5 ms·

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 s

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.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. Facebook thought they could let an algorithm be their editor, and it didn't work out so well. They fired their editorial staff for "breaking news" in August 2016, and the very next day, a fake story about "Ann Coulter outed as a socialist traitor!" was at the top of the list.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        > When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? The news media does a damn fine job of that all by themselves: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion-effect.pdf https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contag... Also, I mentioned candy bars for a reason. The leading cause of preventable death isn't mass shootings, it's obesity. And, while Facebook doesn't really have an incentive in inspiring mass shootings (unlike the mainstream media!), 7/11 has an incentive in inspiring you to drink a soda and eat a candy bar, and you're orders of magnitude more likely to eventually die from doing too much of that. > Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Anonymous dudes spinning tales on the internet make for engaging content that a lot of people want to read. Conspiracy theories are a time-honored tradition ever since the CIA had Kennedy assassinated because he was going to reveal the truth about the alien spacecraft that crashed at Roswell and was being held at Area 51. Everyone knows that. Setting aside the obvious nutjobs, you're literally calling for Facebook to enforce an oligopoly of "well established and respected papers" by making it harder for independent journalists and bloggers to get their message out. Or, at the very least, you're expressing an unwarranted level of faith in Facebook's ability to distinguish normal bloggers from nutjobs. Especially when you and I both know that the words "nutjob" and "conspiracy theorist" will be defined and used in ways that are equivalent in meaning to the words "dissident" and "whistleblower". > Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. When I go to Facebook, the only "material" I see is from other Facebook users whom I follow and from advertisers. It's bad enough that Facebook ranks this stuff with their "special sauce", but if they "curate" my feed by making "editorial decisions", they have stepped out of their lane. If I want to follow someone on Facebook, I want to see what they post. I don't want Facebook hiding it from me because they don't agree with who I follow, or with what the people I follow choose to share.
- ams6110 8y ago
  All administrations want to censor the press, or more generally speech, that they find inconvenient.
philwelch 8y ago
> 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. As early as the 18th century, it was obvious that in any elected democracy, the concern wasn't top-down repression from "the authorities", but rather either the tyranny of the majority, or the risk of some repressive demagogue rising to power on an explicit platform of crushing the rights of some unpopular minority. Mainstream media outlets within a democracy are not going to be shut down or silenced. Nobody would ever stand for such a thing, and such a move would be so unpopular as to end the career of anyone who attempted it. If something is popular enough to be labelled "mainstream", it is too popular to ban or censor, and is at no real risk from the authorities. (Outside of a democracy, of course, whatever "mainstream media" exists only exists at the bidding of the authorities in the first place.) There may be more of a risk if there truly is no mainstream, but this only increases the incentive for the mainstream media to protect their oligopoly which is what they are doing when they attack Facebook. What people have and do stand for is for silencing "fringe alt-politics" by any means necessary. It wasn't that long ago that people were driven away from their careers and livelihoods for being real or suspected communists. These days, people are driven away from their careers and livelihoods for other real or suspected ideological heresies. Frankly, having marginally less free speech actually benefits the mainstream media the same way that all forms of regulation and government interference benefit established incumbents and hurt the little guy. CNN and the Washington Post have the resources to comply with complicated and ever-changing sets of rules and regulations. Individual commentators do not, unless they can get a lot of money, which is kind of hard when your primary sources of money are companies like YouTube and Patreon with a history of silencing people in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that Facebook's critics want Facebook to silence people.

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.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. Facebook thought they could let an algorithm be their editor, and it didn't work out so well. They fired their editorial staff for "breaking news" in August 2016, and the very next day, a fake story about "Ann Coulter outed as a socialist traitor!" was at the top of the list.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      > When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? The news media does a damn fine job of that all by themselves: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion-effect.pdf https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contag... Also, I mentioned candy bars for a reason. The leading cause of preventable death isn't mass shootings, it's obesity. And, while Facebook doesn't really have an incentive in inspiring mass shootings (unlike the mainstream media!), 7/11 has an incentive in inspiring you to drink a soda and eat a candy bar, and you're orders of magnitude more likely to eventually die from doing too much of that. > Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Anonymous dudes spinning tales on the internet make for engaging content that a lot of people want to read. Conspiracy theories are a time-honored tradition ever since the CIA had Kennedy assassinated because he was going to reveal the truth about the alien spacecraft that crashed at Roswell and was being held at Area 51. Everyone knows that. Setting aside the obvious nutjobs, you're literally calling for Facebook to enforce an oligopoly of "well established and respected papers" by making it harder for independent journalists and bloggers to get their message out. Or, at the very least, you're expressing an unwarranted level of faith in Facebook's ability to distinguish normal bloggers from nutjobs. Especially when you and I both know that the words "nutjob" and "conspiracy theorist" will be defined and used in ways that are equivalent in meaning to the words "dissident" and "whistleblower". > Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. When I go to Facebook, the only "material" I see is from other Facebook users whom I follow and from advertisers. It's bad enough that Facebook ranks this stuff with their "special sauce", but if they "curate" my feed by making "editorial decisions", they have stepped out of their lane. If I want to follow someone on Facebook, I want to see what they post. I don't want Facebook hiding it from me because they don't agree with who I follow, or with what the people I follow choose to share.
ams6110 8y ago
All administrations want to censor the press, or more generally speech, that they find inconvenient.

philwelch 8y ago

> 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. As early as the 18th century, it was obvious that in any elected democracy, the concern wasn't top-down repression from "the authorities", but rather either the tyranny of the majority, or the risk of some repressive demagogue rising to power on an explicit platform of crushing the rights of some unpopular minority. Mainstream media outlets within a democracy are not going to be shut down or silenced. Nobody would ever stand for such a thing, and such a move would be so unpopular as to end the career of anyone who attempted it. If something is popular enough to be labelled "mainstream", it is too popular to ban or censor, and is at no real risk from the authorities. (Outside of a democracy, of course, whatever "mainstream media" exists only exists at the bidding of the authorities in the first place.) There may be more of a risk if there truly is no mainstream, but this only increases the incentive for the mainstream media to protect their oligopoly which is what they are doing when they attack Facebook. What people have and do stand for is for silencing "fringe alt-politics" by any means necessary. It wasn't that long ago that people were driven away from their careers and livelihoods for being real or suspected communists. These days, people are driven away from their careers and livelihoods for other real or suspected ideological heresies. Frankly, having marginally less free speech actually benefits the mainstream media the same way that all forms of regulation and government interference benefit established incumbents and hurt the little guy. CNN and the Washington Post have the resources to comply with complicated and ever-changing sets of rules and regulations. Individual commentators do not, unless they can get a lot of money, which is kind of hard when your primary sources of money are companies like YouTube and Patreon with a history of silencing people in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that Facebook's critics want Facebook to silence people.