9 ms·

Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’

by mlazos 6y ago

Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power and also because of the issues they’re addressing. I wish our democracy was a little more civil. This is also partially facebook’s fault because they definitely have increased polarization through personalization. At the same time I think some of these policies are reasonable but I think they should just ban political ads altogether.

wahern 6y ago
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively[1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set America apart from countries that continually slipped into autocracy or never even made it out of that hole. Maybe they were relatively beneficent because of the American political culture they internalized, but at the end of the day the nation was always at their mercy. While they may have sought to burn and even succeeded in burning down some institutions (figuratively and actually), they never sought to burn it all down; not like the empowered nihilists of today. [1] I stress relatively because such historical figures (e.g. John D. Rockefeller in the Ludlow Massacre) have supported or even directly engaged in mass murders of Americans, not to mention Native American and foreign populations. But it's hard to dispute that in an historical context their behavior was tempered as compared to similar figures in other societies.
- kazinator 6y ago
  The Facebook instrument has inherently more power than what past media titans wielded.
  - wahern 6y ago
    The platform is more powerful, but political and cultural power is also more diffuse and even more chaotic than in previous eras. (And that may not be a coincidence.) So I'm not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, and certainly don't believe that he has more direct political influence than previous titans. Perhaps he could add to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential manner, but at the very least he's clearly not deliberately trying to do that. In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting with relative sincerity, good faith, and even civic mindedness, notwithstanding his self-serving libertarian ideals. And I come to that opinion based on his views alone; I'm always forgetful of his actual philanthropy.
    - gowld 6y ago
      > not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, He can, but only in one direction: incivility and divisiveness.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kazinator 6y ago
        Nick checks out; I want to award HN gowld.
    - contrast 6y ago
      The problem with assertions without any supporting facts is they can only be mirrored by the obvious counter-arguments: In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting insincerely, making arguments in bad faith, with no regard to civic responsibilities, which makes perfect sense given his self-serving ideals and well-known financial incentives. And I come to that opinion based on his views and actions, notwithstanding the transparent attempts to buy good PR under the guise of philanthropy. Perhaps he is adding to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential fashion, but at a minimum he is completely indifferent to the consequences of his actions. These consequences may be no worse than past consequences, so it would make sense that we should only take action comparable to past legislation e.g. passing new major laws as powerful as the Sherman Act so that his callous disregard for honesty, facts, injury and integrity do not become everybody else’s problem too.
- sharkmerry 6y ago
  didnt hearst oppose the new deal? and was known for yellow journalism?
skee0083 6y ago
We don't have a democracy. It's a republic. Basically a fake democracy.
- SahAssar 6y ago
  The terms democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. There are many different types of both and some overlap.
  - banmeagaindan2 6y ago
    Even Sparta had some democracy.
- Tostino 6y ago
  You misspelled oligarchy.
- sollewitt 6y ago
  Well, precisely define your terms "democracy" and "republic" because every democracy on earth effectively operates as a parliamentary republic - even the constitutional monarchies, so it's not clear what particular distinction you might be alluding to.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  "Democracy" and "republic" are orthogonal. Republic tells you who is sovereign: the people--as opposed to a monarchy. Democracy tells you how decisions are made: by voting--as opposed to a dictatorship. You can have a democracy that is not a republic: Great Britain. And you can have a republic that is not a democracy: North Korea. The U.S. is a democratic republic.
  - khamba 6y ago
    A better example of a Republic that is not a democracy is Vatican City.
- freddybobs 6y ago

by mlazos 6y ago

wahern 6y ago

> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively[1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set America apart from countries that continually slipped into autocracy or never even made it out of that hole. Maybe they were relatively beneficent because of the American political culture they internalized, but at the end of the day the nation was always at their mercy. While they may have sought to burn and even succeeded in burning down some institutions (figuratively and actually), they never sought to burn it all down; not like the empowered nihilists of today. [1] I stress relatively because such historical figures (e.g. John D. Rockefeller in the Ludlow Massacre) have supported or even directly engaged in mass murders of Americans, not to mention Native American and foreign populations. But it's hard to dispute that in an historical context their behavior was tempered as compared to similar figures in other societies.

kazinator 6y ago
The Facebook instrument has inherently more power than what past media titans wielded.
- wahern 6y ago
  The platform is more powerful, but political and cultural power is also more diffuse and even more chaotic than in previous eras. (And that may not be a coincidence.) So I'm not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, and certainly don't believe that he has more direct political influence than previous titans. Perhaps he could add to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential manner, but at the very least he's clearly not deliberately trying to do that. In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting with relative sincerity, good faith, and even civic mindedness, notwithstanding his self-serving libertarian ideals. And I come to that opinion based on his views alone; I'm always forgetful of his actual philanthropy.
  - gowld 6y ago
    > not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, He can, but only in one direction: incivility and divisiveness.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kazinator 6y ago
      Nick checks out; I want to award HN gowld.
  - contrast 6y ago
    The problem with assertions without any supporting facts is they can only be mirrored by the obvious counter-arguments: In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting insincerely, making arguments in bad faith, with no regard to civic responsibilities, which makes perfect sense given his self-serving ideals and well-known financial incentives. And I come to that opinion based on his views and actions, notwithstanding the transparent attempts to buy good PR under the guise of philanthropy. Perhaps he is adding to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential fashion, but at a minimum he is completely indifferent to the consequences of his actions. These consequences may be no worse than past consequences, so it would make sense that we should only take action comparable to past legislation e.g. passing new major laws as powerful as the Sherman Act so that his callous disregard for honesty, facts, injury and integrity do not become everybody else’s problem too.
sharkmerry 6y ago
didnt hearst oppose the new deal? and was known for yellow journalism?

skee0083 6y ago

We don't have a democracy. It's a republic. Basically a fake democracy.

SahAssar 6y ago
The terms democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive. There are many different types of both and some overlap.
- banmeagaindan2 6y ago
  Even Sparta had some democracy.
Tostino 6y ago
You misspelled oligarchy.
sollewitt 6y ago
Well, precisely define your terms "democracy" and "republic" because every democracy on earth effectively operates as a parliamentary republic - even the constitutional monarchies, so it's not clear what particular distinction you might be alluding to.
snowwrestler 6y ago
"Democracy" and "republic" are orthogonal. Republic tells you who is sovereign: the people--as opposed to a monarchy. Democracy tells you how decisions are made: by voting--as opposed to a dictatorship. You can have a democracy that is not a republic: Great Britain. And you can have a republic that is not a democracy: North Korea. The U.S. is a democratic republic.
- khamba 6y ago
  A better example of a Republic that is not a democracy is Vatican City.
freddybobs 6y ago