6 ms·
Funny, I just signed up for a Facebook account this week after the news,having deleted mine in 2017. In my opinion, they are taking a step in the right directio
by naturalpb 2y ago
Funny, I just signed up for a Facebook account this week after the news,having deleted mine in 2017. In my opinion, they are taking a step in the right direction. Clearly others disagree, which is their right. What isn't someone's right is to dictate truth, which is what Facebook will ostensibly do less of. Bravo
- lawlessone 2y agoThat's great, what was it you were worried you couldn't say there?
- rvnx 2y agoDepending on the website owners or influences there are always things you cannot freely say. Even here on this forum.
- Pedro_Ribeiro 2y agoAnd what is that? Maybe I'm not deep enough into HN to know about this.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoEh, I'm just assuming OP holds views that a lot of people here disagree here with (thus end up getting downvoted), and writes it off as "not allowed to say it" here. That's usually the gist of why people complain about freedom of speech nowadays, regardless of their ideology. Yes, I understand there are billions of exceptions, and I understand how users get banned for "wrong think". But that happens literally everywhere, and all you have to do is to be loud enough to piss of the right people. Everyone wants to be liked, and search for the venues where they can express their views where they would be a part of majority. Basically the reason why people skew towards echo-chambers, in real and digital life.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago> That's usually the gist of why people complain about freedom of speech nowadays At least in lower-stakes online forums, what really grinds my gears is a lack of transparency, where a site or service doesn't explain the moderation or even hides that any action was taken at all.
- rvnx 2y agoOne example from yesterday of “what can’t be said”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630197 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42630067 Or let’s say, it technically can be said, but you get somehow punished (flagged, downvoted, etc) so you learn not to do it anymore. The incentive is simply not there. There is a logic, the “community” flags to protect their own interests (financial investments, friends working there, etc). And since the community is from the same group, they defend the same interests. The more freely we can talk about a topic, the more genuine and thought-provoking interactions it can create (without intentionally hurting the others obviously). If you filter too much, you get this LinkedIn-bullshit and it makes a message board super boring, as you live in a closed bubble.
- datavirtue 2y agoDownvotes don't hurt me. They stop being a disincentive when there is no clear reason for them. It's often people just misunderstanding, misinterpreting or misreading comments and the replies keep flowing anyway. It's not like you get paid for getting upvoted and a making any kind of joke is usually the fastest way to a downvote.
- rozap 2y agoPlease enlighten us.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- naturalpb 2y agoI consume on social platforms, rather than creating. I was growingly aware of the platform's bias on the content I saw and opted out for reality (as close as one can get to it, anyway). The changes this week are a step in the right direction as other viewpoints are more possible, let alone tolerated.
- DavidPiper 2y ago> opted out for reality (as close as one can get to it, anyway) I'm genuinely curious to know what about reality warrants "as close as one can get to it". In my experience, every time I close the browser and step outside I'm generally convinced that what I'm experiencing is real.
- naturalpb 2y agoPrecisely. As humans, we use our senses to discover what is true and to what degree. When online, there's always a reality distortion machine running; the question is how much distortion is taking place
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 2y agoThat makes me think of the rejoinder: "It was for States Rights to do what?"
- juujian 2y agoIs this some kind of really meta joke or irony?
- kps 2y ago> meta joke Is this some kind of…
- bobjordan 2y agoAfter living in China for 10 years and experiencing true suppression of freedom of speech, the desire of many here in America to silence others in the name of curbing "misinformation" is wild to me. I have no desire to replicate what they have in China here in America. Free speech is a precious thing on this planet. The only acceptable solution to speech one doesn't like or agree with is more free speech. Silencing people that you don't agree with is not something anyone should support.
- mixmastamyk 2y agoBest not to confuse the right to "free speech," with others publishing it electronically.
- brink 2y agoIt's the cult of superficial thought. Hate speech is a small price to pay for the fight against censorship. But there is a not-insignificant amount of people that look at the hate speech, think it should be censored because it's bad, and literally think no further about the potential consequences of censorship. Yes, lies are bad and dangerous, but censorship is much worse and far more dangerous.
- battle-racket 2y agoYeah I think this subject is a lot more nuanced than what people like to admit. We shouldn't allow hate speech and misinformation to flourish, but what constitutes as such is in many cases subjective, and leaving that up to corporate oligarchs, or anybody for that matter, is a scary thought.
- hmcq6 2y agoMisinformation is why we ended up in Iraq. Misinformation caused January 6th. As anti-maskers laid dying in their hospital beds they denounced the misinformation they had been fed. Lets not pretend that misinformation is entirely impotent. And let’s not pretend like the internet hasn’t exploded the reach misinformation. How about we settle for a middle ground where Americans are allowed free speech on American platforms but let’s not give foreign actors/governments the same freedom?
- petargyurov 2y agoThis is a very myopic take on things. > dictate truth What about the damage done by the millions of lies that people post on the platform to spread their bigoted agendas? What about how these platforms' algorithms ostensibly promote hatred and shocking material? Just look at the Rohingya massacre [0] and tell me you're OK with it. [0] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
- naturalpb 2y agoOpting for community notes rather than provably biased fact-checkers is akin to massacre, got it.
- bayindirh 2y agoThat’s a shallow take. Opting for community notes without any fact checking will transform truth from facts to “loudest voice”. So, who can yell louder will be accepted as the flag of truth, which is very dangerous. Of course, if you like your propaganda well-done, Facebook will be a great place for that.
- naturalpb 2y agoYou're right, it's a shallow take in response to a straw man of my position. Clearly content moderation is a HARD problem and the decision-makers at Facebook know this better than almost anyone. They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest, of which I happen to support.
- louthy 2y ago> They made a decision that presumably was in their best interest They're making a decision based on political pressure.
- 2y ago
- jsheard 2y agoPart of the pushback is because they are still dictating what you can say except for some very particular exceptions which give away their true intentions. You're still not allowed to call someone mentally ill as an insult, unless you're doing it homophobically or transphobically, in which case it's now explicitly allowed. https://bsky.app/profile/esqueer.net/post/3lf72fz3fas22 https://bsky.app/profile/esqueer.net/post/3lf72fz3fas22 If they'd removed that rule altogether then it could be handwaved as merely "free speech absolutism", for better or worse, but officially stating that certain minorities are acceptable targets of abuse that's otherwise forbidden is something else entirely.
- pesus 2y agoYup. The line about the "non serious usage of 'weird'" is another blatant sign of their true intentions. There's no reason to specify that unless you're upset over it because it was used against conservatives.
- jcgrillo 2y agoZuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, that Vader without a helmet looking Google bro Schmidt? Super fucking weird people. And not in a good way.
- nailer 2y ago[flagged]