3 ms·
The uproar over and magnitude of digital ink spent on Facebook is interesting. This uproar seems to persist even if the discussion is restricted to Americans w
by djoldman 5y ago
The uproar over and magnitude of digital ink spent on Facebook is interesting.
This uproar seems to persist even if the discussion is restricted to Americans who are adults and not using Facebook for a commercial purpose (i.e. the use is for amusement or in free time).
It seems to be a disconnect from the generally pro-free speech, pro-personal liberty/accountability tone of HN.
Are HN'ers calling for regulating social media companies because of toxic/manipulative/addictive free content served to adults?
If so, who gets to decide?
This discussion is separate from the monopoly power, anti-competitive, anti-democracy angles, which are discussions all their own.
- hairofadog 5y agoFirstly, from my point of view they're already heavily censoring content via their algorithm. Facebook hides posts that decrease engagement and amplifies posts that increase engagement. If the argument for absolute free speech is that misinformation should be fought with information (meaning, if some folks are telling people to drink bleach as a cure for covid, the remedy is to tell those same people not to drink bleach, and let the people decide for themselves), that's impossible what with Facebooks algorithmic censorship. It's nearly impossible to reach those people, and it's not even possible to even hear what argument they're receiving in order to rebut. Secondly, in terms of liberty, Facebook is a company doing what they feel they need to do. What course of action, aside from government intervention, would prevent them from removing posts they thought were harmful? What would be the threshold for the government to intervene in a web service's moderation policy?
- bink 5y agoIf the platform is controlling what you see or interact with based on opaque algorithms does that really still qualify as free speech?