11 ms·
Facebook isn’t free speech, it’s algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage
- RangerScience 7y agoFeels relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ Basically OP, but amped up and told kind of like a ghost story.
- buboard 7y agoOne does not exclude the other
- msbarnett 7y agoIn the abstract, no. But we already know that Facebook excludes free speech: simply attempt to post a photograph containing bare female breasts on Facebook or a Facebook-owned property like Instagram, and it will swiftly be removed for violating “community guidelines”. So Facebook themselves have clearly excluded themselves from the former.
- buboard 7y agoFair. Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal. The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship
- root_axis 7y agoWhy is that serious? Why shouldn't Facebook be permitted to operate their business in an explicitly partisan way if they so choose?
- colejohnson66 7y agoSimple: because they’re too big
- root_axis 7y agoAre you suggesting that the laws should be changed to limit the political freedom of some companies? If so, what would be your criteria for determining which companies this would apply to?
- CamperBob2 7y agoWhen they get too big.
- root_axis 7y agoI appreciate the snark, but I'll just say anyway that I'm actually asking what are the factors that determine when a company is "too big"?
- CamperBob2 7y agoIn all honesty, the only way a company like Facebook gets this big is through the support of the larger society that sustains them. The Internet itself is a product of that society. Everyone with a stake in that society is at least entitled to an opinion, if not an outright vote, regarding how the company operates. This is a reflection of a larger point, which is that any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. Especially with the introduction of Libra, that's starting to sound less like a cliche and more like an axiom. This also (should) give the rest of us more input in how the company does business.
- root_axis 7y agoI don't disagree with much of anything you've written there, but corporate dominance has been an issue for a long time and the impact of social media companies is trivial compared to the impact of companies that e.g. kill citizens with addictive drugs for profit, withhold life saving drugs and medical treatment for profit, hoard and reserve huge swaths of residential property for rent seeking, contaminate the water table and arable land for natural gas etc and the political proclivities of these companies is never scrutinized outside of partisan politics. I'm not saying that Facebook isn't also a problem, but it seems very much like bikeshedding to tie ourselves into knots writing new laws so that people have the right to share low-effort memes on Facebook's servers when there are so many real problems that could be solved with new laws.
- buboard 7y agonobody says they re not. They wouldn't be able to advertise their free speech though
- msbarnett 7y ago> Though that has more to do with potentially being illegal. Death threats, and many other forms of hate speech, are illegal in many jurisdictions, and yet that is not used to justify a blanket ban on angry text. > The more serious (violation of free speech) thing is political censorship It is not obvious to me that these things are even separable; to pick but one obvious example, a topless photograph posted by advocates for an equal right for both men and women to be topless in public is clearly political speech. More broadly, look at someone like Larry Flint. The pornagraphic is the political. The current hand-wringing over “censorship of political speech” seems terribly narrowly focused on but one fairly conservative form of speech, to the point that it’s a bit hard to take at face value.
- buboard 7y agobecause the people advocating for tits equality are a tiny group, while mainstream politics have wide implications. I m all for tit freedom, but facebook's lawyers have to weigh in the costs of litigation
- msbarnett 7y agofree speech is only for popular, mainstream speech? I don’t really care what’s cost effective for Facebook’s lawyers; we don’t have to care about that, so we should stop enabling the lie that their main concern is enabling free speech. Costs, playing nice with established powers, not scaring away advertisers by putting their ads too near a nipple — these are their concerns, and we should stop participating in the destruction of the meaning of “free speech” by calling “a narrow spectrum of speech compatible with our current corporate goals” “free speech”.
- buboard 7y agoSure, but , i mean they are free to call it free speech, and use it as a selling point. People judge the truth of that statement by their actions
- 7y ago
- dahart 7y agoFree speech itself as a legal concept comes with limitations based on community guidelines, including obscenity and pornography. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitation... I don’t believe there is any country in the world today for which “free speech” means that anything that can be said is legal and protected, but many people seem to think otherwise based on the name.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoI was always under the impression free speech advocacy is the spirit of unlimited speech and not the literal word of law in speech. For example, I recall lots of controversy that is the deplatforming of various alt-right advocates and speakers (Sargon of Akkad for example, or 8chan, or the banning of various subreddits). And while it is literally legal for a private entity to no longer want to service parties it doesn’t find tasteful, the actual act of doing it I’ve seen violates the ‘spirit’ of free speech. I believe that phenomenon is the one being referenced.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoFree speech is a value as much as it is a legal concept (and a rather foundational value in the US at least). People who don’t want to engage in discussion about the importance of free speech as a cultural value will often try to reframe the debate to be an entirely legal one, as that’s open to much less discussion.
