7 ms·

Meta nee Facebook "solved" this problem by being set up so Zuckerberg would always have effective control of the company, no? Have they arrived at a better plac

Meta nee Facebook "solved" this problem by being set up so Zuckerberg would always have effective control of the company, no? Have they arrived at a better place? What does "stake-ownership management" mean?

giancarlostoro 4y ago
Facebook censors things similarly the way Twitter does. Matter of fact, all the major social media platforms do. I've seen friends and family banned for the silliest of things, for years and years now. We've only just now reached a point where politicians are being targeted, which is kind of insane. The problem with censorship and I've posted this on HN plenty of times: Today it's the voice of those you disagree with, tomorrow it's your voice.
- JamisonM 4y ago
  This speaks directly to the "the board is the problem" argument, if Facebook is the same then the board is not the problem. Can you elucidate an instance of someone you know getting banned from Facebook with the actual content they posted? I am genuinely interested because the only person I know banned from Facebook was hurling obscenities at someone's every post and comment over a period of time and got turfed. I would really like to see what benign content can trigger it.
  - giancarlostoro 4y ago
    I will do you better, I will show you how they are all the same: https://dtspartnership.org/ https://dtspartnership.org/ Look at their partners: Facebook, Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitch, Discord, Twitter, Reddit. This is how they all derive their terms of service. I noticed any time Discord had new rules or policies usually reddit followed suit. I also noticed Discord has a new TOS update recently that put a lot of their known policy into black and white, but included an interesting tidbit about being able to ban people for off-platform TOS violations. I forget the name of a Twitch streamer who got banned recently for off platform behavior but if you are still following you will note how a policy in one becomes law in another and vice versa. They are all in some alliance and Elon Musk would likely ruin this. This is extremely uncommon knowledge that you only run into it if you moderate on Discord and Reddit and dig deep enough. But also it should frighten you that if you do anything wrong all these platforms will ban you in unison and they absolutely can based on their TOS.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      So, to be clear, you "know many friends and family who got banned" but when asked for specific examples, dodged providing any.
      - giancarlostoro 4y ago
        You would of likely have said it was anecdotal, aside from that I do not owe anyone here personal details about myself anytime they ask.
        SantalBlush 4y ago
        The comment higher up specifically asked for anecdotes to strengthen your point. It's looking like you don't have any. As for sharing personal details, you kind of started down that path with "I've seen friends and family banned for the silliest of things".
        MrMan 4y ago
        he might be a replicant
        JamisonM 4y ago
        I wouldn't have, I was hoping for some specific stories because I would really, really like to know more about "normies" on these platforms getting banned! I don't want names and addresses, I just would love to know examples of what they did.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- themitigating 4y ago
  Does the slipperly slope argument work here? The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. I also note that hackernews has stricter rules than those services. Edit: maybe the popularity of hn is because you can't attack someone and must be civil
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. Many would argue that this isn't the case, and the "goal" of these services is actually to manage the public narrative at the behest (both directly and indirectly) of the wealthy and the powerful. Did Jeff Bezos really buy the Washington Post because he thought that it would offer the best return on his investment, or because he wanted to hold the bullhorn of one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the USA? Does Twitter choose which people to ban and what information gets promoted/demoted based on what's most popular, or based on the narrative they want to create and/or reinforce? Did the Twitter board really reject Musk's offer because it was too low or because they didn't want to give up control of the narrative to Musk?
