9 ms·

So as is so predictable the moment this "oversight board" gets a controversial case they decide to wash their hands of it and throw it to FB in a game of hot-po

So as is so predictable the moment this "oversight board" gets a controversial case they decide to wash their hands of it and throw it to FB in a game of hot-potato. I guess if anyone fears for their personal safety the safest option is the path of least resistance. > The Board argued that Facebook had essentially issued "a vague, standardless penalty and then [referred] this case to the Board to resolve". Yes, that's the idea of your existence. FB wants YOU to DECIDE on cases it may not be able to itself, you know, your entire job? "Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities" - Not at all, they want to know what you think to make an informed decision, the entire purpose you exist. > Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in high places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials. What BS and a waste of time this "board" is when they refuse to do their job.

koolba 5y ago
>> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook > No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in extreme places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials. I'd argue for the reverse. The statements of a political figure must be evaluated in as positive a light as possible. Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!).
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  I'm not much of a fan of lower standards for authority figures.
- tw04 5y ago
  There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so. "We need to fight against special interests" has no context. If the preceding 10 minutes was talking about the civil war - then yes I would be extremely concerned that the President went from talking about war to starting a "fight" with someone. If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight. I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either. IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.
  - bko 5y ago
    > There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so When did "we" turn into the current governing structure of Facebook?
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Exactly. The product never gets a say in what is done to/with it.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    They hate our freedoms led to 20 years of war.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      It didn't lead to 20 years of war, it was used to sell 20 years of war.
      - the-dude 5y ago
        I stand corrected! You are absolutely right, wrong choice of words.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    Presidents have always acted unpresidential but the difference is that Twitter and TV didn't exist then. Lincoln was notorious for using profanity, more than a few (Including Jackson) killed someone in a duel. While some presidents have been more controversial, and outspoken than others, the idea that there is a "well mannered" presidential archetype is a myth.
    - anotha1 5y ago
      None of your examples are on a public stage for a mass audience. It's different. What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.
- zxzax 5y ago
  Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as. No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      tact != dumbing down If anything, it's the opposite.
      - ds206 5y ago
        It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL. I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
    - zxzax 5y ago
      >The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech. Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  The plebs should have more rights to speak freely than the politicians. Or more accurately, the reverse should never be true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- stickfigure 5y ago
  We generally punish culpable people in more senior positions more severely. Mafia bosses get bigger sentences than low-level street thugs. In the aftermath of WW2, high level Nazis received death sentences. I don't think "treat everyone on Facebook exactly equally" is a reasonable standard.
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  I'd argue that celebrities of all kinds should be held to higher standards for truth and good behavior. More followers means more potential for misuse.
- nailer 5y ago
  > Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!). That seems to be the case in this situation. The President called on people to show up, not to riot. If the same standard was applied universally this would have a chilling effect on all protest. This should be unnecessary to say but just in case HN thinks this is political advocacy: I personally dislike Donald Trump.
devtul 5y ago
Government positions are on the frontline of the policy making debate and the execution of it, paired with how humans communicate imperfectly, it's doomed to be controversial. If anything we should give more leeway to politicians to express themselves in areas of contention. We in fact already do that, just not uniformly. The media run defense for one side while distorting and assuming* the worse of the other. We have plenty of examples of the media covering the exact same thing but coming to different conclusions based on the political leaning. It's so tiresome to point this out and get immediately gaslighting replies.
- mc32 5y ago
  Totally agreed. Look at Teddy Locsin, top diplomat from the Philippines. He's sick and tired of naval incursions by his ambitious neighbor so he went on quite a vulgar rant against them.
- olyjohn 5y ago