- dahart 7y agoThat’s a good point that there are two separate kinds of free speech. One is the legal protections, and one is the idea of speaking to power. But when people complain that their free speech is being infringed, that necessarily means they’re complaining about the legal Freedom of Speech protections. The latter one, being irreverent and speaking to power, is never guaranteed to be legal nor come without negative consequences or having your platform removed, so if that is the one being referred to, the feigned incredulity about Facebook taking it down is misplaced. It was always going to be taken down or fought against, if you’re going to say something they don’t like. In fact, the act is a provocation who’s goal is to stir the pot. The goal may be to shame or embarrass someone, or it might be to change policy and making things more fair, but a reaction is expected and desired. For the other kind, legal Freedom of Speech protections, not all speech is protected. So, being incredulous about Facebook removing obscenity is misplaced here too, because removal of some kinds of things is completely within the bounds of Free Speech Protections. Either way, in both cases, the speech is subject to community guidelines, and some kinds of speech will result in consequences you might not like. In particular, things that might be considered pornographic or obscene. Note this is different from what Facebook might allow, and as far as I’m concerned they can make whatever rules they like and it doesn’t infringe on “free speech”. I’m making the separate point that Free Speech itself always comes with the same kind of limitations the GP comment was referring to.
- macinjosh 7y agoFacebook is the capitalization of the free speech of others on a mass scale.
- zachguo 7y agoSounds like how people argue against printing press in 15th century. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifteenth-century-technopanic-about-horrors-printing-press.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/05022912725/fifte...
- jorprp93j 7y agoI dunno seems like a very different scale involved when the other side of the world can spoon feed me and my neighbors our opinions with complete anonymity Oh sure the syntax may be similar The semantics embedded within our current context of FB & 1700s paranoia over invention itself? One seems ridiculously easy to game and gain global advantage. The other influenced some neighbors. We’re at a point where the general public is being enraged by goobers who want carnage, and moderates who want to chew all the resources up, while putting on a happy face, ignore the consequences. Not much of a third option allowed when that majority controls the wealth and can easily distribute the most visible argument. In a free market of ideas one, where we weigh all the options equally, one might think socialism would then get as much airtime. But you know fuck that cause iPhones and self driving cars are so cool, whatever if it destroys the species. The mainstream right and left are just arguing how hard we push on the gas pedal.
- vanderZwan 7y agoI don't see it, can you elaborate? If this was a critique of blogging I could see a connection, or if the monk was criticizing people who owned printers for only producing the most inflammatory pieces at the expense of all other content, but it is neither as far as I can see.
- Barrin92 7y agowell the concern about the monks was misplaced but the printing press actually kickstarted an entire century of schisms and religious wars and unless you're willing to just write that degree of disruption off as a minor detail the critics might have had a point. Obviously throwing the press away would have been both impossible and inadvisable, but clearly there's a lesson here about the potential dangers of uncontrolled mass amplification of voice in a society that wasn't ready for it.
- diego 7y agoFacebook has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is "you don't go to jail for saying something." You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out loud.
- buboard 7y ago> You're not entitled to a platform for shouting out loud You voluntarily subscribe on social media though. Nobody is forcing you to hear their noise
- diego 7y agoRight. Nothing to do with free speech.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- buboard 7y agopeople are of course not entitled to it, but, if it didnt have anything to do with free speech, would people want to censor it?
- kolbe 7y agoI think, when companies say they support ‘free speech’ they are adopting the stance that they will not punish their users for actions that the US government protects under the first amendment.
