4 ms·

Thanks for the thorough response. > They're not much more evil than any other publicly traded Ok, that's basically my point, but people seem adamant that they

by elwell 6y ago

Thanks for the thorough response. > They're not much more evil than any other publicly traded Ok, that's basically my point, but people seem adamant that they are somehow exceptionally evil. > content repackager > companies who take user-generated content, repackage it What do you mean by taking user-generated content and repackaging it? I understand that users often do this themselves, but what exactly is Facebook repackaging? > "default location" for a lot of people to go when bored For me this is HN > keep people addicted This does seem evil, if the product is causing the user harm. > They believe the entire internet is theirs to scrape user activity I could see how this bothers people, though it doesn't bother me that much personally. Follow-up question: do you view Fullstory as evil? > Facebook being fingered as directly responsible for enabling reprehensible behavior To me, this is a sad misuse of a tool. But yes, efforts should be made to limit the tool's possibility for evil usage.

Syonyk 6y ago
> ...but people seem adamant that they are somehow exceptionally evil. They are more directly responsible for keeping people in a mentally toxic {outraged, angry, upset} state than most other companies. Their reach far exceeds Twitter (2.5B active users vs about 180M for Twitter), so I'll consider them "more evil" in that they have a far greater reach. While I may have plenty of bones to pick with Google, Amazon, etc, they don't directly influence mental state for their own profit like Facebook does. > What do you mean by taking user-generated content and repackaging it? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, etc, do not (meaningfully) generate their own content (yes, you'll see an occasional Facebook blog post usually saying "We're sorry for getting caught this time..." but that's not their primary purpose). They take content that their end users generate (photos, posts, links, etc), and repackage it, reorder it, inject ads, and deliver it to other people. This is distinct from other content producers (news sites, blogs, etc) in which the site owners/employees/etc are the primary generators of material. I write content for my blog, and while I host and deliver the occasional user comment, the primary purpose of my blog is for me to communicate my thoughts to other people. I also, after several years of experimentation, now do so in an ad-free manner, because the small returns weren't worth the hassle, and I'm increasingly opposed to an ad-supported internet, so I now self-host my content and pay my hosting fees out of pocket. > For me this is HN Yes, but HN doesn't matter. It is also neither ad supported or, to the best of my knowledge, a public company (at least the HN interface). It's exceedingly low bandwidth and I quite like it as a remnant of an old style of internet that no longer really exists. > Follow-up question: do you view Fullstory as evil? I don't know what Fullstory is, so have no opinion on it. > But yes, efforts should be made to limit the tool's possibility for evil usage. Or to respond meaningfully when it's demonstrated that the tool is being used for it. Facebook tends to the minimum required to look like they've done something, and when someone else points out that the people the filters are aimed at have trivially bypassed them by changing the spelling of a word, Facebook throws up their hands and says, "Well, moderation is hard, we can't afford humans, and AI sucks, so... sorry!" If you're too big to have meaningful human moderation that can understand nuance, maybe you're just too big as a forum/site/community/etc.
- elwell 6y ago
  Thanks again for the thorough and thoughtful responses. I started to write a number of counterpoints, then I realized it might not get us anywhere together. Perhaps it comes down to the way that I view web services: it's just a platform. Since Facebook is such a large platform, the evil parts of human nature will certainly be evident there. I'm aware that the "it's just a platform" viewpoint isn't for everyone. With that said, it's hard for me to leave that camp without carrying a lot of cognitive dissonance with me. Is Ethereum evil because Vitalik doesn't spawn a fork every time innocent people get scammed out of their money (why only do it once (DAO hack)?)? Is Bitcoin evil because it allows people to evade taxes, hurting society? Do you think government should moderate the internet once AI can handle that task? I hope these aren't seen as strawman scenarios.
  - Syonyk 6y ago
    I'm easy enough to find elsewhere if you want to continue the debate. However: Bad behavior tends to scale with size. I've run small community forums (I run one now), and beyond spammers, there hasn't been a moderation problem - it's just too small for people to bother making a nuisance of themselves, and they wouldn't be invited to stick around long anyway. I would rather see a return to smaller, fragmented communities on the internet than the single centralized platforms we've settled on. They just work better. This would, sadly, require anti-monopoly agencies to do something other than sit around with their "Yes, sure, go ahead and buy that company out, whatever..." stamp. As for some of the other stuff you're asking about, I'm not familiar enough with the details of the events to be able to offer an informed opinion - sorry. I would like to think that the internet can self moderate in such a way that the governments are not forced to moderate things, and cannot do so even if they wish to do it, but... that seems a less likely future as time goes on.

