7 ms·

Whether malice or incompetence the key thing is that it's blocking a legit post with no recourse. That's a serious problem given that it's such a core sharing p

Whether malice or incompetence the key thing is that it's blocking a legit post with no recourse. That's a serious problem given that it's such a core sharing platform for so many people.

lgeorget 8y ago
On the other hand, Facebook is not a soapbox on a public place, it's a website owned and hosted by a private company which has precise criteria to decide which publications are more desirable than others.
- noobiemcfoob 8y ago
  Where is this precise criteria? Can anyone explain it for a layperson? While we all know it is the aggregation of many different algorithms at work, the results of those algorithms have consequences. Claiming that it's fine because the algorithm exists is begging the question.
  - lgeorget 8y ago
    If they have decided (consciously or not, because sometimes algorithms have unpredicted consequences) to not have something published then they are free not to publish it. It's not like it's a public service run by the government.
- stale2002 8y ago
  If Facebook is a publishing company, then they should be treated as such. They should lose their immunity to lawsuits for user created content on their publishing platform.
  - lgeorget 8y ago
    They should be liable for what is published on their platform but they certainly cannot be guilty of _not publishing_ something.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      By refusing to publish something, they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. Losing the immunity that they get by being a neutral platform, means that current content on FB, that they were previously not liable for, they would now become liable for. For example, if a user posts something illegal on FB, then Facebook could be sued, even if they remove the content as soon as they became aware of it. (In the same way that the NYT is responsible for the content on it's writers). Think about how phone companies have immunity from someone making illegal phone calls, and then phone companies becoming liable for damages that they previously were not liable for previously.
      - lgeorget 8y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, what are the legal basis for that "immunity" and the fact they lost it somehow?
        beagle3 8y ago
        For telecomms, this is known as “common carrier” status; it means you are not liable for what goes through you, but to keep that status you must not filter anything either. If you do filter, you’re supposed to lose that status - and then you become liable for what goes through your pipes. I’m not sure there’s a similar legal concept for publishers.
  - brianmcc 8y ago
    I've increasingly felt that fb, twitter etc with their filters and algorithms are more publisher than platform. They indisputably go to great lengths to control what you see ergo they are not simply facilitators.
- brianmcc 8y ago
  But that is a problem that's my point. They sell themselves as allowing us to 'connect' - bless their kind selfless hearts - then filter, prioritize, and suppress what we choose to connect with. At this stage 'private company yada yada yada' is wilfully missing the point of just how much Facebook is the social media entity for a good chunk of the world.
  - lgeorget 8y ago
    But it's no secret that the content you see on Facebook is the content Facebook and advertisers want you to see, not content you'd be interesting it in the first place. Maybe I'm stubborn or stupid but I fail to see the problem. What make you think Facebook should have the interest of their users at heart to begin with, except to attract more users? The users are not their customers, the advertisers are. And anyway, nobody is forcing anyone to use Facebook or any social media at all.
    - brianmcc 8y ago
      You forget perhaps that we HN folk are not typical. What you describe is not widely accepted, not by a long way. To most users FB is absolutely a pure(ish) content exchange medium. They treat posting like sending SMS or what have you, an 'open' exhange, and not entirely unreasonably IMHO given 11+ years of precedent. With that in mind today's event becomes significant. It rams home that FB is in control. And frankly that's new to most people!
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        They treat posting like sending SMS or what have you, an 'open' exhange, and not entirely unreasonably IMHO given 11+ years of precedent. Back when SMS was new, people treated it like it had time end delivery guarantees, even though it had neither, and messages could sometimes be delayed by 20 minutes or an hour. I even had a girlfriend accuse me of lying because of that.
        sobani 8y ago
- denzil_correa 8y ago
  > which has precise criteria to decide which publications are more desirable than others. The issue is that we don't know these criteria.
stcredzero 8y ago
Whether malice or incompetence the key thing is that it's blocking a legit post with no recourse. Is The Guardian a legit source? What does legit source even mean? As far as I can tell, it means, "Has a strong brand." Given what we know about brand decay and bait and switch, are our criteria even remotely useful and valid? From what I've seen, I don't think so. It seems like many "legit" news sources with failing business models are cashing in their brand reputation, while it lasts, for some link-baiting and public manipulation.
- ahakki 8y ago
  It is deemed a legit source on the matter because the info in the article is correct.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Then why not take the evaluation down to that level? Why do we even need brand level proxies in 2018? It would probably be best if we evaluated down to the article level of granularity, at least.
- gaius 8y ago
  Is The Guardian a legit source? It’s readership numbers have been declining and some of its writers churn out complete gibberish but it has been around for a long time and is generally considered to be a serious newspaper in the U.K. Disclaimer: worked on their website in the late ‘90’s
- liftbigweights 8y ago
  > What does legit source even mean? It used to mean something that was professionally run and trusted. Something that had earned people's trust. Unfortunately, now it means "those who I agree with" because we live in a highly partisan environment - which the "trusted sources" had a hand in creating.
- MrsPeaches 8y ago
  It seems like The Guardian is actually trying out new things that seem to be working. Interesting article about them here: https://digiday.com/media/guardian-improbably-put-way-path-profits/ https://digiday.com/media/guardian-improbably-put-way-path-p...

