4 ms·

And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept t

And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.

passivate 5y ago
If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.
- rnd0 5y ago
  It does matter, because FB (social media such as Reddit and Twitter as well) create echochambers which amplify crackpot stuff and encourages people to act out in destructive ways (see basically all of the RL anti-mask agitation) in a way that was not happening before social media. Social media creates literal mobs, with literal (tiki) torches if not pitchforks. Yes, the difference between two cranks bitching over coffee alone versus the amplification which happens over social media IS FUCKING HUGE! (sorry for caps, but seriously -I've lived through both and the difference is fucking huge)
  - passivate 5y ago
    I disagree. We need to bring back personal accountability. "Facebook made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse for violence. Also, we need to inoculate the mind from these 'meme' viruses with a stronger foundation in basic science. I'm not syaing its an overnight or easy thing to do, but the IMHO I think it would address the core problem.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      So in a different context, the problem is not con artists, its con artist victims? Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else.
      - passivate 5y ago
        If being a con artist involves stealing or otherwise depriving someone of their property, that is not equivalent to sharing dumb memes or conspiracy theories on Facebook. >Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else. Being "influenced" is a vague term and is so subjective that it is meaningless to have a real conversation around it. Again, "Facebook made me do it" is not a defense under any legal system. If being wrong on the internet is a crime, we'll have to shut down almost every single internet forum. Just on HN I've seen some kooky discussions around covid by well-meaning people.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        > If being a con artist involves stealing or otherwise depriving someone of their property, that is not equivalent to sharing dumb memes or conspiracy theories on Facebook. Ok, what about large disinformation campaigns used to sway public opinion or more generally just sow discord by convincing people of divisive things > Being "influenced" is a vague term and is so subjective that it is meaningless to have a real conversation around it. Again, "Facebook made me do it" is not a defense under any legal system. If being wrong on the internet is a crime, we'll have to shut down almost every single internet forum. Just on HN I've seen some kooky discussions around covid by well-meaning people. But facebook can make you do something without that being a defensible excuse. Accountability for your own actions is tangential. Eve shouldn't have eaten the apple but she probably would not have done it, but for the snake. That doesn't mean she isn't to blame.
jelliclesfarm 5y ago
Ok. Maybe your mom shouldn’t use it.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Maybe everyone shouldn't use it... because its harmful
  - jelliclesfarm 5y ago
    Maybe you can’t tell ‘everyone’ what they should do or shouldn’t do. Maybe try telling your mom first and let us know how that went down..
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      > Maybe you can’t tell ‘everyone’ what they should do or shouldn’t do. Those are called "laws"
      - jelliclesfarm 5y ago
        Define ‘law’. Thank you.
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        You should know about laws, friend!
yodsanklai 5y ago
I don't know if people become antivaxxer because of FB. Antivaxxers and science deniers didn't wait for FB to believe in their theories. It's like blaming the telephone because terrorists use it.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Exposure to radical content is like... the main point being whistleblown here. Antivax is one of the most common examples. It's not "Hey want to deny science?". It's "Vaccines change your DNA", "Vaccines contain mercury", "The Vaccine is not FDA approved, could it be because it causes cancer"? Many, many people had no opinion on vaccines and were radicalized on it.
- haswell 5y ago
  I think a lot of folks are conflating two issues: 1. The existence of social media 2. The application of carefully optimized algorithms that prioritize problematic content To be a fair comparison, I think you need to reframe the telephone example: If the telephone system specifically prioritized communication related to terrorism, it would be fair to blame the telephone system and call for changes to how it operates.

passivate 5y ago

If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.

rnd0 5y ago
It does matter, because FB (social media such as Reddit and Twitter as well) create echochambers which amplify crackpot stuff and encourages people to act out in destructive ways (see basically all of the RL anti-mask agitation) in a way that was not happening before social media. Social media creates literal mobs, with literal (tiki) torches if not pitchforks. Yes, the difference between two cranks bitching over coffee alone versus the amplification which happens over social media IS FUCKING HUGE! (sorry for caps, but seriously -I've lived through both and the difference is fucking huge)
- passivate 5y ago
  I disagree. We need to bring back personal accountability. "Facebook made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse for violence. Also, we need to inoculate the mind from these 'meme' viruses with a stronger foundation in basic science. I'm not syaing its an overnight or easy thing to do, but the IMHO I think it would address the core problem.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    So in a different context, the problem is not con artists, its con artist victims? Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else.
    - passivate 5y ago
      If being a con artist involves stealing or otherwise depriving someone of their property, that is not equivalent to sharing dumb memes or conspiracy theories on Facebook. >Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else. Being "influenced" is a vague term and is so subjective that it is meaningless to have a real conversation around it. Again, "Facebook made me do it" is not a defense under any legal system. If being wrong on the internet is a crime, we'll have to shut down almost every single internet forum. Just on HN I've seen some kooky discussions around covid by well-meaning people.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        > If being a con artist involves stealing or otherwise depriving someone of their property, that is not equivalent to sharing dumb memes or conspiracy theories on Facebook. Ok, what about large disinformation campaigns used to sway public opinion or more generally just sow discord by convincing people of divisive things > Being "influenced" is a vague term and is so subjective that it is meaningless to have a real conversation around it. Again, "Facebook made me do it" is not a defense under any legal system. If being wrong on the internet is a crime, we'll have to shut down almost every single internet forum. Just on HN I've seen some kooky discussions around covid by well-meaning people. But facebook can make you do something without that being a defensible excuse. Accountability for your own actions is tangential. Eve shouldn't have eaten the apple but she probably would not have done it, but for the snake. That doesn't mean she isn't to blame.

jelliclesfarm 5y ago

Ok. Maybe your mom shouldn’t use it.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
Maybe everyone shouldn't use it... because its harmful
- jelliclesfarm 5y ago
  Maybe you can’t tell ‘everyone’ what they should do or shouldn’t do. Maybe try telling your mom first and let us know how that went down..
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > Maybe you can’t tell ‘everyone’ what they should do or shouldn’t do. Those are called "laws"
    - jelliclesfarm 5y ago
      Define ‘law’. Thank you.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        You should know about laws, friend!

yodsanklai 5y ago

I don't know if people become antivaxxer because of FB. Antivaxxers and science deniers didn't wait for FB to believe in their theories. It's like blaming the telephone because terrorists use it.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
Exposure to radical content is like... the main point being whistleblown here. Antivax is one of the most common examples. It's not "Hey want to deny science?". It's "Vaccines change your DNA", "Vaccines contain mercury", "The Vaccine is not FDA approved, could it be because it causes cancer"? Many, many people had no opinion on vaccines and were radicalized on it.
haswell 5y ago
I think a lot of folks are conflating two issues: 1. The existence of social media 2. The application of carefully optimized algorithms that prioritize problematic content To be a fair comparison, I think you need to reframe the telephone example: If the telephone system specifically prioritized communication related to terrorism, it would be fair to blame the telephone system and call for changes to how it operates.