4 ms·

The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in track

The problem (among other things) is hyper-targeting of people who are specifically vulnerable to extreme points of view. One of my friends is an expert in tracking ads on Facebook and has found that white nationalists micro-target people who are susceptible to that ideology [1]. Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from their fact-checking process. [2] As you know, because of a lack of consensus on climate change, little action has been taken, causing an existential threat to everyone including yourself. Facebook is accused of spreading “fake news” because they are in fact spreading debunked or misleading stories to a large number of their readers, who have the mistaken assumption that Facebook would prevent incorrect stories from circulating on their platform. They are accused of spreading “hate” because Facebook has long been a breeding-ground for white nationalism, the consequences of which are evident for all to see. I applaud you for being smart and above influence, but you’re ignoring the very real effects of this policy, which have been extensively documented both in academia and in the press. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026 [2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checking-exemptions-for-opinion-and-satire-11569875314 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checkin...

s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves. They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble. Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.
- danans 6y ago
  > Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side. In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in the conversation. People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it. If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. Is it wrong to want to be lied to? I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. It's a real problem from the perspective of the social fabric and the shared narratives that hold it together, although the alternative - the government regulating non-violent speech - is arguably even more worrisome.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
    > People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths as you'd like to believe. > If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. > I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires. This all misses the main point. This mob agenda targets Republicans and hoists Democrats and their tech CEO/shareholder puppets to the position of Ministry of Truth. It's incredibly obvious that the other platforms fell into line and Facebook is receiving the mob's attention until they submit as well. This isn't about the wellbeing of people or you knowing best, it's about power-grabbing, corruption, and censorship. I'm glad Zuck is taking this stance and I'm glad he has a majority.
    - danans 6y ago
      > This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths You seem to have ignored the sentence I wrote immediately following that: "Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it." I count myself as "people" here. > So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? > You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires. No, but I know that targeting peoples basest desires and resentments is a very effective propaganda technique. You don't need a PhD in history to concluded that.
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
        Yes I did read your next statement and many people do have that rigor, this is not something you can mindread. If you don't check the news you read then it's on you. It's certainly not so bad that we need to censor politicians because SO MANY people can't think for themselves. We had 8 years of Obama, I didn't hear anything about anyone needing censoring, only when we have a Republican in office do we need to think about censoring... When they start censoring the Democrats constant lies then I'll believe you want a legitimate debate. Don't worry the Dems will provide you with their very own fact checker! I wouldn't assume, especially when it's assuming about 327 million people's ideology and thought process.
- alzaeem 6y ago
  It's ironic that that the parent comment has been flagged, leading to censorship of a valid opinion.

s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago

We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves. They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble. Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.

danans 6y ago
> Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side. In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in the conversation. People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it. If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. Is it wrong to want to be lied to? I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. It's a real problem from the perspective of the social fabric and the shared narratives that hold it together, although the alternative - the government regulating non-violent speech - is arguably even more worrisome.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
  > People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like. This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths as you'd like to believe. > If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas. > I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires. So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires. This all misses the main point. This mob agenda targets Republicans and hoists Democrats and their tech CEO/shareholder puppets to the position of Ministry of Truth. It's incredibly obvious that the other platforms fell into line and Facebook is receiving the mob's attention until they submit as well. This isn't about the wellbeing of people or you knowing best, it's about power-grabbing, corruption, and censorship. I'm glad Zuck is taking this stance and I'm glad he has a majority.
  - danans 6y ago
    > This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths You seem to have ignored the sentence I wrote immediately following that: "Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it." I count myself as "people" here. > So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? > You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires. No, but I know that targeting peoples basest desires and resentments is a very effective propaganda technique. You don't need a PhD in history to concluded that.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
      Yes I did read your next statement and many people do have that rigor, this is not something you can mindread. If you don't check the news you read then it's on you. It's certainly not so bad that we need to censor politicians because SO MANY people can't think for themselves. We had 8 years of Obama, I didn't hear anything about anyone needing censoring, only when we have a Republican in office do we need to think about censoring... When they start censoring the Democrats constant lies then I'll believe you want a legitimate debate. Don't worry the Dems will provide you with their very own fact checker! I wouldn't assume, especially when it's assuming about 327 million people's ideology and thought process.
alzaeem 6y ago
It's ironic that that the parent comment has been flagged, leading to censorship of a valid opinion.