- firasd 7y agoI see this often (including an accompanying XKCD cartoon[1]) and don't agree with it. It may be a good summary of the first amendment in the US constitution but "judicial imprisonment" doesn't define the boundaries of free speech issues. Otherwise there wouldn't be things like whistleblower laws protecting some speakers. Does China putting pressure on the NBA to stop players from saying pro-Hong-Kong-protests things not fall under the gambit of censorship/free speech issues as far as you're concerned? (Heck, even in terms of the US constitution, public institutions banning some symbols or items have been overruled based on first amendment grounds. So just banning a student from wearing a certain type of t-shirt is also a free speech issue.) 1) https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- robterrell 7y ago"The problem is that Facebook doesn’t offer free speech; it offers free amplification." Not even that -- make a group for your business or product or band or political group, get people to sign up, and see how far free amplification goes.
- mtgx 7y agoIt's all pay to play at this point. Even if you've already paid to get a strong following you now have to pay again to reach them, in perpetuity.
- dredmorbius 7y agoFB's free amplification benefits FB. Or those who've figured out how to manipulate it to their own ends. Paid amplification is FB's business model for the rest.
- dheera 7y agoAlso, not to mention their amplification is heavily biased in favor of content uploaded to FB. Anything that contains external links is automatically demoted, which means that among other things, photographers and video creators have an edge over bloggers, for example. This also means that a friend posting a link to their blog article about an assault encounter is much less likely to appear in my FB feed than someone's picture hating on pineapple pizza. Which is sad.
- isoprophlex 7y agoOf course it is. It is the logical conclusion of adtech colliding with our collective immaturity when it comes to deciding what constitutes being a decent human being. Or, in other words, it is the current belief that everyone is entitled to voice and spread their opinions, weaponized by greed slash laissez-faire capitalism
- melicerte 7y agoWhat about Twitter ?
- api 7y agoI call it the CRASER: CRaziness Amplification by Stimulation of Engagement with Reactivity.
- privateSFacct 7y agoThere was a period where feeds were just wall to wall outrage. Literally, at trump, at obama, at random other friends on facebook. It was crazy. Reality - life's much better getting off social media and hanging out with friends in real life - and instagram has a bit less outrage machine stuff - easier / quieter place to share pix of the kids playing and catchup with what folks are up to.
- gherkinnn 7y agoRegarding Insta, it’s interesting how some platforms are inherently more peaceful. The lack of links? Tiny, almost irrelevant image descriptions? Barely a commenting system to speak of? Just vanity and pretty people. It’s quite nice. And makes for a good case study.
- baby 7y agoI think that is misdirection. There are two parts that I don't think are contradicted by this article: 1) Facebook, twitter, and other social networks give people a voice and a community. 2) If these platforms are censored in a country, it has a great effect on free speech in the country. Now, there are some good questions related to the article to ask here: a) Are these platforms actually a problem because of the amplification of outraging? b) If they are, how does that impact our society? c) Is there a way to empower people (and keep the benefits of current platforms) without increasing the negative effects as well?
- throwaway981211 7y agoI’m not sure these platforms provide voice or community vs providing an avenue for those with large pockets to shape and influence opinions, on a far more personal level than before, thanks to big data and things like targeted ads. Not an accusation but do you work for FB? I spoke to someone recently who does and they said something very similar to what you wrote. Not saying you two are the same person, but is this one of FBs talking points?
- dang 7y agoThis comment breaks the site guidelines. Please don't do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cptaj 7y agoIsn't the algorithm a form of censorship in and of itself? It decides what to show and what to hide. Yes, you can drill down to find what you want, but that will either never happen at scale or might be entirely impractical.
- wasmburger 7y agoThey can't show everything so a filter must be used. They try to show you things similar to what you have liked so you are happy, along with ads related to what you like so you will buy. I can hide/unlike/unfollow things I don't like to tune the filter. How is this complicated? Do people who hate Facebook not understand how to use it? Edit:sp
- ptest1 7y agoComment deleted because this doesn’t appear to be the right place to discuss nuanced issues about Facebook.
- techntoke 7y agoI have deleted all friends and everything from Facebook and I still get almost non-stop recommendations from Facebook with clickbait videos and friend suggestions for social media personalities that I have no interests in. They should not be trying to push crap on me like this and I find it disgusting.
- wasmburger 7y agoWhy are you even on Facebook?
