3 ms·

I think that my comment is pretty much the relevant thing to discuss based on the article. If you disagree please explain why.

dymk 8y ago
1) Asserting the presence of an "American Great Firewall" 2) Asserting the development of an American "social credit system" 3) Describing America's political atmosphere as an "authoritarian regime" 4) Describing Facebook as a "defense contractor" Come on, you know what you're doing
- aerodog 8y ago
  What you're doing is far worse
- resters 8y ago
  Anyone is free to draw a line in the sand to claim that my statements are hyperbole. I don't consider them so. When we read about China, the narrative of American Exceptionalism tells us that it is reasonable to think that China would seriously implement a social credit score but America would not. I think it is foolish to believe that kind of stuff. Let's just look at the facts. We must ask how a social credit system would be useful to any government and wonder how any government would turn down the chance to obtain one. There is already hard evidence that the US Government wants to influence FB's news feed algorithm. Strictly speaking that is not a firewall, but the effect (censorship) is the same. So feel free to belabor the difference between government meddling in the news feed algorithm to promote/demote various ideas and the technology known as China's great firewall. In my view that is a tangential and distracting discussion.
  - mfatica 8y ago
    Controlling the news feed on one site is not nearly comparable to a universal firewall... Many people already have stopped using Facebook
    - resters 8y ago
      > Many people already have stopped using Facebook Yet it is important enough to public opinion that congress undertakes days of hearings with Zuck to try to control the news feed algo?
      - edmundsauto 8y ago
        This is easily explained by the desire of politicians to grab some time on the news. I didn't see much Congressional behavior or followup that suggests they actually cared about (or understood) the privacy issue.
        resters 8y ago
        It’s not a privacy issue, it’s a censorship issue.
- lkrubner 8y ago
  Your comment is disingenuous to a degree that’s comical. You complain about the use of the phrase Great American Firewall. Unless you’ve been living under a rock since 2016 you should be aware of the fears in Congress regarding “Fake News” and the extent to which Congress is trying to outsource the work of censorship to Facebook and other social media outlets. There are multiple articles, each week, that make the front page of Hacker News, on this very topic.
- davidw 8y ago
  Some of the other stuff (the firewall) is clearly incorrect, but after thinking about this a long time, I think it's fair to label the current administration as having some fascists or fascist-curious/adjacent/whatever people. Authoritarian works too. Often, the term gets thrown around too freely by those on the left when they want to disparage someone on the right whose ideas they dislike, so it gets overused. But I think with the disdain for the rule of law, friendliness and admiration of rulers who are certainly authoritarian, and the push to "believe in me, rather than your lying eyes", the term has a place in the conversation.
  - resters 8y ago
    Firewalls don’t only block traffic, they throttle it, log it, and shape it. The US/Facebook firewall is further up the stack than China’s and is more stealthy so rarely blocks any content.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- EnFinlay 8y ago
  I am very surprised by the reaction you're getting.
  - dymk 8y ago
    Some large subset of the HN crowd isn't interested in being civil, or preferring realistic comparisons to hyperbole, when talking about Facebook anymore. The two above comments I made are sitting at moderately positive vote counts, so it makes me happy that at least > 50% of HN is bored of the way we've been discussing this topic for the last few years.
    - resters 8y ago
      It’s not fair to call my comment uncivil.
      - EnFinlay 8y ago
        I don't think the civil comment was directed at you specifically
    - lkrubner 8y ago
      It takes awhile before people gain the ability to downvote, so an aggregate vote of 1 does not imply a 50% split. There is a bias toward positive vote totals, since people can upvote but not downvote when they join Hacker News. On any thread there are more people who can upvote than downvote. It would be useful if Hacker News would either make a magnitude number available or the actual up and down votes. A comment that gets 3 upvotes versus 2 downvotes will have the same total as a comment that has 412 upvotes versus 411 downvotes, but clearly one comment was ignored while the other struck a nerve.
skybrian 8y ago
It's a bunch of vague analogies, asserted without evidence. This isn't useful. We already know lots of people hate Facebook.

