4 ms·

Wow, the person who didn't read, parse, or understand the article in question made a wildly incorrect comment based on their pre-existing assumptions. (They ac

Wow, the person who didn't read, parse, or understand the article in question made a wildly incorrect comment based on their pre-existing assumptions. (They accepted to review the case, they haven't accepted Facebook's decision, but good knee-jerk reaction.)

strombofulous 6y ago
Whoops
btilly 6y ago
Actually strombofulus is, knowingly or not, correct here. The oversight board is theoretically independent, but was created by Facebook. If the fail to reinstate Trump, there will be questions about their independence (despite the efforts taken by Facebook to make them look independent). If they do reinstate Trump, there is a real chance that Facebook will decide that they are not actually a good idea. Either way their legitimacy has yet to be proven.
underseacables 6y ago
Please do not insinuate that someone did not read an article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- loceng 6y ago
  They didn't insinuate - they outright listed it as an option, noting the "or".
  - btilly 6y ago
    The "or" in that statement read as they did none of those things. Not that they failed one of them but not the others.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      How can you fail to understand an article you didnt read? OP is right.
      - btilly 6y ago
        The only thing wrong is that that poster assumed the result. Which is not yet proven. But the most likely result is predictable from the fact that Facebook chose this path and what their incentives are. And if the result is wrong, the Oversight board will have problems just as big from the other side. Welcome to the world of unpleaseant political realities....
- bzb6 6y ago
  There should be a name for this fallacy of “I’m right because I’m quoting the guidelines”. Ad guidelineum fallacy. Sometimes it’s crystal clear someone hasn’t read the article. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.

strombofulous 6y ago

Whoops

btilly 6y ago

Actually strombofulus is, knowingly or not, correct here. The oversight board is theoretically independent, but was created by Facebook. If the fail to reinstate Trump, there will be questions about their independence (despite the efforts taken by Facebook to make them look independent). If they do reinstate Trump, there is a real chance that Facebook will decide that they are not actually a good idea. Either way their legitimacy has yet to be proven.

underseacables 6y ago

Please do not insinuate that someone did not read an article. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

loceng 6y ago
They didn't insinuate - they outright listed it as an option, noting the "or".
- btilly 6y ago
  The "or" in that statement read as they did none of those things. Not that they failed one of them but not the others.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    How can you fail to understand an article you didnt read? OP is right.
    - btilly 6y ago
      The only thing wrong is that that poster assumed the result. Which is not yet proven. But the most likely result is predictable from the fact that Facebook chose this path and what their incentives are. And if the result is wrong, the Oversight board will have problems just as big from the other side. Welcome to the world of unpleaseant political realities....
bzb6 6y ago
There should be a name for this fallacy of “I’m right because I’m quoting the guidelines”. Ad guidelineum fallacy. Sometimes it’s crystal clear someone hasn’t read the article. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.