  How about we don't allow politicians on social media at all? Let them use their own official websites to communicate with the public. No commenting or replying allowed. They should not be allowed to edit old posts, televised and recorded political speeches should be archived and kept on the website... and all of their media should be kept up on that site forever. There's literally zero need for politicians to go on Twitter or Facebook at all. They should only be allowed to have written communications via official channels with official statements. Everybody knows where to go to read the official statements. Then they can't accuse anyone of censoring them. There's nothing stopping people from posting links onto Twitter or whatever other SM you want to use.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Whether or not that would be better for society, it would very much violate constitutional freedom of speech. There is no "how about we don't allow" in this case. Or rather, the way people would have to do that is through a constitutional amendment. It would also set a bad or ambiguous precedent. Are TV, radio, newspapers off limits too? If so, what about the annual State of the Union address to the nation? What about the (yes, small) group of people who don't/won't/can't use the internet? It also wouldn't really help all that much: As you said, nothing stops normal citizens from posting links: similarly, nothing would stop them from posting to SM everything their favored politician writes on their official site. It might stop the specific politician from posting stuff, but that just means it would take a few extra minutes to be posted by someone else.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Completely agree. Their whole statement is completely bizarre IMO. As you state, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of this board was (or at least should be) to act as arbiter in these cases where there is really no right answer - Facebook is guaranteed to get pilloried (as they already have) no matter which side they come down on, so at least having a semi-independent board to make these decisions should keep them as neutral as possible. On the other hand, I think it also highlights the reality that the US has deep, unbridgeable divides now that really nobody wants to touch, even if it's their job to do so.
wernercd 5y ago
I agree it's time for the "board" to do their job... and wish they'd do the same job for those calling for violence - and doing so - for years before and after the "capital riots"... IE: Why isn't Maxine Waters banned everywhere? She's ACTUALLY called for more destruction and had it happen... compared to Trumps "call" which specifically said "protest peacefully". This is all a waste of time and the hypocrisy is astounding... rules for thee but not for me. Wokeness at its deepest levels of hypocrisy.
- invisible 5y ago
  I have no idea why you put the riots in quotes when that's what they were _at best_. Trump was talking to an audience immediately before the same individuals surrounded and stormed the capitol. His speech was at best divisive and contained many euphemisms, if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight." Why are you playing this "what about x" game? The comparison is apples to oranges, and yet here we are.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > His speech was at best divisive and contained many euphemisms, if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight." Here are all references to the word "fight" in that speech (Full transcript is here: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/tra...): * And Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights, he fights. * For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible. * And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly. * Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. * But we’ve done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great and now we’re out here fighting. I said to somebody, I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. 10 o’clock it was over. But I was going to take a few days. * The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they’d argue with me. I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight, I’d fight, they’d fight. Pop pop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you’d have an argument. * Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression and that’s what happens in a communist country. That’s what they do, they suppress. You don’t fight with them anymore. Unless it’s a bad story. They have a little bad story about me, they make it 10 times worse and it’s a major headline. * But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There’s never been a movement like that. * And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. So which of those is a "straight call to violence"? And just so it's not forgotten, he also said this during the same speech: * I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
ramblerman 5y ago
> What BS and a waste of time this "board" is when they refuse to do their job. Arguing over what the job's board should and shouldn't be means it's too late and FB snuck this travesty past us. Private companies shouldn't be instating boards to oversee themselves to begin with.
ineedasername 5y ago
They did their job, which is basically to determine if FB has correctly applied its policies particularly in the context of freedom of expression. It's a ruling that took 2 parts: 1) The initial decision to ban was okay but 2) The "indefinite" part was too ambiguous without reference to specific FB policies and so they must reinstate Trump's account or to provide concrete policies to justify its actions within 6 months (which I would agree is too long) This is no different than any other appeals court, at least in the US: An appeals court can rule for/against something but it can also push the case back to those who made the initial ruling and force them to reconsider. This doesn't even mean that FB is going to be the final decision maker here: After FB makes their case (if they decide to do so) for a perma-ban, the board can then review that and make a final decision on whether FB's application of policy in this case. All they're saying is FB did not provide that justification initially and must now do so. This is the way systems of justice typically work. It is not a one-time binary decision. It is an iterative process refining the legal (or rules-based) question to hone in the core of the issue. Did the board have the authority to make the ban permanent? Sure. Should they have done so? Absolutely not. It would set a bad precedent for them to allow FB to get away with decisions on the basis of vague justifications. It's forcing FB to support its decisions with specific references to its policies. In the short term that probably feels unsatisfying to anyone looking to end this saga one way or another, but in the long term it is telling FB it can't make arbitrary decisions unsupported by its own policies. The only thing I disagree with is that 6 months is really much longer than required for this. FB has had plenty of time on this issue, they shouldn't need more than a few weeks to get this done.
nailer 5y ago
> the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere Why do elected positions need to be held to a different standard?

