8 ms·

"Communities could form their own rules and norms around what's acceptable" is exactly the problem. The criticism against Facebook is that it failed to stop thi

"Communities could form their own rules and norms around what's acceptable" is exactly the problem. The criticism against Facebook is that it failed to stop this, and communities emerged with norms too far away from mainstream. Facebook "didn't do enough" to enforce mainstream norms on all its dark corners. Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true. More decentralization is a recipe to spiral further and further into fragmented echo chambers with their own self-reinforcing ideologies and their own alternative facts.

ForHackernews 8y ago
But with fewer people subject to them! There's always been echo chambers of extremists out there, but they aren't big enough to swing elections in most democracies.
philwelch 8y ago
> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true. No. Facebook critics want centralization so that people exposed to viewpoints within the narrow, mainstream window of acceptable opinion and completely isolated from anything outside that window.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Yes. It's telling that the biggest critics of Facebook in particular are the mainstream media, who find their monopoly on public discourse being threatened.
  - seppin 8y ago
    Threatened by conspiracy and outright fake news. That's not just their problem, it's ours as well.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Threatened by conspiratorial and non-mainstream news. Which is very often, but not always, false.
- cynicalkane 8y ago
  Did you read the article? Much of it was about authorities cracking down on free speech on Facebook. The article is saying the opposite of what you think it’s saying. But as an aside, free speech is the biggest thing keeping the press alive. The “mainstream media” has much more to fear from authorities than from fringe alt-politics. This has been true through history and it’s true now.
  - zrobotics 8y ago
    Especially considering the current US administration, or at least the president, has repeatedly expressed wishes to censor the press. Seems like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face by calling for increased censorship. Do they honestly think that people who hold fringe views will stop holding them if they can't express them on Facebook?
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      It's not a question of who is allowed to say what, it is a question of who Facebook gives their big megaphones to. Crap like beforeitsnews used to spread like crazy through Republican Facebook circles
      - philwelch 8y ago
        Facebook's algorithms are (were?), at least supposedly, optimized for engagement. Yes, this unintentionally enables clickbait propagandists, because clickbait propagandists can get really, really good at writing content that delivers high engagement. But it enables clickbait propagandists on all sides and is only a problem because Facebook users are flawed human beings who consume too much clickbait for their own good. You might as well blame 7/11 and Kroger for giving "big megaphones" to celebrity gossip magazines and candy bars because they sell better than scientific journals and fresh arugula. The question is whether Facebook either is or should be putting their thumb on the scale based on the ideas being presented. The idea of a naive engagement algorithm that, in a roundabout fashion, shows people what they want to see might be shitty, but only because most people actually want the shit. The idea of a "truthiness algorithm" or a "hate algorithm" that de-ranks content that Facebook finds "false" or "problematic" is fucking dystopian, and yet it's exactly what Facebook's critics are calling for.
ordu 8y ago
> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true. The sad part of it, to my mind, is those who critisize Facebook for this want to be exposed for opposing viewpoints to be able to fight opposing viewpoints. I do not want my viewpoints were exposed to those who oppose it. Opposition is too way ready to fight, I'm not. I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them. Even your comment hints the same: you want exposure to make some viewpoints impossible, to fight them to death. These critics are declaring openness and freedom but they are authoritarian by their nature, they want to one (their) viewpoint to win all others. It is irremovable contradiction between declared goals and real ones that cannot be fixed by Facebook. The story from Bangladesh shows it in some sense. Authoritarian reign wants to be exposed to opposing views to fight them. Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views, they want to expose to their views only those who is ready to accept them. SJW want to be exposed to opposing views to be able to scream "fire him". They also want to expose others to their views to hurt them. Trolls of different colors and sizes want their shit to be exposed to a fan of public opinion and to make fun of hurting others. I do not want my views to be exposed for general public because the goals of that public are under doubt, they do not want to learn my viewpoint to shift their beliefs close to mine, they want to learn my viewpoint to fight my viewpoint. The trouble is not a degree of exposure, the trouble is people thinking that contradicting viewpoints should fight to death. And too many people looking not for viewpoints but for a fight of viewpoints. Of course it leads viewpoints to guard theirselves in a fragmented echo chambers, to self-reinforcing ideologies.
- beat 8y ago
  > Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views Students do not want to be exposed to arrest and torture either. There's the problem with your analysis.
  - ordu 8y ago
    Of course they do not want, so they do not want their views were exposed to everyone. Therefore they want an echo chamber for chosen ones. It is not a fault of Facebook, it is a direct consequence of authorian reign behaviour.
baddox 8y ago
I don’t think there is that much to fear from small privately-hosted radical online communities, other than obvious potential threats that police should be on the lookout for regardless. I think the problem is that these huge social network companies actively push people into narrower and more radical subcommunities because those subcommunities probably perform better on whatever trendy metrics they’re focusing on this quarter. You certainly see that with YouTube. If you watch a short clip criticizing or discussing some radical politician or online personality, for weeks you’ll see a ton of video recommendations for that personality’s actual videos or from his supporters.
naasking 8y ago
> More decentralization is a recipe to spiral further and further into fragmented echo chambers with their own self-reinforcing ideologies and their own alternative facts. Except the problem possibly isn't decentralized, separate echo chambers, it's centralized, connected echo chambers. Facebook was a single source through which you could easily find your echo chamber of choice, with a standard interface, no need to login or commit to anything, but you could easily find and follow the type of content you like. If instead each echo chamber needed to set up its own site, with its own sign up and follow process, you weed out a lot of the fast and easy paths to disseminating bad information.