- reikonomusha 7y agoWhen a company touches more than a billion kinds of the world, I think criticism—actionable or not—is perfectly warranted. If people suspect Facebook isn’t simply an equal propagator of information, but rather has a (potentially uncontrollable) AI that is optimizing for hate and outrage, it seems both reasonable and meaningful to have a discussion around it. “Well what are they supposed to do with all the opposing criticism?” It’s not about making people happy, it’s about responsible use of their power, and part of that is at least informed by what critics say.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- baddox 7y agoIsn’t this just a natural consequence of Facebook being huge and having a huge amount of influence in the world? So naturally people are going to blame Facebook for things they don’t like that Facebook has a lot of influence on, and that will probably include people from different political backgrounds. You seem to mock that or find it ridiculous, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Both of those examples you give could very easily be true. As for it being impossible for Facebook to win, well yeah, maybe you’re right. Maybe we shouldn’t have any individual media companies with so much power.
- sebow 7y agoThe fact that people associate facebook and similar corporations with free speech and take the side of them it's pretty disgusting. This article tells just one side of the story, the ad-engagement part which was told yesterday. And no, for what is worth, techcrunch is not "the press".You don't see CNN,MSNBC or similar outlets talk against FB because it is obviously not in their interest. Truly sad how people get blinded by Zuckerberg's charade.
- temac 7y agoWhy would Facebook have anything to do with free speech? This title sounds as "strange" as: requiring a driver license is not in contradiction with the right to travel. Well, yes, ok, but that's kind of trivial because everybody (except a bunch of truly insane people) agree with that.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago> Why would Facebook have anything to do with free speech? It's probably a reaction to Zuckerberg's recent speech about how Facebook is about free speech (AIUI, haven't seen/read it)
- mayneack 7y agoFacebook pitches itself as free speech https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-voice-and-free-expression/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-...
- discordance 7y agoZuckerberg just gave a talk on the importance of free speech, referenced in the first paragraph - https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-voice-and-free-expression/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-...
- bigred100 7y agoIn many ways, algorithms, IQ, and the internet have ruined humanity. Had Facebook recognized itself as a funny website for college students to talk to each other and not begun all these complex strategies, they’d not likely have caused such damage, and we’d all have been better off. I believe that most people, and organizations, should just set their sights lower.
- hnaccy 7y agoJournalism isn't free speech, it's manufacturing consent.
- doubleunplussed 7y agoPor qué no los dos?
- wasmburger 7y agoDon't people know how to use Facebook? There's no outrage on my newsfeed because I've eliminated/unfollowed/hidden it. My cool friends and family are left, I'm reading some pretty interesting groups I like, and I try not to argue/provoke anyone when I make comments. This doesn't inhibit my speech, it only makes me pay attention to tone. I wish the people who hate Facebook would get off it and then talk about something else that interests them.
- dangus 7y agoThe problem is that this only works for people diligent enough to change their defaults or extensively filter their preferences. And telling a platform that you’re not interested in a certain kind of ad or piece of content doesn’t guarantee you’ll never see it again. Your feedback is a suggestion, not a command. Other problems include when you literally stop being able to contact certain entities or get up-to-date information from them without using/signing in to a social platform.
- taurath 7y agoI spent 2 years trying to “fix” my feed before leaving Facebook altogether. There was no way at the time - the alg would always surface the absolute worst things that anyone I knew would post because the algorithm knew it would get the most responses.
- wasmburger 7y agoMaybe the section of the AI devoted to you has tagged you as someone who likes outrage. Maybe you have posted some outrage stuff. My experience is opposite from yours.
- taurath 7y agoYou’re right it’s probably my fault for constantly clicking “dislike, don’t show more”, not the financial incentives of Facebook. That’s nice for you that it’s the opposite.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
- discordance 7y agoI’m more interested in why Facebook is marketing their platform to be about free speech. Is it a defensive move against potential regulation? - e.g. “if you regulate us, you’re taking away peoples right to free Speech”
- thoughtstheseus 7y agoYes, "free speech" protects it against lawsuits. See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- shaki-dora 7y agoNo! No, No, no! This is the myth that won't die. Just actually read Sec 230! It says, explicitly and understandably, that moderating an online community does not create a liability for user-created content. You do not have to take a "hands off" attitude to avoid liability. That's the whole purpose of Sec 230. For people to continue getting this exactly wrong is absurd. Background: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
- thoughtstheseus 7y agoI made no mention that Facebook cannot moderate its platform. You're right that categorizing it as user created content is more precise than saying free speech.