by elwell 6y ago

Syonyk 6y ago

> ...but people seem adamant that they are somehow exceptionally evil. They are more directly responsible for keeping people in a mentally toxic {outraged, angry, upset} state than most other companies. Their reach far exceeds Twitter (2.5B active users vs about 180M for Twitter), so I'll consider them "more evil" in that they have a far greater reach. While I may have plenty of bones to pick with Google, Amazon, etc, they don't directly influence mental state for their own profit like Facebook does. > What do you mean by taking user-generated content and repackaging it? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, etc, do not (meaningfully) generate their own content (yes, you'll see an occasional Facebook blog post usually saying "We're sorry for getting caught this time..." but that's not their primary purpose). They take content that their end users generate (photos, posts, links, etc), and repackage it, reorder it, inject ads, and deliver it to other people. This is distinct from other content producers (news sites, blogs, etc) in which the site owners/employees/etc are the primary generators of material. I write content for my blog, and while I host and deliver the occasional user comment, the primary purpose of my blog is for me to communicate my thoughts to other people. I also, after several years of experimentation, now do so in an ad-free manner, because the small returns weren't worth the hassle, and I'm increasingly opposed to an ad-supported internet, so I now self-host my content and pay my hosting fees out of pocket. > For me this is HN Yes, but HN doesn't matter. It is also neither ad supported or, to the best of my knowledge, a public company (at least the HN interface). It's exceedingly low bandwidth and I quite like it as a remnant of an old style of internet that no longer really exists. > Follow-up question: do you view Fullstory as evil? I don't know what Fullstory is, so have no opinion on it. > But yes, efforts should be made to limit the tool's possibility for evil usage. Or to respond meaningfully when it's demonstrated that the tool is being used for it. Facebook tends to the minimum required to look like they've done something, and when someone else points out that the people the filters are aimed at have trivially bypassed them by changing the spelling of a word, Facebook throws up their hands and says, "Well, moderation is hard, we can't afford humans, and AI sucks, so... sorry!" If you're too big to have meaningful human moderation that can understand nuance, maybe you're just too big as a forum/site/community/etc.

elwell 6y ago
Thanks again for the thorough and thoughtful responses. I started to write a number of counterpoints, then I realized it might not get us anywhere together. Perhaps it comes down to the way that I view web services: it's just a platform. Since Facebook is such a large platform, the evil parts of human nature will certainly be evident there. I'm aware that the "it's just a platform" viewpoint isn't for everyone. With that said, it's hard for me to leave that camp without carrying a lot of cognitive dissonance with me. Is Ethereum evil because Vitalik doesn't spawn a fork every time innocent people get scammed out of their money (why only do it once (DAO hack)?)? Is Bitcoin evil because it allows people to evade taxes, hurting society? Do you think government should moderate the internet once AI can handle that task? I hope these aren't seen as strawman scenarios.
- Syonyk 6y ago
  I'm easy enough to find elsewhere if you want to continue the debate. However: Bad behavior tends to scale with size. I've run small community forums (I run one now), and beyond spammers, there hasn't been a moderation problem - it's just too small for people to bother making a nuisance of themselves, and they wouldn't be invited to stick around long anyway. I would rather see a return to smaller, fragmented communities on the internet than the single centralized platforms we've settled on. They just work better. This would, sadly, require anti-monopoly agencies to do something other than sit around with their "Yes, sure, go ahead and buy that company out, whatever..." stamp. As for some of the other stuff you're asking about, I'm not familiar enough with the details of the events to be able to offer an informed opinion - sorry. I would like to think that the internet can self moderate in such a way that the governments are not forced to moderate things, and cannot do so even if they wish to do it, but... that seems a less likely future as time goes on.