both you and the guy that you are originally challenging seem to agree that facts and truth matter. So what's the problem? He is stating opinions as if they are facts, that's the problem. > I think I'll do you the favor of not addressing most of the rest of your post, which seems a little... unfocused. Consider the possibility that it isn't me that is in need of a favor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

deegles 8y ago

I saw it put succinctly like this: "Don't give a platform to people who wouldn't give you one."

merpnderp 8y ago
That certainly goes against the free speech traditions of Facebook's home country. Why should Facebook lower itself to the least common denominator? Why not act with integrity and principle and uphold dearly held values like free speech?
- maym86 8y ago
  If someone came into your house and shouted rasist lies you're within your rights to kick them out. Free speech relates to protecting people from the government punishing or silencing people for what they say. It doesn't apply in the same way to private spaces or platforms. It's entirely reasonable to not provide a platform for antisemitism or other hate speech especially if it's reducing the quality of the platform for other users. Edit: clarity
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    But this isn't someone's house. This is a public square where nearly everyone is invited to speak, and also given tools to block people they don't want to hear. And I never spoke about the 1st Amendment or any of the free speech laws, but of governing principles of the United States - that Democracy only works when all voices are heard. People who don't have a voice might decide this whole Democracy thing isn't working for them and decide they should be heard through violence. And we had 300,000 years of that shit. Democracy is mind boggling special considering our history and every effort should be made to make sure everyone has a seat at the table. And like it or not, Facebook is one of the most important tables these days. Bad ideas should be discussed publicly so that all can see the arguments against. Covering up/hiding such speech doesn't end that speech, it just makes sure that those who believe it never hear a refutation.
    - 8y ago

bjt2n3904 8y ago

The problem that Facebook, Twitter, et. al have run into is this: curating, moderating, (dare I say, policing?) our own feeds of information. This gives them a share of the responsibility for what's posted on their platform, which is something they can't take on -- both practically, and logistically. Back in the day, if you ran an IRC server, you generally ran the service laissez faire. Your chief concern was providing the service. If someone was sharing illegal content, that wasn't your responsibility any more than state governments sharing culpability for roads that facilitate robberies. And behavior? Who cares what you do, unless you're attacking the service? Channels themselves could come up with their own set of rules, if they wanted. You want to restrict swearing? No problem. Only registered accounts? Fine. No discussion of politics? Who cares? If you came crying to the server administrators, because you were unfairly banned from #atheism/religion/linux for walking in and trying to have an honest debate, they'd shrug their shoulders. Not their problem! What a ridiculous state of affairs to have the service administrators make a network wide rule: "No saying untrue things", or "Don't be mean, but only to certain groups of people". It isn't their job to decide what is true, or what is hurtful. "Oooh, but bjt2n3904, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook! There's this great XKCD comic where he shows mean people the door, and..." -- Yes. I get it. But the fact remains, the 1A is a good principle to adhere to, even if you aren't the government. Policing your own little channel of the internet is feasible, if you so choose. Policing the entire internet is madness -- especially when it comes to subjective things like "hate". Everyone has a different level of tolerance for putting up with jerks on the internet. One person might feel they're being targeted with harassment, another might just call that "Monday". The solution isn't to have Twitter declare how everyone should behave, the solution is for Twitter to push that decision to the user, and provide them with effective tools for filtering and blocking people.

superflyguy 8y ago
"..curating, moderating, (dare I say, policing?) our own feeds of information. This gives them a share of the responsibility for what's posted on their platform" Is this actually true? I've seen it mentioned in a few places. Why isn't "obviously we can't vet every comment prior to it appearing but we do our best with a combination of humans and scripts to remove stuff that breaks our rules" an adequate defense?

Const-me 8y ago

The issue is very challenging, but it needs to be solved regardless. IMO, the key to do it right is transparency. For example, reddit does that, and unlike FB they’re not afraid to talk to journalists about their content policing, see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778 A quote from that article: Melissa Tidwell, Reddit’s general counsel, told me, “I am so tired of people who repeat the mantra ‘Free speech!’ but then have nothing else to say. Look, free speech is obviously a great ideal to strive toward. Who doesn’t love freedom? Who doesn’t love speech? But then, in practice, every day, gray areas come up.”

thomasmeeks 8y ago
I am really impressed that Melissa is not only living in the gray, but defending the wisdom of doing so.

nabla9 8y ago

The size and reach of FB poses new questions: - Is it (de facto) public utility. - Does it have a public service responsibility. - Should there be "program content regulation" equivalents for internet social media? - Should FB stick to removing only illegal content, or should it start doing social control. Misinformation is not generally illegal and what is not socially acceptable is much larger set than what is illegal. Removing Holocaust denials is a start, but what if all FoxNews content disappears too?

extralego 8y ago

Is the reason for the curated/managed feed related to what type of original content advertisers want their ads beside? Or is it merely that curating the feed allows for retaining a user’s attention? If truly the latter, that is just atrocious.