ForHackernews 8y ago

But with fewer people subject to them! There's always been echo chambers of extremists out there, but they aren't big enough to swing elections in most democracies.

philwelch 8y ago

> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true. No. Facebook critics want centralization so that people exposed to viewpoints within the narrow, mainstream window of acceptable opinion and completely isolated from anything outside that window.

ummonk 8y ago
Yes. It's telling that the biggest critics of Facebook in particular are the mainstream media, who find their monopoly on public discourse being threatened.
- seppin 8y ago
  Threatened by conspiracy and outright fake news. That's not just their problem, it's ours as well.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Threatened by conspiratorial and non-mainstream news. Which is very often, but not always, false.
cynicalkane 8y ago
Did you read the article? Much of it was about authorities cracking down on free speech on Facebook. The article is saying the opposite of what you think it’s saying. But as an aside, free speech is the biggest thing keeping the press alive. The “mainstream media” has much more to fear from authorities than from fringe alt-politics. This has been true through history and it’s true now.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Especially considering the current US administration, or at least the president, has repeatedly expressed wishes to censor the press. Seems like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face by calling for increased censorship. Do they honestly think that people who hold fringe views will stop holding them if they can't express them on Facebook?
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    It's not a question of who is allowed to say what, it is a question of who Facebook gives their big megaphones to. Crap like beforeitsnews used to spread like crazy through Republican Facebook circles
    - philwelch 8y ago
      Facebook's algorithms are (were?), at least supposedly, optimized for engagement. Yes, this unintentionally enables clickbait propagandists, because clickbait propagandists can get really, really good at writing content that delivers high engagement. But it enables clickbait propagandists on all sides and is only a problem because Facebook users are flawed human beings who consume too much clickbait for their own good. You might as well blame 7/11 and Kroger for giving "big megaphones" to celebrity gossip magazines and candy bars because they sell better than scientific journals and fresh arugula. The question is whether Facebook either is or should be putting their thumb on the scale based on the ideas being presented. The idea of a naive engagement algorithm that, in a roundabout fashion, shows people what they want to see might be shitty, but only because most people actually want the shit. The idea of a "truthiness algorithm" or a "hate algorithm" that de-ranks content that Facebook finds "false" or "problematic" is fucking dystopian, and yet it's exactly what Facebook's critics are calling for.

ordu 8y ago

> Facebook critics generally want more centralization so that people are exposed to opposing viewpoints and a uniform sensibility on what is and isn't true. The sad part of it, to my mind, is those who critisize Facebook for this want to be exposed for opposing viewpoints to be able to fight opposing viewpoints. I do not want my viewpoints were exposed to those who oppose it. Opposition is too way ready to fight, I'm not. I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them. Even your comment hints the same: you want exposure to make some viewpoints impossible, to fight them to death. These critics are declaring openness and freedom but they are authoritarian by their nature, they want to one (their) viewpoint to win all others. It is irremovable contradiction between declared goals and real ones that cannot be fixed by Facebook. The story from Bangladesh shows it in some sense. Authoritarian reign wants to be exposed to opposing views to fight them. Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views, they want to expose to their views only those who is ready to accept them. SJW want to be exposed to opposing views to be able to scream "fire him". They also want to expose others to their views to hurt them. Trolls of different colors and sizes want their shit to be exposed to a fan of public opinion and to make fun of hurting others. I do not want my views to be exposed for general public because the goals of that public are under doubt, they do not want to learn my viewpoint to shift their beliefs close to mine, they want to learn my viewpoint to fight my viewpoint. The trouble is not a degree of exposure, the trouble is people thinking that contradicting viewpoints should fight to death. And too many people looking not for viewpoints but for a fight of viewpoints. Of course it leads viewpoints to guard theirselves in a fragmented echo chambers, to self-reinforcing ideologies.

beat 8y ago
> Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views Students do not want to be exposed to arrest and torture either. There's the problem with your analysis.
- ordu 8y ago
  Of course they do not want, so they do not want their views were exposed to everyone. Therefore they want an echo chamber for chosen ones. It is not a fault of Facebook, it is a direct consequence of authorian reign behaviour.

baddox 8y ago

I don’t think there is that much to fear from small privately-hosted radical online communities, other than obvious potential threats that police should be on the lookout for regardless. I think the problem is that these huge social network companies actively push people into narrower and more radical subcommunities because those subcommunities probably perform better on whatever trendy metrics they’re focusing on this quarter. You certainly see that with YouTube. If you watch a short clip criticizing or discussing some radical politician or online personality, for weeks you’ll see a ton of video recommendations for that personality’s actual videos or from his supporters.

naasking 8y ago

> More decentralization is a recipe to spiral further and further into fragmented echo chambers with their own self-reinforcing ideologies and their own alternative facts. Except the problem possibly isn't decentralized, separate echo chambers, it's centralized, connected echo chambers. Facebook was a single source through which you could easily find your echo chamber of choice, with a standard interface, no need to login or commit to anything, but you could easily find and follow the type of content you like. If instead each echo chamber needed to set up its own site, with its own sign up and follow process, you weed out a lot of the fast and easy paths to disseminating bad information.