- nlh 7y agoI think that’s exactly right. The rhetoric about “breaking up big tech” is hitting close to home, and this is their positioning a defense.
- mancerayder 7y agoIt might just be plain old marketing, as many people do sense a tightening of censorship (always, always with good intentions, never otherwise), combined with a declining usage. It's PR for one reason or another, as individual rights have never been the company's top priority.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- CryptoPunk 7y agoIt should be up to Facebook to decide what content to show, not social activists or politicians. That's what free speech means.
- bhupy 7y agoAny form of media that earns its profit from viewership and selling advertising, including broadcast and cable news and news radio, is optimized for outrage. That's what attracts the eyeballs. The "algorithmic" part is irrelevant.
- garraeth 7y agoI agree completely with you and would like to include fear. Fear and outrage.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoSex attracts eyeballs too though it's a bit more difficult to sell Kraft Cheese Singles using sex.
- smileysteve 7y agoThinks of European orange juice commercials
- chrisseaton 7y agoI think they're just called 'Kraft Singles' - they aren't cheese, even by American definitions!
- dpflan 7y agoThat's interesting - FDA forced Kraft the name change due to the ingredients. > https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2002/ucm145363.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110110185442/http://www.fda.go...
- lacker 7y agoFacebook can put whatever content in the news feed they want. I can choose whether to read Facebook or not. That sounds like free speech to me!
- emmelaich 7y agoThis Techcrunch title describes itself.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- a-dub 7y agoisn't this argument like 2-3y old now? didn't they say they were going to deprioritize politics and boost cats?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- resters 7y agoThe algorithm is optimized for emotional potency that leads to increased engagement. Outrage is just one of the more monetizable emotions the algorithm is good at. Consider also schadenfreude, in-group signaling, etc. All of these loom large on Facebook. Compared to traditional consolidated media companies, Facebook does have the potential to be a better medium for “speech”. But censorship is inevitable when advertising looms so large on the platform, so inevitably many forms of speech will be suppressed, leaving only the stuff that is the most establishment friendly. Note that Hillary Clinton just made a statement accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being funded by Russia. A logical next step would be for Facebook to pull ads that are in favor of Gabbard. In essence, major party views are intrinsically conservative and uncontroversial. What are Gabbard’s fringe views? She opposes some of the military/warmaking that Hillary made her career supporting.
- ctdonath 7y agoThe notion of free speech isn’t advocated to protect popular speech.
- rdxm 7y agofiled under: no shit!! how does anyone think this is journalism. all you need is a pulse and an IQ above freezing temp to know that FB is a cesspool.
- awinter-py 7y agoI assume this author prefers techcrunch's megaphone to facebook's because TC has an editorial tone and picks their experts. But wading through a crowd to get your information is the new normal. The era of edited information is over. There are pros and cons but this genie isn't going back in its bottle.
- ineedasername 7y agoI'm not so sure that era if over, it's simply changed mechanisms. Instead of direct moderation in the form of editorial boards working at the behest of corporate owners, it's more indirect in the form of algorithms made by developers at the behest of corporate owners. Decisions are still made that present some information or viewpoints and not others. The flavor of bias will likely be very different: in the past, one was the political vector. In the algorithmic method such things are a side effect of a "click more" bias.
- awinter-py 7y agoAgree with you that algos & crowd data are taking up some of the slack. But editors are involved before & during the composition of a piece, and can check for things like tone and fact checking. Editors aim for a consistent minimum quality level for everything under their masthead. Algos & votes are trying to do this job after the fact with fewer resources and no consistent standard. Not sure if the old newspaper model is more trustworthy, or even more effective at surfacing critical information, but you don't have to wade through as much filth to stay informed.
- pjc50 7y agoAn important questions to ask is: for each visible element on the page, whose speech is it? The stuff inside the boxes is the speech of the users. Everything outside, including the order and choice of the posts, is Facebook's speech. This is even more obvious with YouTube. The choice of who they recommend is Google's. Which means it's reasonable to ask them why they're recommending fascist and antivax propaganda.
- tdy721 7y agoThe outrageous gets eyeballs, and isn’t that the real metric they are after?