dymk 8y ago

1) Asserting the presence of an "American Great Firewall" 2) Asserting the development of an American "social credit system" 3) Describing America's political atmosphere as an "authoritarian regime" 4) Describing Facebook as a "defense contractor" Come on, you know what you're doing

aerodog 8y ago
What you're doing is far worse
resters 8y ago
Anyone is free to draw a line in the sand to claim that my statements are hyperbole. I don't consider them so. When we read about China, the narrative of American Exceptionalism tells us that it is reasonable to think that China would seriously implement a social credit score but America would not. I think it is foolish to believe that kind of stuff. Let's just look at the facts. We must ask how a social credit system would be useful to any government and wonder how any government would turn down the chance to obtain one. There is already hard evidence that the US Government wants to influence FB's news feed algorithm. Strictly speaking that is not a firewall, but the effect (censorship) is the same. So feel free to belabor the difference between government meddling in the news feed algorithm to promote/demote various ideas and the technology known as China's great firewall. In my view that is a tangential and distracting discussion.
- mfatica 8y ago
  Controlling the news feed on one site is not nearly comparable to a universal firewall... Many people already have stopped using Facebook
  - resters 8y ago
    > Many people already have stopped using Facebook Yet it is important enough to public opinion that congress undertakes days of hearings with Zuck to try to control the news feed algo?
    - edmundsauto 8y ago
      This is easily explained by the desire of politicians to grab some time on the news. I didn't see much Congressional behavior or followup that suggests they actually cared about (or understood) the privacy issue.
      - resters 8y ago
        It’s not a privacy issue, it’s a censorship issue.
lkrubner 8y ago
Your comment is disingenuous to a degree that’s comical. You complain about the use of the phrase Great American Firewall. Unless you’ve been living under a rock since 2016 you should be aware of the fears in Congress regarding “Fake News” and the extent to which Congress is trying to outsource the work of censorship to Facebook and other social media outlets. There are multiple articles, each week, that make the front page of Hacker News, on this very topic.
davidw 8y ago
Some of the other stuff (the firewall) is clearly incorrect, but after thinking about this a long time, I think it's fair to label the current administration as having some fascists or fascist-curious/adjacent/whatever people. Authoritarian works too. Often, the term gets thrown around too freely by those on the left when they want to disparage someone on the right whose ideas they dislike, so it gets overused. But I think with the disdain for the rule of law, friendliness and admiration of rulers who are certainly authoritarian, and the push to "believe in me, rather than your lying eyes", the term has a place in the conversation.
- resters 8y ago
  Firewalls don’t only block traffic, they throttle it, log it, and shape it. The US/Facebook firewall is further up the stack than China’s and is more stealthy so rarely blocks any content.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
EnFinlay 8y ago
I am very surprised by the reaction you're getting.
- dymk 8y ago
  Some large subset of the HN crowd isn't interested in being civil, or preferring realistic comparisons to hyperbole, when talking about Facebook anymore. The two above comments I made are sitting at moderately positive vote counts, so it makes me happy that at least > 50% of HN is bored of the way we've been discussing this topic for the last few years.
  - resters 8y ago
    It’s not fair to call my comment uncivil.
    - EnFinlay 8y ago
      I don't think the civil comment was directed at you specifically
  - lkrubner 8y ago
    It takes awhile before people gain the ability to downvote, so an aggregate vote of 1 does not imply a 50% split. There is a bias toward positive vote totals, since people can upvote but not downvote when they join Hacker News. On any thread there are more people who can upvote than downvote. It would be useful if Hacker News would either make a magnitude number available or the actual up and down votes. A comment that gets 3 upvotes versus 2 downvotes will have the same total as a comment that has 412 upvotes versus 411 downvotes, but clearly one comment was ignored while the other struck a nerve.

skybrian 8y ago

It's a bunch of vague analogies, asserted without evidence. This isn't useful. We already know lots of people hate Facebook.