7 ms·

That makes no sense to me. Do you think social networks would be less toxic and less abused if all the devs at Facebook or Twitter were apolitical? How would th

by simias 6y ago

That makes no sense to me. Do you think social networks would be less toxic and less abused if all the devs at Facebook or Twitter were apolitical? How would that work? It's the quest for "engagement" and getting always more users and ad views that generates this situation. What can be used to sell you shoes and earphones can also be used to sell you political ideas. When the algorithm wants to show you some inflammatory and misleading political factoid because it knows that it's very likely to make you react, it's working as intended. Not because it was written by a communist, but because it was written by somebody optimizing for this metric. As a counter example: do you think HN manages to remain mostly not completely trash because it's run by apolitical people or because it's effectively run not-for-profit? I think I know the answer to this question. It's amusing how I've seen this "internal politic" boogeyman pop up in discussions over the past month or so. As if all the woes of the silicon valley could suddenly be blamed on those pesky "woke" devs while everybody else just tries to get the job done. This American election can't be over soon enough, everybody seems to be losing their marbles.

tpmx 6y ago
Well, Paul Graham, YC founder seems to agree with me: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1310583298666696705 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1310583298666696705 Edit: To clarify, he is saying the right way ahead for companies is to be apolitical, or, "mission-founded". Coinbase offered employees not comfortable with the non-political mission-founded way exit packages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24636899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24636899
- konjin 6y ago
  Those thoughts aren't welcome on HN any more.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    As a European looking at this spectacle from a distance: SV is eating itself. Well, good for Europe, I guess. Edit: but also good for China, and they're a lot better positioned to take advantage of this.
    - konjin 6y ago
      As a citizen of the world with several passports including a US one: this happens every 10 years. The last time was conservatives doing it so people are shocked that liberals are just as insular. The 90s PC culture wars are a thing that went in the memory hole really fast when Clinton needed the women who were accusing him to be sluts and harlots again. On the bright side social media is becoming so unbearable that we'll see more decentralization. It's hard to get banned from a forum when you run an instance of it yourself. And hard not to be when they are run by the mentally ill who think that saying crazy is a bannable offense for being ableist.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        And hard to get people to show up when you run your own forum.
        konjin 6y ago
        The majority of people are not worth talking to.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        I agree. For example, they'll whip out ableist slurs like "crazy" at a moment's notice. It's tedious.
        konjin 6y ago
        Is cute that you find it so tedious that you went through my post history.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Post history? You complained about it a few posts up in this thread.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
- simias 6y ago
  I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about Twitter's success, we're talking about its influence on elections. If anything it's because it's been very successful (by some metrics) that it's in this position. I'm not saying that an ultra-politicized workplace can't be an issue, I'm saying that it's silly to blame this particular problem on it. The very concept of ad-supported social networks is the issue, not the political alignment of the guy who writes the CSS.
- jariel 6y ago
  There's a difference between corporate culture being 'apolitical' - and the responsibility of a large curated network to worry about misinformation. Dang will kick you off HN for all sorts of reasons - that's his right, and it's generally not 'political'. It's hard to ban 'fake news' without maybe getting possibly political, but it's not rocket science. There are already all sorts of things on FB and Twitter that are censored, and it shouldn't be 'political'. If you say you want to murder someone, well, then that's a problem. Now email that's different. If you want to be a moron over completely private network, or, you want to be a moron on your own website, then go ahead.
dudul 6y ago
> This American election can't be over soon enough, everybody seems to be losing their marbles. Brace yourself then, because this election will not end on November 3rd. And the craziness we see today will be nothing compared to whats coming next. Regardless of which side "wins".
- XargonEnder 6y ago
  This is my biggest fear
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>Do you think social networks would be less toxic and less abused if all the devs at Facebook or Twitter were apolitical? It isn't possible to be completely "apolitical" but you can be non-partisan. For me this isn't a left vs right or Republican vs Democrat issue, its an establishment vs everyone else issue. If this policy was in effect in 2002 and 2003 people would be getting censored and banned for disputing "the fact" that Iraq had WMD. Just a few days ago NATO members blocked the former OPCW chief from giving testimony on the (very much disputed) narratives regarding the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. You can be sure the people being blocked and censored by Twitter won't be those pushing the official US government narrative. The argument Twitter is making that, "people are too dumb to figure out what is true, so we will tell them what is true" is very dangerous when Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, and is run by people with a vested interest and belief in "establishment" narratives - no matter how questionable (or provably false) those narratives are.
- simias 6y ago
  I'm not denying this at all, but again this is not the point I'm discussing. All companies have a political agenda one way or the other, even if it's just driven by profit. As a thought experiment: imagine if Twitter did the same thing as Coinbase did, got rid of all the politicized people. Problem solved? Of course not. The problem is that Twitter has this incredible influence. Asking them not to do anything is also not neutral and not a solution, you'll end up with 4chan or gab. Take WhatsApp in Brazil. It's been instrumental to Bolsonaro's election due to the astroturfing and dissemination of fake news by pro-Bolsonaro supporters. Do you think it's due to Facebook's employee being pro-Bolsonaro? Or Facebook itself espousing a pro-Bolsonaro stance? Of course not. It's really missing the forest for the trees IMO.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  > people would be getting censored and banned for disputing "the fact" that Iraq had WMD Literally nobody was buying that Iraq had WMD. It was clear that the politicians were riling themselves up in a patriotic furvor. The evidence was weak from day one and it was clear a propaganda machine was in play. > Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, I am so sick of statements like this that ultimately lead to inaction and apathy. SOME THINGS ARE JUST TRUE AND SOME ARE NOT. There is no "two sides" to them. There is objective truth and objective lies.