koolba 5y ago

>> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook > No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in extreme places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials. I'd argue for the reverse. The statements of a political figure must be evaluated in as positive a light as possible. Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!).

throwaway2048 5y ago
I'm not much of a fan of lower standards for authority figures.
tw04 5y ago
There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so. "We need to fight against special interests" has no context. If the preceding 10 minutes was talking about the civil war - then yes I would be extremely concerned that the President went from talking about war to starting a "fight" with someone. If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight. I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either. IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.
- bko 5y ago
  > There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so When did "we" turn into the current governing structure of Facebook?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Exactly. The product never gets a say in what is done to/with it.
- the-dude 5y ago
  They hate our freedoms led to 20 years of war.
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    It didn't lead to 20 years of war, it was used to sell 20 years of war.
    - the-dude 5y ago
      I stand corrected! You are absolutely right, wrong choice of words.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  Presidents have always acted unpresidential but the difference is that Twitter and TV didn't exist then. Lincoln was notorious for using profanity, more than a few (Including Jackson) killed someone in a duel. While some presidents have been more controversial, and outspoken than others, the idea that there is a "well mannered" presidential archetype is a myth.
  - anotha1 5y ago
    None of your examples are on a public stage for a mass audience. It's different. What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.
zxzax 5y ago
Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.
- koolba 5y ago
  > Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as. No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    tact != dumbing down If anything, it's the opposite.
    - ds206 5y ago
      It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL. I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
  - zxzax 5y ago
    >The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech. Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.
throwaways885 5y ago
The plebs should have more rights to speak freely than the politicians. Or more accurately, the reverse should never be true.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 5y ago
We generally punish culpable people in more senior positions more severely. Mafia bosses get bigger sentences than low-level street thugs. In the aftermath of WW2, high level Nazis received death sentences. I don't think "treat everyone on Facebook exactly equally" is a reasonable standard.
RickJWagner 5y ago
I'd argue that celebrities of all kinds should be held to higher standards for truth and good behavior. More followers means more potential for misuse.
nailer 5y ago
> Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!). That seems to be the case in this situation. The President called on people to show up, not to riot. If the same standard was applied universally this would have a chilling effect on all protest. This should be unnecessary to say but just in case HN thinks this is political advocacy: I personally dislike Donald Trump.

devtul 5y ago

Government positions are on the frontline of the policy making debate and the execution of it, paired with how humans communicate imperfectly, it's doomed to be controversial. If anything we should give more leeway to politicians to express themselves in areas of contention. We in fact already do that, just not uniformly. The media run defense for one side while distorting and assuming* the worse of the other. We have plenty of examples of the media covering the exact same thing but coming to different conclusions based on the political leaning. It's so tiresome to point this out and get immediately gaslighting replies.

mc32 5y ago
Totally agreed. Look at Teddy Locsin, top diplomat from the Philippines. He's sick and tired of naval incursions by his ambitious neighbor so he went on quite a vulgar rant against them.
olyjohn 5y ago
How about we don't allow politicians on social media at all? Let them use their own official websites to communicate with the public. No commenting or replying allowed. They should not be allowed to edit old posts, televised and recorded political speeches should be archived and kept on the website... and all of their media should be kept up on that site forever. There's literally zero need for politicians to go on Twitter or Facebook at all. They should only be allowed to have written communications via official channels with official statements. Everybody knows where to go to read the official statements. Then they can't accuse anyone of censoring them. There's nothing stopping people from posting links onto Twitter or whatever other SM you want to use.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Whether or not that would be better for society, it would very much violate constitutional freedom of speech. There is no "how about we don't allow" in this case. Or rather, the way people would have to do that is through a constitutional amendment. It would also set a bad or ambiguous precedent. Are TV, radio, newspapers off limits too? If so, what about the annual State of the Union address to the nation? What about the (yes, small) group of people who don't/won't/can't use the internet? It also wouldn't really help all that much: As you said, nothing stops normal citizens from posting links: similarly, nothing would stop them from posting to SM everything their favored politician writes on their official site. It might stop the specific politician from posting stuff, but that just means it would take a few extra minutes to be posted by someone else.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Completely agree. Their whole statement is completely bizarre IMO. As you state, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of this board was (or at least should be) to act as arbiter in these cases where there is really no right answer - Facebook is guaranteed to get pilloried (as they already have) no matter which side they come down on, so at least having a semi-independent board to make these decisions should keep them as neutral as possible. On the other hand, I think it also highlights the reality that the US has deep, unbridgeable divides now that really nobody wants to touch, even if it's their job to do so.