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Twitter makes money based on ads and advertisers put pressure on services if they feel pressure from the public. For example Tucker Carlson is a very popular show but 24% of the ads are for Fox news or related [1] and many advertisers have have stopped because of controversial speech [2]. Elon musk has stated that free speech is important to him. Let's assume if he purchases Twitter he'll decrease the amount of censorship. I'll make the claim that the less censorship a service has the less money it can make from advertisers. Some have suggested that, maybe Musk did himself?, that he'll start charging users for the service however a survey stated that 74% of people would prefer an ad based service, if they were forced to choose the numbers are closer depending on the age bracket [3]. I'll claim that people wouldn't pay in sufficient numbers and would flee the service. What other popular social media service requires a subscription? Therefore Twitter's action is in the best interest of the shareholders. [1] https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucker-carlson-at-the-end-of-q2-2021 https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucke... [2] https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob-tv-advertising-1203160994/ https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob... [3] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-use-social-media-platforms-to-avoid-data-sharing-info/575956/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-us...
- sli 4y ago
  I generally agree with you, but I strongly disagree that "politician" is in the same class as any random person. I find it rather bizarre that anyone would find more stringent requirements of politicians to be "insane" incredibly strange considering the power they hold over the average citizen. I see things as being quite the contrary, frankly, and regaining the ability to speak freely is as simple as resigning. Politicians (and the wealthy) are not a protected class and there's no need to treat them as such considering the power dynamic.
- ralfn 4y ago
  >Today it's the voice of those you disagree with Can you give an example of someone being banned for voicing an opinion? I'm not from the US so i may not have been paying too close attention. But lies aren't opinions. The truth isn't an opinion for that matter either. Example: The earth revolves around the sun (fact), there is a 5g microchip in the vaccine (lie), the US education system is really bad because I have to give you these examples (opinion). It is not about the topic. It is about how it is phrased. If I were to say you rank the worst, it would be a lie. So I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if what you are saying is true. (they are censoring opinions). But it's not an opinion. It's either true or you are a liar. >We've only just now reached a point where politicians are being targeted, which is kind of insane. That your politicians can tell prvbable lies but that your electorate doesn't instant fire them is crazy. No accountability. Seems like a much larger problem to me. And people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse. That is my opinion though. I don't have facts, because I can't actually tell the future.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    > people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse Caution: Admitting ignorance on the topic and then levying an accusation that failure to discern is responsible for nation-state collapse seems like a large leap that one might want to avoid. As to the rest: Most of the bans I've seen have been based around what I'll call controversial opinions, which I won't bother expounding on but some examples include references to Caitlyn Jenner's Olympic achievements, or whether they are biologically male or female. Beyond that, I've seen a large number of bannings from those who questioned official government narratives: * COVID vaccines have affect menstrual cycles * COVID likely originated in Wuhan etc. These all seem to fall under the concept of 'opinion' and at least to the bulleted items, both of those opinions seem to have consensus support now, despite that they might have gotten you deplatformed just a year ago. There has to be room for civil discourse to question official narratives (for the citizenry and elected representatives alike) and for elected representatives, it seems that "I think the narrative is incorrect and so I should resign to give voice to it" then leaves the politician ineffective at countering what may well be a disaster, and leaves open the possibility of a heckler's veto of sorts wherein the executive could merely inject insincere poison pills into the official narrative and then wait for their ideological opponents to resign in objection.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

