4 ms·

That's not the legal test to determine if someone is afoul of the legal test that Facebook is accused of violating. The wording of the provision they've run af

by ABCLAW 8y ago

That's not the legal test to determine if someone is afoul of the legal test that Facebook is accused of violating. The wording of the provision they've run afoul of is elsewhere in the thread; it disagrees with you. My point is more along the lines of Legal needed to be asleep at the wheel to let a team put together a solution where you literally draw a red line around zip codes to exclude them.

mindslight 8y ago
Sure, it's just kind of a longstanding concept. If I've found the provision you're referencing (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790555), then it's a bit disingenuous to assert Faceboot is automatically in its scope, when it's this status as a conduit versus editor that is the very thing we're grappling with. As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, there are legitimate uses for selecting specific areas at the level of zip codes. Sure, we could hope for Faceboot to do a better implementation based on some intelligence, but that would be asking for a positive action. But by all means, don't let any sort of nuance get in the way of today's two-minute hate! I'm sure all those racists that are about to hit a speed bump will be deeply reconsidering their views.
- dang 8y ago
  Please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    It's very odd that detracting from a two minute hate gets labeled as the flamewar. I get that if everybody commenting is in agreement, then there is no "war". It's just utterly anti-intellectual, and I thought HN was above that.
    - dang 8y ago
      You didn't detract from it, you invoked it. That's the problem with flamey rhetoric.
      - mindslight 8y ago
        The problem with tone policing is that it encourages groupthink, because deviating from consensus assumptions is intrinsically aggressive (no matter how well-couched) while extremely-low-effort agreeable comments pass right through the radar. I understand if the point is simply to keep threads from devolving into sequences of "no yuo", but I did substantiate my call-out with the larger meta-intellectual point being brushed aside. What makes this story "interesting" is the editorialization of services that have traditionally been viewed as conduits, not because it's a place to pile on anti-discrimination piety.
        dang 8y ago
        That argument doesn't hold up empirically. Plenty of HN users are able to disagree substantively without resorting to ranty rhetoric like you did in your last paragraph, and the disagreements are better for it. Lofty descriptions of nobly pursuing truth ("deviating from consensus assumptions") against the groupthinking mob (everybody else!) are mostly self-flattery. People don't post ranty rhetoric because we want to strengthen diversity of opinion or anything like that. We do it because it feels good to vent. The problem is that others take it as a license to vent further, and by the time that process converges, it's all in flames. Flamewar is the ultimate groupthink, by the way; despite what the war parties say, it's always the same.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

mindslight 8y ago

Sure, it's just kind of a longstanding concept. If I've found the provision you're referencing (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790555), then it's a bit disingenuous to assert Faceboot is automatically in its scope, when it's this status as a conduit versus editor that is the very thing we're grappling with. As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, there are legitimate uses for selecting specific areas at the level of zip codes. Sure, we could hope for Faceboot to do a better implementation based on some intelligence, but that would be asking for a positive action. But by all means, don't let any sort of nuance get in the way of today's two-minute hate! I'm sure all those racists that are about to hit a speed bump will be deeply reconsidering their views.

dang 8y ago
Please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN.
- mindslight 8y ago
  It's very odd that detracting from a two minute hate gets labeled as the flamewar. I get that if everybody commenting is in agreement, then there is no "war". It's just utterly anti-intellectual, and I thought HN was above that.
  - dang 8y ago
    You didn't detract from it, you invoked it. That's the problem with flamey rhetoric.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      The problem with tone policing is that it encourages groupthink, because deviating from consensus assumptions is intrinsically aggressive (no matter how well-couched) while extremely-low-effort agreeable comments pass right through the radar. I understand if the point is simply to keep threads from devolving into sequences of "no yuo", but I did substantiate my call-out with the larger meta-intellectual point being brushed aside. What makes this story "interesting" is the editorialization of services that have traditionally been viewed as conduits, not because it's a place to pile on anti-discrimination piety.
      - dang 8y ago
        That argument doesn't hold up empirically. Plenty of HN users are able to disagree substantively without resorting to ranty rhetoric like you did in your last paragraph, and the disagreements are better for it. Lofty descriptions of nobly pursuing truth ("deviating from consensus assumptions") against the groupthinking mob (everybody else!) are mostly self-flattery. People don't post ranty rhetoric because we want to strengthen diversity of opinion or anything like that. We do it because it feels good to vent. The problem is that others take it as a license to vent further, and by the time that process converges, it's all in flames. Flamewar is the ultimate groupthink, by the way; despite what the war parties say, it's always the same.