wernercd 5y ago

I agree it's time for the "board" to do their job... and wish they'd do the same job for those calling for violence - and doing so - for years before and after the "capital riots"... IE: Why isn't Maxine Waters banned everywhere? She's ACTUALLY called for more destruction and had it happen... compared to Trumps "call" which specifically said "protest peacefully". This is all a waste of time and the hypocrisy is astounding... rules for thee but not for me. Wokeness at its deepest levels of hypocrisy.

invisible 5y ago
I have no idea why you put the riots in quotes when that's what they were _at best_. Trump was talking to an audience immediately before the same individuals surrounded and stormed the capitol. His speech was at best divisive and contained many euphemisms, if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight." Why are you playing this "what about x" game? The comparison is apples to oranges, and yet here we are.
- koolba 5y ago
  > His speech was at best divisive and contained many euphemisms, if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight." Here are all references to the word "fight" in that speech (Full transcript is here: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/tra...): * And Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights, he fights. * For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible. * And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly. * Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. * But we’ve done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great and now we’re out here fighting. I said to somebody, I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. 10 o’clock it was over. But I was going to take a few days. * The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they’d argue with me. I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight, I’d fight, they’d fight. Pop pop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you’d have an argument. * Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression and that’s what happens in a communist country. That’s what they do, they suppress. You don’t fight with them anymore. Unless it’s a bad story. They have a little bad story about me, they make it 10 times worse and it’s a major headline. * But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There’s never been a movement like that. * And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. So which of those is a "straight call to violence"? And just so it's not forgotten, he also said this during the same speech: * I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

ramblerman 5y ago

> What BS and a waste of time this "board" is when they refuse to do their job. Arguing over what the job's board should and shouldn't be means it's too late and FB snuck this travesty past us. Private companies shouldn't be instating boards to oversee themselves to begin with.

ineedasername 5y ago

They did their job, which is basically to determine if FB has correctly applied its policies particularly in the context of freedom of expression. It's a ruling that took 2 parts: 1) The initial decision to ban was okay but 2) The "indefinite" part was too ambiguous without reference to specific FB policies and so they must reinstate Trump's account or to provide concrete policies to justify its actions within 6 months (which I would agree is too long) This is no different than any other appeals court, at least in the US: An appeals court can rule for/against something but it can also push the case back to those who made the initial ruling and force them to reconsider. This doesn't even mean that FB is going to be the final decision maker here: After FB makes their case (if they decide to do so) for a perma-ban, the board can then review that and make a final decision on whether FB's application of policy in this case. All they're saying is FB did not provide that justification initially and must now do so. This is the way systems of justice typically work. It is not a one-time binary decision. It is an iterative process refining the legal (or rules-based) question to hone in the core of the issue. Did the board have the authority to make the ban permanent? Sure. Should they have done so? Absolutely not. It would set a bad precedent for them to allow FB to get away with decisions on the basis of vague justifications. It's forcing FB to support its decisions with specific references to its policies. In the short term that probably feels unsatisfying to anyone looking to end this saga one way or another, but in the long term it is telling FB it can't make arbitrary decisions unsupported by its own policies. The only thing I disagree with is that 6 months is really much longer than required for this. FB has had plenty of time on this issue, they shouldn't need more than a few weeks to get this done.

nailer 5y ago

> the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere Why do elected positions need to be held to a different standard?