by simias 6y ago

tpmx 6y ago

Well, Paul Graham, YC founder seems to agree with me: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1310583298666696705 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1310583298666696705 Edit: To clarify, he is saying the right way ahead for companies is to be apolitical, or, "mission-founded". Coinbase offered employees not comfortable with the non-political mission-founded way exit packages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24636899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24636899

konjin 6y ago
Those thoughts aren't welcome on HN any more.
- tpmx 6y ago
  As a European looking at this spectacle from a distance: SV is eating itself. Well, good for Europe, I guess. Edit: but also good for China, and they're a lot better positioned to take advantage of this.
  - konjin 6y ago
    As a citizen of the world with several passports including a US one: this happens every 10 years. The last time was conservatives doing it so people are shocked that liberals are just as insular. The 90s PC culture wars are a thing that went in the memory hole really fast when Clinton needed the women who were accusing him to be sluts and harlots again. On the bright side social media is becoming so unbearable that we'll see more decentralization. It's hard to get banned from a forum when you run an instance of it yourself. And hard not to be when they are run by the mentally ill who think that saying crazy is a bannable offense for being ableist.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      And hard to get people to show up when you run your own forum.
      - konjin 6y ago
        The majority of people are not worth talking to.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        I agree. For example, they'll whip out ableist slurs like "crazy" at a moment's notice. It's tedious.
        konjin 6y ago
        Is cute that you find it so tedious that you went through my post history.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Post history? You complained about it a few posts up in this thread.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
simias 6y ago
I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand. We're not talking about Twitter's success, we're talking about its influence on elections. If anything it's because it's been very successful (by some metrics) that it's in this position. I'm not saying that an ultra-politicized workplace can't be an issue, I'm saying that it's silly to blame this particular problem on it. The very concept of ad-supported social networks is the issue, not the political alignment of the guy who writes the CSS.
jariel 6y ago
There's a difference between corporate culture being 'apolitical' - and the responsibility of a large curated network to worry about misinformation. Dang will kick you off HN for all sorts of reasons - that's his right, and it's generally not 'political'. It's hard to ban 'fake news' without maybe getting possibly political, but it's not rocket science. There are already all sorts of things on FB and Twitter that are censored, and it shouldn't be 'political'. If you say you want to murder someone, well, then that's a problem. Now email that's different. If you want to be a moron over completely private network, or, you want to be a moron on your own website, then go ahead.

dudul 6y ago

> This American election can't be over soon enough, everybody seems to be losing their marbles. Brace yourself then, because this election will not end on November 3rd. And the craziness we see today will be nothing compared to whats coming next. Regardless of which side "wins".

XargonEnder 6y ago
This is my biggest fear

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

>Do you think social networks would be less toxic and less abused if all the devs at Facebook or Twitter were apolitical? It isn't possible to be completely "apolitical" but you can be non-partisan. For me this isn't a left vs right or Republican vs Democrat issue, its an establishment vs everyone else issue. If this policy was in effect in 2002 and 2003 people would be getting censored and banned for disputing "the fact" that Iraq had WMD. Just a few days ago NATO members blocked the former OPCW chief from giving testimony on the (very much disputed) narratives regarding the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. You can be sure the people being blocked and censored by Twitter won't be those pushing the official US government narrative. The argument Twitter is making that, "people are too dumb to figure out what is true, so we will tell them what is true" is very dangerous when Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, and is run by people with a vested interest and belief in "establishment" narratives - no matter how questionable (or provably false) those narratives are.

simias 6y ago
I'm not denying this at all, but again this is not the point I'm discussing. All companies have a political agenda one way or the other, even if it's just driven by profit. As a thought experiment: imagine if Twitter did the same thing as Coinbase did, got rid of all the politicized people. Problem solved? Of course not. The problem is that Twitter has this incredible influence. Asking them not to do anything is also not neutral and not a solution, you'll end up with 4chan or gab. Take WhatsApp in Brazil. It's been instrumental to Bolsonaro's election due to the astroturfing and dissemination of fake news by pro-Bolsonaro supporters. Do you think it's due to Facebook's employee being pro-Bolsonaro? Or Facebook itself espousing a pro-Bolsonaro stance? Of course not. It's really missing the forest for the trees IMO.
deanCommie 6y ago
> people would be getting censored and banned for disputing "the fact" that Iraq had WMD Literally nobody was buying that Iraq had WMD. It was clear that the politicians were riling themselves up in a patriotic furvor. The evidence was weak from day one and it was clear a propaganda machine was in play. > Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, I am so sick of statements like this that ultimately lead to inaction and apathy. SOME THINGS ARE JUST TRUE AND SOME ARE NOT. There is no "two sides" to them. There is objective truth and objective lies.