Whether malice or incompetence the key thing is that it's blocking a legit post with no recourse. That's a serious problem given that it's such a core sharing platform for so many people.

lgeorget 8y ago

On the other hand, Facebook is not a soapbox on a public place, it's a website owned and hosted by a private company which has precise criteria to decide which publications are more desirable than others.

noobiemcfoob 8y ago
Where is this precise criteria? Can anyone explain it for a layperson? While we all know it is the aggregation of many different algorithms at work, the results of those algorithms have consequences. Claiming that it's fine because the algorithm exists is begging the question.
- lgeorget 8y ago
  If they have decided (consciously or not, because sometimes algorithms have unpredicted consequences) to not have something published then they are free not to publish it. It's not like it's a public service run by the government.
stale2002 8y ago
If Facebook is a publishing company, then they should be treated as such. They should lose their immunity to lawsuits for user created content on their publishing platform.
- lgeorget 8y ago
  They should be liable for what is published on their platform but they certainly cannot be guilty of _not publishing_ something.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    By refusing to publish something, they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. Losing the immunity that they get by being a neutral platform, means that current content on FB, that they were previously not liable for, they would now become liable for. For example, if a user posts something illegal on FB, then Facebook could be sued, even if they remove the content as soon as they became aware of it. (In the same way that the NYT is responsible for the content on it's writers). Think about how phone companies have immunity from someone making illegal phone calls, and then phone companies becoming liable for damages that they previously were not liable for previously.
    - lgeorget 8y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, what are the legal basis for that "immunity" and the fact they lost it somehow?
      - beagle3 8y ago
        For telecomms, this is known as “common carrier” status; it means you are not liable for what goes through you, but to keep that status you must not filter anything either. If you do filter, you’re supposed to lose that status - and then you become liable for what goes through your pipes. I’m not sure there’s a similar legal concept for publishers.
- brianmcc 8y ago
  I've increasingly felt that fb, twitter etc with their filters and algorithms are more publisher than platform. They indisputably go to great lengths to control what you see ergo they are not simply facilitators.
brianmcc 8y ago
But that is a problem that's my point. They sell themselves as allowing us to 'connect' - bless their kind selfless hearts - then filter, prioritize, and suppress what we choose to connect with. At this stage 'private company yada yada yada' is wilfully missing the point of just how much Facebook is the social media entity for a good chunk of the world.
- lgeorget 8y ago
  But it's no secret that the content you see on Facebook is the content Facebook and advertisers want you to see, not content you'd be interesting it in the first place. Maybe I'm stubborn or stupid but I fail to see the problem. What make you think Facebook should have the interest of their users at heart to begin with, except to attract more users? The users are not their customers, the advertisers are. And anyway, nobody is forcing anyone to use Facebook or any social media at all.
  - brianmcc 8y ago
    You forget perhaps that we HN folk are not typical. What you describe is not widely accepted, not by a long way. To most users FB is absolutely a pure(ish) content exchange medium. They treat posting like sending SMS or what have you, an 'open' exhange, and not entirely unreasonably IMHO given 11+ years of precedent. With that in mind today's event becomes significant. It rams home that FB is in control. And frankly that's new to most people!
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      They treat posting like sending SMS or what have you, an 'open' exhange, and not entirely unreasonably IMHO given 11+ years of precedent. Back when SMS was new, people treated it like it had time end delivery guarantees, even though it had neither, and messages could sometimes be delayed by 20 minutes or an hour. I even had a girlfriend accuse me of lying because of that.
      - sobani 8y ago
denzil_correa 8y ago
> which has precise criteria to decide which publications are more desirable than others. The issue is that we don't know these criteria.

stcredzero 8y ago

Whether malice or incompetence the key thing is that it's blocking a legit post with no recourse. Is The Guardian a legit source? What does legit source even mean? As far as I can tell, it means, "Has a strong brand." Given what we know about brand decay and bait and switch, are our criteria even remotely useful and valid? From what I've seen, I don't think so. It seems like many "legit" news sources with failing business models are cashing in their brand reputation, while it lasts, for some link-baiting and public manipulation.

ahakki 8y ago
It is deemed a legit source on the matter because the info in the article is correct.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Then why not take the evaluation down to that level? Why do we even need brand level proxies in 2018? It would probably be best if we evaluated down to the article level of granularity, at least.
gaius 8y ago
Is The Guardian a legit source? It’s readership numbers have been declining and some of its writers churn out complete gibberish but it has been around for a long time and is generally considered to be a serious newspaper in the U.K. Disclaimer: worked on their website in the late ‘90’s
liftbigweights 8y ago
> What does legit source even mean? It used to mean something that was professionally run and trusted. Something that had earned people's trust. Unfortunately, now it means "those who I agree with" because we live in a highly partisan environment - which the "trusted sources" had a hand in creating.
MrsPeaches 8y ago
It seems like The Guardian is actually trying out new things that seem to be working. Interesting article about them here: https://digiday.com/media/guardian-improbably-put-way-path-profits/ https://digiday.com/media/guardian-improbably-put-way-path-p...