Facebook censors things similarly the way Twitter does. Matter of fact, all the major social media platforms do. I've seen friends and family banned for the silliest of things, for years and years now. We've only just now reached a point where politicians are being targeted, which is kind of insane. The problem with censorship and I've posted this on HN plenty of times: Today it's the voice of those you disagree with, tomorrow it's your voice.

JamisonM 4y ago
This speaks directly to the "the board is the problem" argument, if Facebook is the same then the board is not the problem. Can you elucidate an instance of someone you know getting banned from Facebook with the actual content they posted? I am genuinely interested because the only person I know banned from Facebook was hurling obscenities at someone's every post and comment over a period of time and got turfed. I would really like to see what benign content can trigger it.
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  I will do you better, I will show you how they are all the same: https://dtspartnership.org/ https://dtspartnership.org/ Look at their partners: Facebook, Microsoft, Google, YouTube, Twitch, Discord, Twitter, Reddit. This is how they all derive their terms of service. I noticed any time Discord had new rules or policies usually reddit followed suit. I also noticed Discord has a new TOS update recently that put a lot of their known policy into black and white, but included an interesting tidbit about being able to ban people for off-platform TOS violations. I forget the name of a Twitch streamer who got banned recently for off platform behavior but if you are still following you will note how a policy in one becomes law in another and vice versa. They are all in some alliance and Elon Musk would likely ruin this. This is extremely uncommon knowledge that you only run into it if you moderate on Discord and Reddit and dig deep enough. But also it should frighten you that if you do anything wrong all these platforms will ban you in unison and they absolutely can based on their TOS.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    So, to be clear, you "know many friends and family who got banned" but when asked for specific examples, dodged providing any.
    - giancarlostoro 4y ago
      You would of likely have said it was anecdotal, aside from that I do not owe anyone here personal details about myself anytime they ask.
      - SantalBlush 4y ago
        The comment higher up specifically asked for anecdotes to strengthen your point. It's looking like you don't have any. As for sharing personal details, you kind of started down that path with "I've seen friends and family banned for the silliest of things".
        MrMan 4y ago
        he might be a replicant
      - JamisonM 4y ago
        I wouldn't have, I was hoping for some specific stories because I would really, really like to know more about "normies" on these platforms getting banned! I don't want names and addresses, I just would love to know examples of what they did.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
themitigating 4y ago
Does the slipperly slope argument work here? The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. I also note that hackernews has stricter rules than those services. Edit: maybe the popularity of hn is because you can't attack someone and must be civil
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >The goal of these services is to make money by remaining popular, not to ban as many people as possible. Many would argue that this isn't the case, and the "goal" of these services is actually to manage the public narrative at the behest (both directly and indirectly) of the wealthy and the powerful. Did Jeff Bezos really buy the Washington Post because he thought that it would offer the best return on his investment, or because he wanted to hold the bullhorn of one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the USA? Does Twitter choose which people to ban and what information gets promoted/demoted based on what's most popular, or based on the narrative they want to create and/or reinforce? Did the Twitter board really reject Musk's offer because it was too low or because they didn't want to give up control of the narrative to Musk?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Twitter makes money based on ads and advertisers put pressure on services if they feel pressure from the public. For example Tucker Carlson is a very popular show but 24% of the ads are for Fox news or related [1] and many advertisers have have stopped because of controversial speech [2]. Elon musk has stated that free speech is important to him. Let's assume if he purchases Twitter he'll decrease the amount of censorship. I'll make the claim that the less censorship a service has the less money it can make from advertisers. Some have suggested that, maybe Musk did himself?, that he'll start charging users for the service however a survey stated that 74% of people would prefer an ad based service, if they were forced to choose the numbers are closer depending on the age bracket [3]. I'll claim that people wouldn't pay in sufficient numbers and would flee the service. What other popular social media service requires a subscription? Therefore Twitter's action is in the best interest of the shareholders. [1] https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucker-carlson-at-the-end-of-q2-2021 https://www.tvrev.com/news/whos-still-advertising-with-tucke... [2] https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob-tv-advertising-1203160994/ https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tucker-carlson-fox-news-mob... [3] https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-use-social-media-platforms-to-avoid-data-sharing-info/575956/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-people-pay-to-us...
sli 4y ago
I generally agree with you, but I strongly disagree that "politician" is in the same class as any random person. I find it rather bizarre that anyone would find more stringent requirements of politicians to be "insane" incredibly strange considering the power they hold over the average citizen. I see things as being quite the contrary, frankly, and regaining the ability to speak freely is as simple as resigning. Politicians (and the wealthy) are not a protected class and there's no need to treat them as such considering the power dynamic.
ralfn 4y ago
>Today it's the voice of those you disagree with Can you give an example of someone being banned for voicing an opinion? I'm not from the US so i may not have been paying too close attention. But lies aren't opinions. The truth isn't an opinion for that matter either. Example: The earth revolves around the sun (fact), there is a 5g microchip in the vaccine (lie), the US education system is really bad because I have to give you these examples (opinion). It is not about the topic. It is about how it is phrased. If I were to say you rank the worst, it would be a lie. So I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if what you are saying is true. (they are censoring opinions). But it's not an opinion. It's either true or you are a liar. >We've only just now reached a point where politicians are being targeted, which is kind of insane. That your politicians can tell prvbable lies but that your electorate doesn't instant fire them is crazy. No accountability. Seems like a much larger problem to me. And people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse. That is my opinion though. I don't have facts, because I can't actually tell the future.
- bmelton 4y ago
  > people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse Caution: Admitting ignorance on the topic and then levying an accusation that failure to discern is responsible for nation-state collapse seems like a large leap that one might want to avoid. As to the rest: Most of the bans I've seen have been based around what I'll call controversial opinions, which I won't bother expounding on but some examples include references to Caitlyn Jenner's Olympic achievements, or whether they are biologically male or female. Beyond that, I've seen a large number of bannings from those who questioned official government narratives: * COVID vaccines have affect menstrual cycles * COVID likely originated in Wuhan etc. These all seem to fall under the concept of 'opinion' and at least to the bulleted items, both of those opinions seem to have consensus support now, despite that they might have gotten you deplatformed just a year ago. There has to be room for civil discourse to question official narratives (for the citizenry and elected representatives alike) and for elected representatives, it seems that "I think the narrative is incorrect and so I should resign to give voice to it" then leaves the politician ineffective at countering what may well be a disaster, and leaves open the possibility of a heckler's veto of sorts wherein the executive could merely inject insincere poison pills into the official narrative and then wait for their ideological opponents to resign in objection.