- Udik 7y agoThis is all true, and so obvious that one feels like slapping one's forehead. The algorithms are content-neutral, but they are based on the implicit judgement of the users: and the users engage more with what is extraordinary and outrageous. So we're in a Black Mirror-esque moment in which the nervous system of humanity is suffering of an anxiety disorder, possibly psychosis, caused by the subtle but constant amplification of emotionally negative thoughts and paranoid ideation. I think the system needs some form of biologically inspired attenuation mechanism, again based purely on engagement rather than content: for example reducing the amplification of nodes that are "always on", or reducing dissemination past a certain level (WhatsApp has already limited the number of forwards of a message, I think). The problem with these solutions is how to reconcile them with the commercial purpose of the platform. Probably we'll end up building some resistance, partly cultural and partly enforced by laws; hopefully before it provokes some major catastrophe.
- skybrian 7y agoIt's odd to pretend this started with Facebook when it happens in almost every online forum. There was plenty of outrage on the early Internet. We called it a "flame war" back then. Amplification is just a fancy word for sharing. You don't need a fancy algorithm. It can be done using forwarding and reply-all. And chain letters predate the Internet. The software is a bit different, but the main difference is that we're more connected than back then. There are more ways to copy messages and people get notified faster.
- mindgam3 7y agoWhen making up one one's mind about whether Zuck is sincere in his passionate pleas for free speech, consider that: 1) he took no questions from reporters, only pre-moderated questions from students, and 2) Facebook Live chat was scrubbed of any critical comments by algorithmic filters. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-algorithms-negative-responses-free-speech-live-street-a9161256.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ma...
- em3rgent0rdr 7y agoFreedom of speech and freedom of association do not imply any obligation to listen to or respond to everything, and permit you to privately filter.
- PavlovsCat 7y agoA credible commitment to freedom of speech absolutely entails acknowledging and responding to serious criticism.
- Porthos9K 7y agoI'm pretty sure Zuckerberg still thinks of Facebook users as "dumb fucks". I can't blame him; my opinion of people who use Facebook tech (FB, Instagram, whatsapp, and React) is equally contemptuous.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoSupercilious tone of this post aside (it's straight out of /r/iamverysmart), isn't it pretty contemptuous to lump in Facebook's social media and chat offerings with MIT-licensed React?
- Porthos9K 7y agoYes, and I think I am justified in doing so. React and JSX are everything shitty about pre-CSS web development, but with more JavaScript. Even if it wasn't Facebook tech I would still refuse to work with that shit. Oh, and if you want supercilious, duck into the little nerd's room and get a good look at your tone-policing ass in a mirror.
- ycombonator 7y agoJust thinking. If Hillary won the electoral college would we be hearing all the relentless outrage about Facebook ?
- stjohnswarts 7y agoMeh, I don't really see that much outrage on my feed, just family pics, vacation pics, some memes, news from a few news outlets that I follow. People are way overreacting.
- vanderZwan 7y agoYou don't represent everyone. I don't see much outrage either, but I have heavily curated my feed list to get there.
- vanniv 7y agoIf it is speech, it is free. That's how free speech works. It even applies to asshats.
- tripzilch 7y ago" ... but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sure Facebook makes it worse, but the whole American cultural idea of free speech itself is already optimized for outrage. Every single discussion about free speech I see Americans gloat and pride themselves over specifically defending the most offensive types of free speech, because, just like self-flagellation, it shows of dedication to the cause (in spite of common sense or decency). I'll never forget the time when some extremist religious cooks wanted to bully the funerals of gay US soldiers, and the entire fucking country came to the defence of the bullies' right to freedom of harassment (I mean, speech), instead of the grieving families. Yeah that story is a bit old, but the cultural phenomenon hasn't changed a bit. This was just the first time that I realized (again) that the blind acceptance of anything as a fundamental truth (or right) is dumb as hell when you take it to the logical extreme. The more outrageous the type of speech is, the more vehemently Americans will defend it, which they see as a point of pride. And it is this culture that built the world's largest social network platforms, so you'll see this behaviour reflect there. It also just happens these platforms are particularly fertile ground to both these types of behaviour, so the entire problem gets broadcast, amplified and generally just worse.
- calvinbhai 7y agoVery true. And I believe the same is true with conventional media "Newspaper / TV News Channel isn’t free speech, it’s non-algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage"