Facebook Incubated the Insurrection(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Facebook Incubated the Insurrection
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html
471 comments
There's a lot of rationales you can give, but the real answer is that banning Facebook would cause Google to miss their quarterly earnings.
Many people are willing to take a stand for their beliefs, many fewer are willing to nuke their RSUs.
Many people are willing to take a stand for their beliefs, many fewer are willing to nuke their RSUs.
I suspect the real real answer is that Google would summon an enormous shitstorm of antitrust action down on their heads if they even thought about kicking their biggest domestic competitor in the ad space out of the app store.
Can Facebook violate any TOS and not get kicked off because of antitrust?
They could justify it to a court, because "Facebook incubated the insurrection" or "Facebook broke our rules" not because "we don't like enabling our competitors".
They could justify it to a court, because "Facebook incubated the insurrection" or "Facebook broke our rules" not because "we don't like enabling our competitors".
Apple disabled both Facebook and Google's iOS enterprise certificates because they were using them to collect data from external participants in violation of the ToS, although that wasn't the main app. And the access was restored once they took down the offending apps.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/31/18206020/apple-facebook-i...
If the violations were serious enough, I think Apple/Google would consider some kind of temporary shutdown for the Facebook app if they thought they could weather the PR storm.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/31/18206020/apple-facebook-i...
If the violations were serious enough, I think Apple/Google would consider some kind of temporary shutdown for the Facebook app if they thought they could weather the PR storm.
Apple has less to fear from antitrust than Google in general, and particularly from taking hostile actions towards Facebook.
On the other hand, Facebook is not really a competitor to Apple, while Google very much is, so Apple has an incentive not to carry out an action that would strengthen Google.
On the other hand, Facebook is not really a competitor to Apple, while Google very much is, so Apple has an incentive not to carry out an action that would strengthen Google.
For the purposes of making a decision like this, justifiability in court seems like a relatively remote worry. The shitstorm itself, I'm guessing, would be the more immediate concern. Few people in a position to make a decision like this would have neutral feelings about the prospect of a swarm of federal investigators giving them the white collar equivalent of a body cavity examination in order to suss out whether their intentions were pure.
That's true. At least in the U.S. anti-trust laws require you to show that the company engaged in certain actions with the _intent_ of creating a monopoly.
The real answer is that neither Google nor Apple should have been allowed to create walled garden unregulated marketplaces that we're forced to use if we don't want our devices hacked.
There is only one logical conclusion and that is that Apple and Google will eventually boot Facebook off their platforms due to increasing amounts of risk associated with mobs and things that allow them to form.
There is only one logical conclusion and that is that Apple and Google will eventually boot Facebook off their platforms due to increasing amounts of risk associated with mobs and things that allow them to form.
Nuking your RSUs will also make an enemy of every other person in your company with RSUs. You might not be fired, but you’ll likely lose most of your social capital at the company.
What do you mean by "nuking"?
devaluing
Taking an action that will directly result in a decrease in stock value.
In this context, perhaps reducing by 3-5%. For example, instead of getting $300,000 an engineer might only get $285,000.
> banning Facebook would cause Google to miss their quarterly earnings
how exactly?
how exactly?
Users love Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp. If Google took action, the only thing that would happen would be the world now referring to their Android devices as broken, and iPhones are "The one with Instagram".
Agreed. To me parler is like a cult. It's small enough where nobody can pretend it's religion. Facebook is like Scientology, they got big enough and rich enough to where they could influence the proper people and get the free pass.
I don't deny there is probably some favoritism going on, but is Facebooks willingness to moderate their content not at least part of the reason? Parler was completely hands off when it came to any sort of moderation of the content its users were posting (by design) which allowed for threats of violence to go unchecked and flourish within the platform. That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering which site had a more direct connection to the events that transpired.
That's false. Please don't spread false information, whatever your politics. Parler had very similar terms of service to other content companies prohibiting illegal, violent, or copyrighted content. They also paid a team of content moderators to adjudicate flagged posts. They worked happily with their reps at Apple, Google, and AWS right up until the Friday Night Massacre. They were a small company experiencing massive user growth because if Twitter policies during the past year and especially the past months. There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6. Was it the riot or the senate flipping? My intel may be false, but my understanding is that they successfully cleared their backlog of flagged tickets before the deadline, working like hell to save their company, for nothing. The fix was in. This was a hit. We should all be very alarmed by this.
>There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6
According to Amazon's response to Parler's lawsuit, they were warned for months about their content.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...
There is a handy summary of this on Ars Technica as well. That article also says Parler was relying on volunteer moderation to clear their backlog of over 26000 posts.
According to Amazon's response to Parler's lawsuit, they were warned for months about their content.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...
There is a handy summary of this on Ars Technica as well. That article also says Parler was relying on volunteer moderation to clear their backlog of over 26000 posts.
The link you posted to courtlistener.com shows that Parler responded within two days to Amazon's request and apologized it took them a long time.
You wrote that Amazon warned Parler about their content, but that's not what your link shows. It shows that Amazon asked a question about policies regarding specific posts, and Parler answered with their policies.
You wrote that Amazon warned Parler about their content, but that's not what your link shows. It shows that Amazon asked a question about policies regarding specific posts, and Parler answered with their policies.
Full story: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...
Also note that it wasn't removed. I'm not even going to repeat that post here, but absolutely no platform would keep this online if reported, so "very similar terms of service to other content companies" as someone up this thread claimed isn't exactly true.
Also note that it wasn't removed. I'm not even going to repeat that post here, but absolutely no platform would keep this online if reported, so "very similar terms of service to other content companies" as someone up this thread claimed isn't exactly true.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is what AWS said in their letter to Parler before cutting them off. It sounds reasonable enough to me
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/read-amazons-letter-to-...
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/read-amazons-letter-to-...
Thanks!
So they did moderate but not to your standard?
Or they were completely hands off? Which is it? Goalpost one or two?
Or they were completely hands off? Which is it? Goalpost one or two?
I won't pretend to be close to the matter, but my understanding was Parler's value proposition to users was that they wouldn't moderate as heavily?
There's a lot of space between "what violates the law" (or explicit ios/play store Terms of Use for that matter) and "what will get you kicked off twitter" and I believe Parler operated in that space. Users could post stuff that would get them booted off twitter, but that was legal speech. This was fine with iOS & play store & AWS until they all simultaneously and independently (wink wink) realized it violated their terms of use. Unless we grant that this had nothing to do with newly discovered terms of use violations, it was crushing Parler in reaction to a change in the political winds (read: this is what happened).
>This was fine with iOS & play store & AWS until they all simultaneously and independently (wink wink) realized it violated their terms of use.
The timing seems more likely due to a major public event than a backroom coordination.
The timing seems more likely due to a major public event than a backroom coordination.
I agree. There are people on here seeming to argue that parler was booted “because of TOS violations” which they clearly were not. The winds changed direction and it became expedient to boot them, TOS rules don’t enter into the equation.
But the platforms aren’t being honest about this – they’re claiming that it was about terms of use violations. I’m saying “stop pretending like this argument from the platform makes any sense and let’s have a real discussion about the ramifications of banning groups from a platform when they become political unpopular.”
But the platforms aren’t being honest about this – they’re claiming that it was about terms of use violations. I’m saying “stop pretending like this argument from the platform makes any sense and let’s have a real discussion about the ramifications of banning groups from a platform when they become political unpopular.”
They are not dishonest, this is just bad faith argument. Platforms were not passive regarding Parler for long time trying to make them comply with TOS. It is not true that they would ignore issue before.
And the real world violence significantly raised the stakes - both legal and practical.
And the real world violence significantly raised the stakes - both legal and practical.
> Users could post stuff that would get them booted off twitter, but that was legal speech
I'm curious what kind of posts would definitely fall into this distinction. I see plenty of really distasteful, vile comments show up on Twitter. And AFAIK inciting violence is illegal. So the area between those seems to me like it would be pretty narrow.
My impression of Parler is more that they only deleted illegal speech of a particularly egregious nature, e.g. child porn.
I'm curious what kind of posts would definitely fall into this distinction. I see plenty of really distasteful, vile comments show up on Twitter. And AFAIK inciting violence is illegal. So the area between those seems to me like it would be pretty narrow.
My impression of Parler is more that they only deleted illegal speech of a particularly egregious nature, e.g. child porn.
Parler claimed they were intentionally not going to get into the game of defining "hate speech". We see how hard that is in the context of Twitter and Facebook. There are laws on the books in some countries criminalizing as "hate speech" the voicing of opinions that many reasonable people would consider simple truth, political or moral beliefs, mild skepticism of power, or disputing of facts/interpretations. In the US there is no definition of "hate speech" that is currently consistent with existing law. We already have laws to criminalize certain speech acts and a body of law to support them. If someone knows what "hate speech" is and can define it in a policy that isn't used to silence political opinion, then they are in rarefied company. Many people's opinions are noxious to others, of course. But who gets to decide which are which? Apple? Amazon? Twitter? Facebook? The 2020 US Congress? The 2022 Congress? The President of Russia? The CCP? The loudest keyboard activists and their online mobs? Those who are celebrating this aren't thinking it through, or have other agendas.
> pretty narrow
Not so for better or worse. Multiple people have been banned from Twitter for calling a human rights litigation troll (and Twitter troll) a man (he is male).
https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-s...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bindelj/status/118726943929891225...
Calling a male troll “he” is definitely not illegal, yet you can be banned from Twitter for it. It’s not an incitement to violence, it’s not even borderline. Meanwhile that troll can ridicule one of the women in question for having a reproductive abnormality, so go figure. There’s a lot Twitter will ban you for that’s not remotely illegal, the gap is wide.
Not so for better or worse. Multiple people have been banned from Twitter for calling a human rights litigation troll (and Twitter troll) a man (he is male).
https://nationalpost.com/news/free-speech-activist-lindsay-s...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bindelj/status/118726943929891225...
Calling a male troll “he” is definitely not illegal, yet you can be banned from Twitter for it. It’s not an incitement to violence, it’s not even borderline. Meanwhile that troll can ridicule one of the women in question for having a reproductive abnormality, so go figure. There’s a lot Twitter will ban you for that’s not remotely illegal, the gap is wide.
No, she is female.
Before we had all this mess with real identities on the internet, nobody cared about your genitals when you wanted to be addressed with "he/him" or "she/her", they just did it. I wonder how we lost that.
Before we had all this mess with real identities on the internet, nobody cared about your genitals when you wanted to be addressed with "he/him" or "she/her", they just did it. I wonder how we lost that.
I encourage you to familiarize yourself with this case before commenting that nobody should care about the subject being male. He went around booking bikini-waxing sessions (often in-home) from various women who provide this highly intimate service to women, then brought human rights complaints against them when they refused to wax his (male) genitals or allow him to come undress in their homes. This fellow’s sex very much mattered in this case, and people shouldn’t be forced to pretend it doesn’t as he goes around harassing and bringing frivolous suits against women. The courts ultimately agreed https://nationalpost.com/news/trans-activist-jessica-yaniv-f...
He also engaged in other behaviour so vile I won’t repeat it here https://www.womenarehuman.com/male-transgender-trans-activis...
Do you still think anyone who refuses to pretend-along with this predator/troll and echo his self-image back to him should be banned from Twitter? And do you think the speech is illegal?
He also engaged in other behaviour so vile I won’t repeat it here https://www.womenarehuman.com/male-transgender-trans-activis...
Do you still think anyone who refuses to pretend-along with this predator/troll and echo his self-image back to him should be banned from Twitter? And do you think the speech is illegal?
> And AFAIK inciting violence is illegal.
Sure, but in the USA it's actually really hard to incite violence in the eyes of the law. For example, when it comes to USA laws, Trump almost definitely did not incite violence. But lots of people would disagree with the statement that he didn't incite violence.
Sure, but in the USA it's actually really hard to incite violence in the eyes of the law. For example, when it comes to USA laws, Trump almost definitely did not incite violence. But lots of people would disagree with the statement that he didn't incite violence.
Sure, it's up to interpretation, but I think we're fooling ourselves a bit to say he didn't incite violence. People raided the capitol on his behalf. His rhetoric must have had something to do with that.
I think morally he did. And he should be impeached for both that and his inaction in response to that.
But the statement was "inciting violence is illegal". Which involves the law. That's a different question.
But the statement was "inciting violence is illegal". Which involves the law. That's a different question.
>I think morally he did. And he should be impeached for both that and his inaction in response to that.
And an impeachment trial is not an Article III court. Nor is it intended to be. It is inherently a political proceeding and not a criminal trial. As such, ethics and morals are certainly at issue and the rules of Article III courts are not relevant.
Nor did the founders intend[0][1] them to be criminal trials. Which is why someone who is impeached and convicted is not immune from criminal prosecution in an Article III court.
[0] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp
[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp
And an impeachment trial is not an Article III court. Nor is it intended to be. It is inherently a political proceeding and not a criminal trial. As such, ethics and morals are certainly at issue and the rules of Article III courts are not relevant.
Nor did the founders intend[0][1] them to be criminal trials. Which is why someone who is impeached and convicted is not immune from criminal prosecution in an Article III court.
[0] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp
[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed66.asp
Parent is actually right, it is unlikely that Trump's speech met the legal standard for inciting violence. However most legal scholars agree that impeachment does not depend on having been convicted of a crime.
Here's a lawyer's video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwqAInN9HWI
Here's a lawyer's video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwqAInN9HWI
“Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, that said person incited violence. As another commented, it’s actually really difficult to do because you must prove intent and state of mind. It’s part of why I’m surprised that’s the only charge on the impeachment, despite there being a potentially more clear cut issue, legal wise, that happened the weekend before (call with Georgia election officials).
> “Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law, that said person incited violence. As another commented, it’s actually really difficult to do because you must prove intent and state of mind. It’s part of why I’m surprised that’s the only charge on the impeachment, despite there being a potentially more clear cut issue, legal wise, that happened the weekend before (call with Georgia election officials).
Impeachment may be shaped like legal process, and the final act may be called a “trial” and supervised by the Cheif Justice, but its a political process, and the difficulty of proving things “in a court of law” is pretty much irrelevant except to the extent that comparisons to a court of law may be provide political rationalizations for actions in the impeachment or trial process.
(IIRC, one version of the bill of impeachment had a second article related to Abuse of Power with regard to the Georgia election call, but that was eliminated in favor of making the issues regarding the call part of the context for the insurrection charge, rather than a separate charge.)
Impeachment may be shaped like legal process, and the final act may be called a “trial” and supervised by the Cheif Justice, but its a political process, and the difficulty of proving things “in a court of law” is pretty much irrelevant except to the extent that comparisons to a court of law may be provide political rationalizations for actions in the impeachment or trial process.
(IIRC, one version of the bill of impeachment had a second article related to Abuse of Power with regard to the Georgia election call, but that was eliminated in favor of making the issues regarding the call part of the context for the insurrection charge, rather than a separate charge.)
>Everyone” collectively knowing someone incited violence unequivocally is very different than proving, in a court of law,
Proving criminal liability is not required[0] in an impeachment trial.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25786125
Proving criminal liability is not required[0] in an impeachment trial.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25786125
Yeah, I agree that usually it wouldn’t matter as impeachment trials are not held to the same standards, but a senator could argue a similar angle though. It only takes one charge to convict, so I don’t understand why one wouldn’t one more options, not less.
That actually is referenced in the full text of the impeachment resolution[1]:
"President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...
"President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...
>Sure, but in the USA it's actually really hard to incite violence in the eyes of the law.
According to the Ars piece, Amazon claims that Parler users were planning violent attacks openly on the site.
That may or may not be true. I guess we'll just have to wait until the archive[0] is fully released.
If it is true, that might be incitement, but it's definitely conspiracy. And since folks died, it's quite possible that at least some folks could be charged with Felony Murder (discussion here[1]).
But we obviously won't know until we can get our greasy little paws on all those messages, photos and videos.
[0] https://threatpost.com/parler-archive-amazon-suspension/1629...
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/felony-murder-and-storming-capit...
According to the Ars piece, Amazon claims that Parler users were planning violent attacks openly on the site.
That may or may not be true. I guess we'll just have to wait until the archive[0] is fully released.
If it is true, that might be incitement, but it's definitely conspiracy. And since folks died, it's quite possible that at least some folks could be charged with Felony Murder (discussion here[1]).
But we obviously won't know until we can get our greasy little paws on all those messages, photos and videos.
[0] https://threatpost.com/parler-archive-amazon-suspension/1629...
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/felony-murder-and-storming-capit...
That was their marketing, yes, but, as happens from time to time, the marketing was not truthful.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
Links for reference? When the CEO spoke with Kara he said that they have groups of five random individuals on platform moderating each decision.
That’s a filter bubble style of moderation and poor compared to Facebook/Twitter’s efforts for moderation.
The CEO also made it sound like they ignore context and instead only respond to direct threats of violence, allowing vague remarks on platform.
That’s a filter bubble style of moderation and poor compared to Facebook/Twitter’s efforts for moderation.
The CEO also made it sound like they ignore context and instead only respond to direct threats of violence, allowing vague remarks on platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Moderation
> In January 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that Parler had increased its moderation team to 600 people, and began paying them. They also had begun hiring full-time employees to moderate the service.
It may be that Parler did too little too late, but I find it concerning that most mainstream news outlets are failing to report this.
> In January 2021, the Wall Street Journal reported that Parler had increased its moderation team to 600 people, and began paying them. They also had begun hiring full-time employees to moderate the service.
It may be that Parler did too little too late, but I find it concerning that most mainstream news outlets are failing to report this.
What did they moderate though? I mean, was their standing orders to delete posts that advocate violence? Or were they just to ban people who criticize Donald Trump? My overall question is was there an actual effort to come into lines with Google/Apple/AWS TOS? Just because they had moderators doesn't mean they were making an effort to remove the sorts of posts that got them banned.
I don't have WSJ, so I'm not sure: https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-struggles-survival-amazo...
Chance's are, they're probably not paying people to ban political content, since they can get their users to do that for free.
Chance's are, they're probably not paying people to ban political content, since they can get their users to do that for free.
Your first sentence says "please don't spread false information."
Later you say: "My intel may be false"
Later you say: "My intel may be false"
It is false that parler doesn't moderate its content. The details of their deplatforming are coming to light and subject to change. My intel may be false about those details so as a courtesy to you I called that out. What's the confusion?
I'm not confused.
It's just curious to tell people to not spread false information and then admit you may be spreading false information.
It's just curious to tell people to not spread false information and then admit you may be spreading false information.
I apologize if English isn't your native language but it is a simple fact satisfied with the simplest google search that Parler does moderate its content. Therefore it is false to say they do not. Please don't spread "known false" information. Pretty simple. What follows my caveat is supported by evidence and testimony. If the testimony was false, then my intel may not be reliable. I don't believe that to be true but I'm not infallible. What follows my intel is my opinion. My opinion is based on more than what happened to Parler. I'm sure I could have made that clearer. Maybe I should have put line breaks in to help people who have trouble parsing arguments in prose.
My English is good enough to understand your reply is thinly veiled insults without any substance.
> They worked happily with their reps at Apple, Google, and AWS right up until the Friday Night Massacre.
Source? That’s the exact opposite of everything I’ve seen, including the CEO’s own public messages.
Source? That’s the exact opposite of everything I’ve seen, including the CEO’s own public messages.
Parler's entire marketing schtick was that it was a haven for 'free speech' that might get you banned or fact checked on other networks. Yes, in practice its pretensions to "free speech" were pure pretence and there was a list of things Parler would delete and ban you for, like posting pictures of shit, as well as things it wouldn't, like comparing other races to shit.
But having based its entire marketing around its terms of service being unlike other providers, with a particular emphasis on its greater level of tolerance for certain forms of political extremism, with predictable consequences for the community, it's obviously not in a position to use the "but we're no different from Twitter" defence
But having based its entire marketing around its terms of service being unlike other providers, with a particular emphasis on its greater level of tolerance for certain forms of political extremism, with predictable consequences for the community, it's obviously not in a position to use the "but we're no different from Twitter" defence
>Parler's entire marketing schtick was that it was a haven for 'free speech' that might get you banned or fact checked on other networks.
Note that "free speech" in the US is far from absolute. And there is some speech that, if Parler (or anyone else) doesn't remove it, they can be subject to criminal (e.g., child porn, setting up drug deals, etc.) and/or civil (copyright violations) litigation.
As such, anyone who claims they don't moderate is probably lying, unless they want to go to jail, get sued into oblivion or both.
Note that "free speech" in the US is far from absolute. And there is some speech that, if Parler (or anyone else) doesn't remove it, they can be subject to criminal (e.g., child porn, setting up drug deals, etc.) and/or civil (copyright violations) litigation.
As such, anyone who claims they don't moderate is probably lying, unless they want to go to jail, get sued into oblivion or both.
I don't think that Parler removing violence-encouraging posts after Apple, Google, and AWS reported it to them is the argument that you think it is. It seems to show that their moderation was lax or non-existent, if AWS finding violent content is what it took for Parler to remove it.
> "There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6"
as per articles linked below, you are wrong:
"Amazon's filing included copies of emails it sent to Parler in mid-November"
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...
You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims, however.
as per articles linked below, you are wrong:
"Amazon's filing included copies of emails it sent to Parler in mid-November"
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...
You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims, however.
In the interview with Kara Swisher, the Parler CEO said explicitly that Parler does not have paid moderators, but instead uses 5-person “juries” recruited from the user base to adjudicate content.
> There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6. Was it the riot or the senate flipping?
Sounds like you answered your own question. Tech companies were lenient on hosting a questionable community, until members of that community tried to overthrow the government. For all the moderation the Parler admins allegedly did, it was an open secret that it was the hang out spot for right-wing extremists. Yet Parler was allowed to stay afloat until it became clear that doing so became an issue of national security. The riots happened. The cause and effect here are pretty clear. The Parler community did this to itself.
Sounds like you answered your own question. Tech companies were lenient on hosting a questionable community, until members of that community tried to overthrow the government. For all the moderation the Parler admins allegedly did, it was an open secret that it was the hang out spot for right-wing extremists. Yet Parler was allowed to stay afloat until it became clear that doing so became an issue of national security. The riots happened. The cause and effect here are pretty clear. The Parler community did this to itself.
Have you have spent time in parler and can speak to its content? Or are you just amplifying other people's opinions? It is trivial to cherry pick content from Twitter or Facebook that would be outrageous to decent people.
Someone published an investigative report on 1/5 about different social media, the calls to violence were worst in his opinion on Parler
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-...
I joined it back in December, not realizing that it was essentially a platform for right wing extremist. I simply thought it was a less restrictive Twitter, based on the conversation I'd heard. After joining and opening the app, and without following anyone, I was immediately slammed with extremist right wing content and outright lies. I'm not one to defend Twitter/Facebook (both should be broken up into smaller companies), but my god...neither do anything close to what I saw with Parler.
This is a rational and reasonable point. BUT, let me muddy it and make it harder to make your point feel so confidently clear-cut:
Scenario. WhatsApp groups begin to be used as gathering places. Open secret. Bomb or explosion or storming of a government building ensures. Question: is it a question of national security to investigate and pressure to censor or eliminate the platform, and if not why not?
Scenario. The bomby extremist-y people on Parler make up .05% of user base. 99.95, while being mostly right-wing, aren't bomby or national security-threatlike. Question: is the tradeoff of punishing the platform by making it disappear, worth it as the only alternative platform to Twitter (which is relied upon by government, health authorities and journalists as the one true place)?
I have no problem with arguments in favor of censorship. I DO have acid reflux when I see the lack of nuance, the strong confidence and wording like "pretty clear."
No, censorship is never pretty clear and always warrants skepticism and conversation.
Scenario. WhatsApp groups begin to be used as gathering places. Open secret. Bomb or explosion or storming of a government building ensures. Question: is it a question of national security to investigate and pressure to censor or eliminate the platform, and if not why not?
Scenario. The bomby extremist-y people on Parler make up .05% of user base. 99.95, while being mostly right-wing, aren't bomby or national security-threatlike. Question: is the tradeoff of punishing the platform by making it disappear, worth it as the only alternative platform to Twitter (which is relied upon by government, health authorities and journalists as the one true place)?
I have no problem with arguments in favor of censorship. I DO have acid reflux when I see the lack of nuance, the strong confidence and wording like "pretty clear."
No, censorship is never pretty clear and always warrants skepticism and conversation.
The big difference is whether platform refuses to moderate those .05% on Parler. Afaik, twitter for all its moderation flaws is not refusing to moderate those and reacts to big real world events significantly more quickly. And yes, twitter did deleted accounts and tweets of people who called for violence during summer. Maybe not perfectly and plus some ambiguous accounts ended closed too, but twitter did put real effort into it.
Arguing as of the two were equal two is lacking even basic attempt at nuance.
Parler was created because that content was booted from twitter, reddit and public facebook discussion. Literally. So acting like Twitter is the same is unfair despite Twitter deficiciencies.
Arguing as of the two were equal two is lacking even basic attempt at nuance.
Parler was created because that content was booted from twitter, reddit and public facebook discussion. Literally. So acting like Twitter is the same is unfair despite Twitter deficiciencies.
Parler was created because there's a perception of biased censorship on Twitter. Never used Parler but can confirm there is a ton of hateful content and calls for violence on Twitter. I'm sorry you think it's unfair to compare the two, because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.
You cant really claim that Parler would even attempt fair moderation. Its moderation was very biased, intentionally so actually.
> because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.
Anyone who cares about fairness and censorship would first look at Parler moderation, then at Twitters one and only then made comparison. Not even looking at Parler and then claiming that "it is totally same and unbiased because that would confirm my pre-existing bias" is opposite of fair and opposite of nuanced.
> because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.
Anyone who cares about fairness and censorship would first look at Parler moderation, then at Twitters one and only then made comparison. Not even looking at Parler and then claiming that "it is totally same and unbiased because that would confirm my pre-existing bias" is opposite of fair and opposite of nuanced.
Absolutely misleading. They were warned many times and took no action.
> Facebooks willingness to moderate their content
Facebook moderates content only when it draws too much attention, but either way Facebook profits off said content as their algorithms promote it (because said content generates "engagement").
Facebook moderates content only when it draws too much attention, but either way Facebook profits off said content as their algorithms promote it (because said content generates "engagement").
Not necessarily. I only have a few friends, and a few months ago before the election, I made a post recommending they stock up on food, water, and emergency medications just in case. I don't have many friends and it was probably only seen by a handful of people, yet the post was removed.
It's hard to say exactly what they moderate or how.
It's hard to say exactly what they moderate or how.
A couple of teenagers where driving mopeds in other peoples yards this morning. Someone on Facebook suggested dealing with the problem by hitting them with a baseball bat. That hasn’t been taken down and it won’t.
If you write in a less spoken language Facebook struggle to moderate you. Unless you’re trying to sell animals, because they spot that in seconds.
If you write in a less spoken language Facebook struggle to moderate you. Unless you’re trying to sell animals, because they spot that in seconds.
> Unless you’re trying to sell animals, because they spot that in seconds.
Facebook is happy to let bad content stay and profit off it unless said content carries a risk of bringing bad PR; I'm assuming this is the case with the "selling animals" thing because some animal rights groups escalated the issue to the media, and it is now the case with anything Trump- or election-related (not that I'm defending said content, but pointing out that its removal is for PR reasons as opposed to Facebook actually caring about democracy or discouraging violence).
Facebook is happy to let bad content stay and profit off it unless said content carries a risk of bringing bad PR; I'm assuming this is the case with the "selling animals" thing because some animal rights groups escalated the issue to the media, and it is now the case with anything Trump- or election-related (not that I'm defending said content, but pointing out that its removal is for PR reasons as opposed to Facebook actually caring about democracy or discouraging violence).
They moderate things that risk bringing bad PR, including in some cases putting overzealous rules that would cause false positives like you described.
However, it's clear they aren't acting in good faith and aren't actually interested in moderating bad content. Cybercrime-related Facebook groups which don't even attempt to conceal themselves are commonplace on Facebook: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/04/a-year-later-cybercrime-... despite detecting them being trivial based on a simple keyword match.
However, it's clear they aren't acting in good faith and aren't actually interested in moderating bad content. Cybercrime-related Facebook groups which don't even attempt to conceal themselves are commonplace on Facebook: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/04/a-year-later-cybercrime-... despite detecting them being trivial based on a simple keyword match.
> That seems like a pretty significant determinant when considering which site had a more direct connection to the events that transpired.
does it really? "tries but fails to moderate extremism at massive scale" doesn't seem better than "makes no effort to moderate at much smaller scale". I guess the first leaves some potential for improvement in the future, but I don't expect a whole lot from facebook.
does it really? "tries but fails to moderate extremism at massive scale" doesn't seem better than "makes no effort to moderate at much smaller scale". I guess the first leaves some potential for improvement in the future, but I don't expect a whole lot from facebook.
Intent does matter. Why don't you try moderating posts at the scale facebook receives them, and we can compare the results.
edit: I am not advocating for or against facebook being so large. What I am saying is there is a clear distinction between facebook and e.g. parler in terms of moderation.
edit: I am not advocating for or against facebook being so large. What I am saying is there is a clear distinction between facebook and e.g. parler in terms of moderation.
"If nobody knows how to do it safely, then it's fine to cause harm" is a strange way to look at the world. Maybe Facebook should be treated like other companies that sell products that are proven to be dangerous, and they can't operate until they prove it can be done safely.
As we saw with Parler, your fledgling site can get deplatformed by the few key players in the cloud / app distribution / and service providers.
"Just make it" is no longer as convincing a non-sequitor as it used to be.
"Just make it" is no longer as convincing a non-sequitor as it used to be.
Its going to be okay. This whole "Just make your own Twitter!", "Just make your own datacenter!", "Just make your own payment processor!" is exactly what will eventually happen.
I think we might be seeing the start of a total division of society along political sides.
I think we might be seeing the start of a total division of society along political sides.
[deleted]
Parler only has 30 employees, has some very well-publicized security and design flaws suggesting a lack of engineering talent, and is backed by just one private investor. The only way they were even able to release an app of that scale is because of all the services they bought from companies like Amazon.
The lesson the business world should take from this is: invest in your engineers.
The lesson the business world should take from this is: invest in your engineers.
I’m not sure I follow the “only giant, mature, and billions/trillion dollar companies should be allowed to have public services” argument.
Twitter had 30 engineers at one point, they weren’t deplatformed before becoming a better product.
Twitter had 30 engineers at one point, they weren’t deplatformed before becoming a better product.
First, Parler would still be up if they followed AWS's terms of service.
Second, they've already found a new host (https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/956315632/after-booted-by-big...), yet they announced they'll still likely go offline because that host can't provide all the engineering talent Parler relied on. They just need built up their teams and do the work to develop their internal infrastructure. They don't need to become a billion dollar company to do that.
Second, they've already found a new host (https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/956315632/after-booted-by-big...), yet they announced they'll still likely go offline because that host can't provide all the engineering talent Parler relied on. They just need built up their teams and do the work to develop their internal infrastructure. They don't need to become a billion dollar company to do that.
This is an illuminating example of Silicon Valley(CA)vs Silicon Alley(NY) of startups.
I guess in this particular case, Gab vs Parler. Access to capital isn’t enough. Companies also need good legal advice, scale strategy and testing. Etc.
A teachable moment.
I guess in this particular case, Gab vs Parler. Access to capital isn’t enough. Companies also need good legal advice, scale strategy and testing. Etc.
A teachable moment.
Have you calculated how many more moderators could be deployed full time out of facebook's $16 billion profit?
At $20 per hour, approximately 400,000.
At $20 per hour, approximately 400,000.
why are we starting with the assumption that anyone needs to receive and moderate posts at the scale facebook does?
because humans are social creatures. So as long as we desire to communicate with each other, someone will profit by building services to fulfil that desire.
Good point, my response would be that everyone seems to agree that a certain portion of social media is toxic.
I think the main reason these big social media and tech companies devote so many resources to moderation is their leaders are tired of being called into televised political hearings that sole purpose seem to be political grandstanding of self righteous politicians.
I think the main reason these big social media and tech companies devote so many resources to moderation is their leaders are tired of being called into televised political hearings that sole purpose seem to be political grandstanding of self righteous politicians.
Results matter more than intent.
As a side note: as long as they (FB, YT, ...) can not moderate properly and automatically, they have not solved scale. They might have figured out making money but scale regarding social networks? - I do not grant them that achievement.
As a side note: as long as they (FB, YT, ...) can not moderate properly and automatically, they have not solved scale. They might have figured out making money but scale regarding social networks? - I do not grant them that achievement.
[deleted]
Respectfully, this is bullshit. As mentioned above, the question was about dollars, cents, and optics. Parler costs nothing to cut & there's little PR hit (probably a benefit), Cutting Facebook would cost the platforms money.
The "terms of use violations" or whatever BS they're referencing for booting Parler doesn't even enter into it, the action is based at least 99% on cost/benefit to the platform, not some sanitary inflexible set of rules.
Dorsey showed Twitter's rules mean nothing. Trump violates rules: "oh well he's an exception because he's a head of state [and he's the best thing that ever happened to engagement!]." Trump is losing power & allies are fleeing him: "sure he's still a head of state but this is the exception to the exception, so we're booting him [plus the tides just turned against him and dumping him is more palatable]." Soon we'll have the exception to the exception to the exception.
So let's not play dumb and assert that this is about some fixed set of rules, the tech chiefs are clearly making the rules up as they go along based on "who is in power at the moment, what speech is unpopular at the moment" and above all "what will this cost us in dollars."
And the minute your speech is unpopular (I'm looking at you, anarchists, communists, and libertarians), out the door you go.
The "terms of use violations" or whatever BS they're referencing for booting Parler doesn't even enter into it, the action is based at least 99% on cost/benefit to the platform, not some sanitary inflexible set of rules.
Dorsey showed Twitter's rules mean nothing. Trump violates rules: "oh well he's an exception because he's a head of state [and he's the best thing that ever happened to engagement!]." Trump is losing power & allies are fleeing him: "sure he's still a head of state but this is the exception to the exception, so we're booting him [plus the tides just turned against him and dumping him is more palatable]." Soon we'll have the exception to the exception to the exception.
So let's not play dumb and assert that this is about some fixed set of rules, the tech chiefs are clearly making the rules up as they go along based on "who is in power at the moment, what speech is unpopular at the moment" and above all "what will this cost us in dollars."
And the minute your speech is unpopular (I'm looking at you, anarchists, communists, and libertarians), out the door you go.
> So let's not play dumb and assert that this is about some fixed set of rules
I think that's exactly what makes this such a complex issue. It's unprecedented. Never in the past have social media companies been suddenly used as an outlet for national leaders.
> the tech chiefs are clearly making the rules up as they go along
Again, to the above point, this is obviously the case. There's no fixed set of rules to perfectly mediate this situation and appease everybody. It's going to be a bit fluid.
I think that's exactly what makes this such a complex issue. It's unprecedented. Never in the past have social media companies been suddenly used as an outlet for national leaders.
> the tech chiefs are clearly making the rules up as they go along
Again, to the above point, this is obviously the case. There's no fixed set of rules to perfectly mediate this situation and appease everybody. It's going to be a bit fluid.
>but is Facebooks willingness to moderate their content not at least part of the reason?
At some level, for these type of issues, intent doesn’t really matter, only results. I am sure big oil companies do t intend to cause global warming, however they put profits ahead of any concern for pollution. Same with Facebook. I am sure they don’t intend to be harmful and toxic, but at some level they put profits ahead of any concern for pollution.
At some level, for these type of issues, intent doesn’t really matter, only results. I am sure big oil companies do t intend to cause global warming, however they put profits ahead of any concern for pollution. Same with Facebook. I am sure they don’t intend to be harmful and toxic, but at some level they put profits ahead of any concern for pollution.
"I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass"
This is how it always turns out: Orwellian
'At the end of Animal Farm, the pigs start to walk on their hind legs. This is significant because the animals have gone from saying "Four legs good, two legs bad" to the chant "Four legs good, two legs BETTER." Napoleon begins carrying a whip, and soon all the supervisor pigs are carrying whips. Napoleon also is seen with a pipe in his mouth. The pigs literally wear the clothes straight from Mr. Jones's closet'
This is how it always turns out: Orwellian
'At the end of Animal Farm, the pigs start to walk on their hind legs. This is significant because the animals have gone from saying "Four legs good, two legs bad" to the chant "Four legs good, two legs BETTER." Napoleon begins carrying a whip, and soon all the supervisor pigs are carrying whips. Napoleon also is seen with a pipe in his mouth. The pigs literally wear the clothes straight from Mr. Jones's closet'
Because people, not Hacker news people, but real people like Facebook. That's the reason.
real people like parlor.
Knives can be used to kill people. But a lot more knives are used in cooking. So we see knives as tools that are relatively rarely used to do bad things and mostly used for good things.
Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose. That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks.
Facebook is seen closer to knives. Parler was mostly guns.
Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose. That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks.
Facebook is seen closer to knives. Parler was mostly guns.
> Guns are mostly used to kill people.
That’s an incorrect statement. Let’s look at the evidence.
More than 50 million Americans engaged in some kind of recreational shooting in 2018 [0]. Compare that to 14,000 gun-related homicides across the country in the same period [1], mostly in certain high-crime communities [2].
The CDC estimates there are between 500,000 and 3 million instances of defensive gun use in the US each year [3]. They also found that cases of self-defense where the victim used a gun resulted in less injury to the victim, on average, than in cases where other self-defense strategies where employed.
There are also obvious downsides to a society with permissive gun ownership, but overstating the case for gun control doesn’t move the discussion in a positive direction.
[0] https://www.nssf.org/research/nsga-participation-reports/
[1] https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mas...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/...
[3] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-...
That’s an incorrect statement. Let’s look at the evidence.
More than 50 million Americans engaged in some kind of recreational shooting in 2018 [0]. Compare that to 14,000 gun-related homicides across the country in the same period [1], mostly in certain high-crime communities [2].
The CDC estimates there are between 500,000 and 3 million instances of defensive gun use in the US each year [3]. They also found that cases of self-defense where the victim used a gun resulted in less injury to the victim, on average, than in cases where other self-defense strategies where employed.
There are also obvious downsides to a society with permissive gun ownership, but overstating the case for gun control doesn’t move the discussion in a positive direction.
[0] https://www.nssf.org/research/nsga-participation-reports/
[1] https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mas...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/...
[3] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-...
Your sources need work. The salient point (defensive gun use) is not substantiated by your linked report as it specifically mentions the CDC may not collect this data:
> In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection,
> congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research
> at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advo-cate
> or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar re-strictions
> affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The
> net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research
> (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have
> witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and ef-fects
> of firearm violence.
Additionally, "homicide" is not a sufficient tally of gun deaths. There are also suicides and unintended discharges.
Regardless, the original point is that guns are primarily designed to kill things. It would not be "effective" defense if that were not the case. 2A advocates do not defend their gun rights purely so they can enjoy target shooting.
> In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection,
> congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research
> at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advo-cate
> or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar re-strictions
> affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The
> net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research
> (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have
> witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and ef-fects
> of firearm violence.
Additionally, "homicide" is not a sufficient tally of gun deaths. There are also suicides and unintended discharges.
Regardless, the original point is that guns are primarily designed to kill things. It would not be "effective" defense if that were not the case. 2A advocates do not defend their gun rights purely so they can enjoy target shooting.
> Your sources need work. The salient point (defensive gun use) is not substantiated by your linked report as it specifically mentions the CDC may not collect this data
This is an odd claim, given that the "salient point" seems to be a verbatim quotation of the linked report, which contains further citations...
> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).
This is an odd claim, given that the "salient point" seems to be a verbatim quotation of the linked report, which contains further citations...
> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).
This isn’t a gun debate. If you want, I’ll rephrase: guns are mostly used to kill living beings, or to target practice so that one may get better at killing living beings. They don’t have a domestic function like knives do: you can’t cook or clean with them.
Apparently you’ve never heard of trap shooting or a biathlon? These are Olympic sports. While they might not be as popular as hunting, they are definitely not uncommon either. Both sports have clubs and classes here in Seattle. I know a number of “liberal” gun owners that engage in these activities as well.
> They don’t have a domestic function like knives do
Hunting for sustenance, depending on where you live
Hunting for sustenance, depending on where you live
I’d also include putting down rabid animals or animals that threaten livestock/pets.
I don’t disagree with that, but there are large categories of guns that are completely unsuitable for that purpose: handguns (except very specific cases), automatic weapons like used by the military, grenade launchers, mortars, sub machine guns, tactical nukes, etc.
But we were talking about Parler and Facebook. I am sure some people have used Parler for things other than far right propaganda, but can you honestly make the point that it wasn’t its primary use case?
But we were talking about Parler and Facebook. I am sure some people have used Parler for things other than far right propaganda, but can you honestly make the point that it wasn’t its primary use case?
> But we were talking about Parler and Facebook. I am sure some people have used Parler for things other than far right propaganda, but can you honestly make the point that it wasn’t its primary use case?
The truth of the matter is that, unless I was actively watching those conversations, I can't make any point about its primary use case.
I'm definitely not arguing it's not; but, I have heard a call to action to get Telegram taken down from the App Store because "that's where the alt-right is going now", but there's plenty of other conversation types going on there.
Just because you and I had no interest in being a part of the communities we know are going on in Parler doesn't mean that people of those persuasions didn't primarily have friendly conversations about knitting much of the time.
I'm not sure that we can go just by volume of conversation, either. I imagine the vast majority of Twitter messages are spewing hatred, too. Maybe not the top-level comments, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people that previously responded to most every Trump tweet in a way filled with hatred for him.
As I was not a member of Parler, I can't really tell what kinds of conversations that place was designed and had in a way that's meaningfully distinct from Twitter.
The truth of the matter is that, unless I was actively watching those conversations, I can't make any point about its primary use case.
I'm definitely not arguing it's not; but, I have heard a call to action to get Telegram taken down from the App Store because "that's where the alt-right is going now", but there's plenty of other conversation types going on there.
Just because you and I had no interest in being a part of the communities we know are going on in Parler doesn't mean that people of those persuasions didn't primarily have friendly conversations about knitting much of the time.
I'm not sure that we can go just by volume of conversation, either. I imagine the vast majority of Twitter messages are spewing hatred, too. Maybe not the top-level comments, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people that previously responded to most every Trump tweet in a way filled with hatred for him.
As I was not a member of Parler, I can't really tell what kinds of conversations that place was designed and had in a way that's meaningfully distinct from Twitter.
I don't mean to say I'm an expert on this matter, but I make a point of checking out new platforms to see what's on them. I think the absolute worst one I saw was Voat. The front page was equally split between memes calling to “gas the Jews” and QAnon posts about how all the "libtards" are about to be arrested and sent to the gulags.
Okay, compare this to the ratio of recreational knife use (including kitchens) to violent knife use and you'll see why guns are a problem.
> Okay, compare this to the ratio of recreational knife use (including kitchens) to violent knife use and you'll see why guns are a problem.
In the US, stabbings are the second most common cause of murders after shootings, and a higher incident of assaults. In the UK, stabbings are significantly more common than shootings, to the point they are establishing very similar regulations around knife purchase and possession.
An honest look at the data on violence would indicate two things:
1. Violent behavior and the tool used are disconnected. E.g. People with an intention to be violent will act violent regardless of which tools are available.
2. When someone is violent they'll use the most efficient tool available. E.g. Once someone has made a decision to act out violently they'll identify and use the best tool available to carry out their violence.
In effect, there are two ways to approach violence in society. You can try to reduce the number of available tools to carry out violence so people are restricted to their bare hands (note strangulations and beatings just barely trail stabbing in the US as a cause of murder). Or you can address the social issues that result in people acting violently at all, to reduce the incidence of violence and violence-adjacent behaviors in society.
Levering #2 is easier but less impactful, Levering #1 is harder, but has much wider positive impacts.
No matter what you do, violence will never be entirely eliminated.
I think assessing the data honestly and coming to the conclusion "guns are a problem" is either a result of bias or naivete, because it's not a logical conclusion following from the available data, either US-centric or globally.
In the US, stabbings are the second most common cause of murders after shootings, and a higher incident of assaults. In the UK, stabbings are significantly more common than shootings, to the point they are establishing very similar regulations around knife purchase and possession.
An honest look at the data on violence would indicate two things:
1. Violent behavior and the tool used are disconnected. E.g. People with an intention to be violent will act violent regardless of which tools are available.
2. When someone is violent they'll use the most efficient tool available. E.g. Once someone has made a decision to act out violently they'll identify and use the best tool available to carry out their violence.
In effect, there are two ways to approach violence in society. You can try to reduce the number of available tools to carry out violence so people are restricted to their bare hands (note strangulations and beatings just barely trail stabbing in the US as a cause of murder). Or you can address the social issues that result in people acting violently at all, to reduce the incidence of violence and violence-adjacent behaviors in society.
Levering #2 is easier but less impactful, Levering #1 is harder, but has much wider positive impacts.
No matter what you do, violence will never be entirely eliminated.
I think assessing the data honestly and coming to the conclusion "guns are a problem" is either a result of bias or naivete, because it's not a logical conclusion following from the available data, either US-centric or globally.
[deleted]
Yep, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is inciting violence.
this is literally the worst parallel I've ever heard. guns are deterant against serious bodily harm. You've obviously never been in a situation when someone else was threatening your life. A better assumption is maybe Parler was a deterant from suppression. I love how parler criticism existed in 24hrs after "trump" ban. I was on the platform for months non of this hainiss violence or racism was ever in my feed.
Parler was a bunch of people who got run out of places Reddit for being too extreme. It was to maintaining democracy what a housewife on Facebook loving a meme that said “upvote for awareness” was to curing cancer. I mean look at the end result: people unironically brought confederate flags into the US Capitol and called themselves patriots. That is in no way different than flying the British flag there. “Hurdur, my ancestors fought against the American troops in the revolution. Y’all aren’t true patriots, I am. Go colonies!”
nothing like a good dash of ableism to drive your point home.
Indeed, I was never in a situation where someone threatened my life. I know why. I life in a first world country. With reasonable people, and proper gun control laws. The gun laws are what make me consider the USA not a safe place.
Because the UK and EU have no murders, rapes, assaults, etc?
At some point you've crossed from hyperbole into just waging a culture war. Remember that the goal is to evolve both sides understanding in a disagreement, not shout loudly at the other person until they walk away.
At some point you've crossed from hyperbole into just waging a culture war. Remember that the goal is to evolve both sides understanding in a disagreement, not shout loudly at the other person until they walk away.
> I life in a first world country. With reasonable people, and proper gun control laws.
So do I (although I might disagree to some extent on the reasonable people), yet I've experienced multiple direct threats against my life. This is in England, where it's supposed to be all tea and biscuits.
So do I (although I might disagree to some extent on the reasonable people), yet I've experienced multiple direct threats against my life. This is in England, where it's supposed to be all tea and biscuits.
[deleted]
Arguably true of handguns, not really true of guns in general.
Yes I also chop my salads with RPGs and AK-47s :) #notallguns
> Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose.
this isn't true. guns are used far more often for hunting animals than for killing humans, by multiple orders of magnitude. even more often, guns are used to shoot targets at the range.
this isn't true. guns are used far more often for hunting animals than for killing humans, by multiple orders of magnitude. even more often, guns are used to shoot targets at the range.
Substitute grenades or mines for guns in my analogy if that makes it easier for you. The point is that Facebook is mostly harmless content with a few specific spots of really not harmless content. Parler was mostly harmful content. And before someone tells me that Parler wasn’t, tell me how spreading lies about the stolen election and talking about gassing specific ethnic groups is good for the society.
Man you picked the wrong analogy for this forum! Guns are a form of self expression here, so it's like the 1st and 2nd amendment added together
Hah. I recently had a conversation with someone who pointed out that it is really odd to see guns as anything but a tool. As in, how weird would it be if someone formed their whole identity around their affinity for hammers or wrenches or winches or chainsaws? But when you see a “gun guy” you are like “yup, that’s America”.
That's what the Second Amendment, the close relationship between the NRA, Republican Party and conservative Christianity, and two hundred years of the South romanticizing the archetype of the militiaman patriot watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants will do.
Guns should be seen as just a tool, they should be legal but heavily regulated, they don't need their own Constitutional amendment. The basic premise of the Second Amendment became obsolete once the US had a standing army.
Guns should be seen as just a tool, they should be legal but heavily regulated, they don't need their own Constitutional amendment. The basic premise of the Second Amendment became obsolete once the US had a standing army.
> That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks.
No, it's because Amazon doesn't sell guns. There's also no reason to own 10 of the same firearm - it's not like you're setting your dinner table with handguns.
As for guns being "mostly used to kill people", that's just not true. My gun collection has only been used to kill paper targets and, occasionally, deer. Properly used they are no more risk to society than a kitchen knife, arguably less since there are more stabbings than shootings every year.
Banning Parler and banning guns both strike me as infantilizing and highly ineffective. Look at what all of the anti-gun rhetoric has done for gun sales in the US - the same thing will happen with alternative social media platforms.
No, it's because Amazon doesn't sell guns. There's also no reason to own 10 of the same firearm - it's not like you're setting your dinner table with handguns.
As for guns being "mostly used to kill people", that's just not true. My gun collection has only been used to kill paper targets and, occasionally, deer. Properly used they are no more risk to society than a kitchen knife, arguably less since there are more stabbings than shootings every year.
Banning Parler and banning guns both strike me as infantilizing and highly ineffective. Look at what all of the anti-gun rhetoric has done for gun sales in the US - the same thing will happen with alternative social media platforms.
Same with cloud services deplatforming.It's free advertisement for the competition. When I heard about AWS denying service I immediately looked into alternatives that could be used
Used for what?
mlang23(1)
> it's not like you're setting your dinner table with handguns.
This would make for an interesting dinner party. Does any of Agatha Christie's stories start out like this? Or one of those murder/whodunnit dinner theater type of events where the dinner guests are part of the play.
This would make for an interesting dinner party. Does any of Agatha Christie's stories start out like this? Or one of those murder/whodunnit dinner theater type of events where the dinner guests are part of the play.
This is a horrible argument. Not only is is factually untrue on nearly every count, it's not even an accurate analogy, even if it were true.
You can't buy guns on Amazon for the same reason you can't buy tobacco, liquor, lottery tickets, or cars on Amazon. Because these are all things which are regulated by the government in such a way as to be incompatible with Amazon's logistics and purchasing setup and customer experience. You can buy all of those things online (except lottery tickets), but just not on Amazon. Since Amazon sells other alcoholic beverages, they're hardly taking a moral stance about the dangers of alcoholism. They sell tobacco accessories so they're hardly taking a moral stance against tobacco, they sell parts for cars so they're surely not against private vehicle ownership, and yes, they even sell tactical gear and gun accessories (although crucially not gun parts... any more).
The reason you can buy a set of knives on Amazon and not a Glock is that knives aren't regulated with more than 84000 conflicting laws between different state, county, and municipal jurisdictions across the US, including differing restrictions on transfer and shipping, and knives do not have federal regulations requiring background checks. Regardless of your personal opinion around private firearms ownership, you should surely be able to see that the analogy you've presented is patently absurd.
You can't buy guns on Amazon for the same reason you can't buy tobacco, liquor, lottery tickets, or cars on Amazon. Because these are all things which are regulated by the government in such a way as to be incompatible with Amazon's logistics and purchasing setup and customer experience. You can buy all of those things online (except lottery tickets), but just not on Amazon. Since Amazon sells other alcoholic beverages, they're hardly taking a moral stance about the dangers of alcoholism. They sell tobacco accessories so they're hardly taking a moral stance against tobacco, they sell parts for cars so they're surely not against private vehicle ownership, and yes, they even sell tactical gear and gun accessories (although crucially not gun parts... any more).
The reason you can buy a set of knives on Amazon and not a Glock is that knives aren't regulated with more than 84000 conflicting laws between different state, county, and municipal jurisdictions across the US, including differing restrictions on transfer and shipping, and knives do not have federal regulations requiring background checks. Regardless of your personal opinion around private firearms ownership, you should surely be able to see that the analogy you've presented is patently absurd.
You were so close...Try thinking about why guns, tobacco, liquor, etc. are regulated by the government while kitchen knives aren't. You'll get there.
It essentially doesn't matter /why/ guns, tobacco, liquor, etc. are regulated by the government. That reasoning has no bearing on why Amazon doesn't sell them. Amazon is not a moral agent, it's one of the largest corporations in the world with a profit imperative to expand into as many product categories as possible in its goal to dominate e-commerce. Those government regulations make those product types conflict with Amazon's way of doing business and complying with those regulations reduces profit margins to a level where these products are unattractive to offer.
There's a moral-political argument which can be made, sure, but that argument isn't the basis for why Amazon doesn't offer these products, and /that/ was the assertion underlying the grandparent's analogy. It's simply false.
There's a moral-political argument which can be made, sure, but that argument isn't the basis for why Amazon doesn't offer these products, and /that/ was the assertion underlying the grandparent's analogy. It's simply false.
Substitute Amazon for local pharmacy, grocery store, or gas station.
Look, the point isn’t to talk about gun rights. The point is that Parler was the toxic runoff from 4chan, Facebook, and the parts of Reddit it deemed too toxic to keep. Facebook is 99.9% reposting of random memes. It’s 0.1% is doing a lot of harm, but by and large it isn’t obviously designed to be a white supremacy platform, it just happens to be used that way by a decent number of people. And that’s my point: guns are designed to kill things, not to cut salad. Knives are designed to be tools that are more often than not used for peaceful cooking, and sometimes misused to cause harm. Trying to turn this into a “guns don’t kill people” debate is pointless. It’s outside the scope of the analogy of why Parler was seen as a harmful thing while Facebook wasn’t.
Look, the point isn’t to talk about gun rights. The point is that Parler was the toxic runoff from 4chan, Facebook, and the parts of Reddit it deemed too toxic to keep. Facebook is 99.9% reposting of random memes. It’s 0.1% is doing a lot of harm, but by and large it isn’t obviously designed to be a white supremacy platform, it just happens to be used that way by a decent number of people. And that’s my point: guns are designed to kill things, not to cut salad. Knives are designed to be tools that are more often than not used for peaceful cooking, and sometimes misused to cause harm. Trying to turn this into a “guns don’t kill people” debate is pointless. It’s outside the scope of the analogy of why Parler was seen as a harmful thing while Facebook wasn’t.
I think rather than trying argue your original analogy was relevant and useful, you should instead simply admit that it was a bad analogy using an (intentionally or not) inflammatory and afactual comparison that detracts and distracts from the point you are trying to make. It's pretty clear that you're trying to make the point that Facebook is a platform for mostly benign things which as an ancillary has functionality that can be used by extremists, while Parler is specifically a platform built for extremists. You're doing a pretty bad job of trying to make that point by over-focusing on a bad analogy.
I'm not sure that's actually accurate. I think it's strongly debatable as to whether or not Facebook ever had any positive intents as a platform. Arguably, Facebook started as a way for predatory men on college campuses to stalk attractive women and comment on their bodies, which I'd be hard pressed to classify as a positive intent. Developing from that, Facebook has taken as many actions as possible to drive user engagement, including actively spying on their users to do so. Not only is the spying itself user-hostile, but the actions taken to drive user engagement seem to greatly emphasize and create rage, lust, fear, and other negative emotions in their user base. I'd be hard-pressed to classify any of this as positive intent.
I think you'll have a difficult time, regardless of the analogy you try to shoe-horn into place, arguing that Facebook suffers from unintended consequences when their ragebaiting mechanisms lead to political extremism and violence, and that Parler was intending that a platform designed for free speech resulted in extremism. Probably the best argument in your favor would be to focus on Parler's genesis story, which seems to strongly indicate that it too was not formed for positive intents. I think a mostly honest take is that both platforms are negative in both their intentions and their outcomes and are directly toxic for a functioning democratic society. The only real difference between Parler and Facebook is that Facebook is socially entrenched and has a massive global user base and the revenue/wealth that comes from that, and Parler doesn't.
I'm not sure that's actually accurate. I think it's strongly debatable as to whether or not Facebook ever had any positive intents as a platform. Arguably, Facebook started as a way for predatory men on college campuses to stalk attractive women and comment on their bodies, which I'd be hard pressed to classify as a positive intent. Developing from that, Facebook has taken as many actions as possible to drive user engagement, including actively spying on their users to do so. Not only is the spying itself user-hostile, but the actions taken to drive user engagement seem to greatly emphasize and create rage, lust, fear, and other negative emotions in their user base. I'd be hard-pressed to classify any of this as positive intent.
I think you'll have a difficult time, regardless of the analogy you try to shoe-horn into place, arguing that Facebook suffers from unintended consequences when their ragebaiting mechanisms lead to political extremism and violence, and that Parler was intending that a platform designed for free speech resulted in extremism. Probably the best argument in your favor would be to focus on Parler's genesis story, which seems to strongly indicate that it too was not formed for positive intents. I think a mostly honest take is that both platforms are negative in both their intentions and their outcomes and are directly toxic for a functioning democratic society. The only real difference between Parler and Facebook is that Facebook is socially entrenched and has a massive global user base and the revenue/wealth that comes from that, and Parler doesn't.
I will say that my analogy might not have been as universally accessible as I had hoped. Clearly not. I could have picked something like chemical compounds as examples. It is a sad state that so many people attach their identity as humans to gun ownership and I keep underestimating just how much some cling to that.
To your other point, I am not defending Facebook here. The question that was raised: how come Parler was deplatformed as harmful but Facebook wasn’t even though it’s arguably worse in absolute terms. My point was that it’s probably because in relative terms Parler was mostly seen as being used in harmful ways while Facebook is seen as mostly non-harmful with some harmful parts.
I stand by that assessment, as in why Apple and Google haven’t removed the Facebook app from their app platforms. I do wish Facebook would get reined in because it is not a force for good. I think there was a brief period of maybe 2-3 years when it was a net positive: when you could use it to simply connect with people you used to know and lost contact with. Initially it was a weird stalker platform as you said, later it turned into a combo meme machine (and a bad one at that) and a marketing platform. About the only parts of FB that I still find useful personally are its Marketplace which is an objectively better experience than Craigslist (though FB is ruining it with how it’s running advertising there that really messes up your searches), and Messenger (but only because I at some point connected with a number of people on there; I will likely be moving those conversations elsewhere since there isn’t anything special about the Messenger itself). It’s other two major properties, Instagram and WhatsApp, are useful for other things but also have their own major problems. Instagram I think is a flash in the pan until the current generation of users ages out of being cool and the next generation wants to move to a new platform simply because they don’t want to hang out with the old geezers. WhatsApp has a privacy problem by design and better alternatives already exist (Matrix, Signal).
But yes Facebook is basically a mostly bad for society platform, it’s just bad in the sense that fast food is bad, not in the murder is bad. We tend to react to diffuse bad influences differently than to acute ones.
To your other point, I am not defending Facebook here. The question that was raised: how come Parler was deplatformed as harmful but Facebook wasn’t even though it’s arguably worse in absolute terms. My point was that it’s probably because in relative terms Parler was mostly seen as being used in harmful ways while Facebook is seen as mostly non-harmful with some harmful parts.
I stand by that assessment, as in why Apple and Google haven’t removed the Facebook app from their app platforms. I do wish Facebook would get reined in because it is not a force for good. I think there was a brief period of maybe 2-3 years when it was a net positive: when you could use it to simply connect with people you used to know and lost contact with. Initially it was a weird stalker platform as you said, later it turned into a combo meme machine (and a bad one at that) and a marketing platform. About the only parts of FB that I still find useful personally are its Marketplace which is an objectively better experience than Craigslist (though FB is ruining it with how it’s running advertising there that really messes up your searches), and Messenger (but only because I at some point connected with a number of people on there; I will likely be moving those conversations elsewhere since there isn’t anything special about the Messenger itself). It’s other two major properties, Instagram and WhatsApp, are useful for other things but also have their own major problems. Instagram I think is a flash in the pan until the current generation of users ages out of being cool and the next generation wants to move to a new platform simply because they don’t want to hang out with the old geezers. WhatsApp has a privacy problem by design and better alternatives already exist (Matrix, Signal).
But yes Facebook is basically a mostly bad for society platform, it’s just bad in the sense that fast food is bad, not in the murder is bad. We tend to react to diffuse bad influences differently than to acute ones.
the wrong people /s
But it’s almost all “bad” real people.
> What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler.
Parler was created because Facebook and Twitter wouldn't allow certain types of speech. Fundamentally that same speech that was banned from Facebook is what got Parler kicked from pretty much everywhere.
Parler knowingly allowed threats of violence, murder, and rape on their platform. Facebook and Twitter grudgingly booted the groups and individuals who made that same sort of speech off.
I do agree that Facebook is given too much latitude, but there are pretty significant gaps. Facebook is mostly used for speech of a more mundane sort.
Parler was created because Facebook and Twitter wouldn't allow certain types of speech. Fundamentally that same speech that was banned from Facebook is what got Parler kicked from pretty much everywhere.
Parler knowingly allowed threats of violence, murder, and rape on their platform. Facebook and Twitter grudgingly booted the groups and individuals who made that same sort of speech off.
I do agree that Facebook is given too much latitude, but there are pretty significant gaps. Facebook is mostly used for speech of a more mundane sort.
It's mostly about 'principal use'. Parler's principal use seems to have been to give the extreme right a place to congregate. Facebook does not have that as principal use so it is more of a sideshow.
> So is Google going to throw them out of the Play store? What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler.
Probably something like S/N ratio. Even though there was insurrectionist and para-insurrectionist activity on Facebook and Twitter, it was a far smaller percentage of the total, and they are more effective at moderating it (once it reaches their awareness). Parler's whole raison d'être was to capture people who got kicked off Twitter for posting that kind of stuff, so it stands to reason its proportion must have been far higher there.
Probably something like S/N ratio. Even though there was insurrectionist and para-insurrectionist activity on Facebook and Twitter, it was a far smaller percentage of the total, and they are more effective at moderating it (once it reaches their awareness). Parler's whole raison d'être was to capture people who got kicked off Twitter for posting that kind of stuff, so it stands to reason its proportion must have been far higher there.
Defending Google's right to choose who to do business with - for (with certain notable exceptions involving protected classes of individuals) any purpose, no matter how petty, is not excusing Google for being capricious. It's recognizing that the norms of civil society mean that there are certain times when you need to just hold your nose and acknowledge that someone gets to do something you don't like, because the cure would be worse than the disease.
If there's a problem here, it's that Google has grown to be so powerful. Nobody was ever concerned about Lifeway Christian Bookstores being extremely selective in whose products they would carry, for reasons that many would consider quite discriminator. Why? Because Lifeway has lots of competitors, and no effective way to compel people to only buy books from them.
If there's a problem here, it's that Google has grown to be so powerful. Nobody was ever concerned about Lifeway Christian Bookstores being extremely selective in whose products they would carry, for reasons that many would consider quite discriminator. Why? Because Lifeway has lots of competitors, and no effective way to compel people to only buy books from them.
I'm going to need a few "Jump to conclusions" mats to manage all of the replies to this. Nuts. Propaganda sure does work.
> why Facebook is continuously given a free pass
Because there's good (or at least neutral) stuff mixed in with the bad stuff. The problem with every free-speech alternative to a heavily moderated forum is that it always ends up being 100% anger: there's never anything lighthearted to point to to defend it.
Because there's good (or at least neutral) stuff mixed in with the bad stuff. The problem with every free-speech alternative to a heavily moderated forum is that it always ends up being 100% anger: there's never anything lighthearted to point to to defend it.
Size is important, obviously. But so is reputation. Parler spent whatever good name they had very quickly, and it turns out things become difficult very quickly the moment people stop giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Facebook has better PR too.
Facebook has better PR too.
> What’s the argument for banning one social media and not another.
The argument for Parler from at least some platforms seems to have been that they were unable or unwilling to police content after they had actual notice. Whether it is as sufficient or not may be debatable, but Facebook has at least visibly made steps to address the problem as attention has been focussed on it.
The argument for Parler from at least some platforms seems to have been that they were unable or unwilling to police content after they had actual notice. Whether it is as sufficient or not may be debatable, but Facebook has at least visibly made steps to address the problem as attention has been focussed on it.
By "actual notice", I assume you're referring to the paltry 24 hours notice provided by Apple. To my knowledge, Google did not provide notice.
> By “actual notice”, I assume you’re referring to the paltry 24 hours notice provided by Apple.
No, I mean actual knowledge of the content, by whatever mechanism.
No, I mean actual knowledge of the content, by whatever mechanism.
Facebook is big, wealthy and mainstream. Parler was small, poor and fringe.
Same reason tech firms are happy to "stand up" for democracy in small developing nations but won't say boo to China.
If you're looking to big business for some consistent moral principle, you're looking in the wrong place.
Same reason tech firms are happy to "stand up" for democracy in small developing nations but won't say boo to China.
If you're looking to big business for some consistent moral principle, you're looking in the wrong place.
Facebook, allegedly, has an "army" of moderators. Parler, on the other hand, relied on voluntary "flagging", and they admitted (quoted in some other article from today), that they had a backlog of some 26,000 posts to review. So, while this stuff looks arbitrary on the surface, I guess we will just have to see what comes out in discovery in these lawsuits and what happens with judge and jury.
Parler has allegedly had hundreds of paid moderators for months. They also allegedly cleared their backlog over the weekend in a foolish belief they could be on the right side of AWS politics.
If Parler was so intent on staying on the right side of the law, maybe they should have cleared that backlog well before Jan 6th.
You said it yourself, Apple, Google, AWS are "the law" now.
Sounds like a market solution, does it not?
To be clear, what I mean is that they are demonstrably not "the law." This is a market problem and this was the market solution.
To be clear, what I mean is that they are demonstrably not "the law." This is a market problem and this was the market solution.
I don't know that I think it was right to kick out Parler, but it seems like there's a "if you lie down with dogs, then you get up with fleas" element to this. Parler targeted a toxic demographic and their brand became toxic.
[deleted]
because stuff like this in facebook's case is tinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy percent
meanwhile what % of parler's stuff all those "bad" things are?
meanwhile what % of parler's stuff all those "bad" things are?
[deleted]
Here are a couple:
Facebook could have 100 times more violent content than parler, but it would be a much smaller percentage of content because Facebook is 1000000 times bigger. It's that simple really. Banning Parler is more efficient.
Also, Parler went out and sold itself as somewhere this was allowed, protected and encouraged. Facebook didn't, quite the opposite in fact.
Facebook could have 100 times more violent content than parler, but it would be a much smaller percentage of content because Facebook is 1000000 times bigger. It's that simple really. Banning Parler is more efficient.
Also, Parler went out and sold itself as somewhere this was allowed, protected and encouraged. Facebook didn't, quite the opposite in fact.
Just to make sure we're clear on the numbers, Parler had ~2 million accounts last I checked. Facebook being 1e6 times bigger, as you claim, would be quite the feat.
I get your larger point, but the actual numbers you picked to illustrate it are just completely divorced from reality.
I get your larger point, but the actual numbers you picked to illustrate it are just completely divorced from reality.
So it looks like Facebook is 2.7bn. So they're 1000 times larger. So the question is, are there 1000 times more racist/antisemitic/violent posts on Facebook as there are on parler?
Going down this path, consider that Facebook caused genocide, the active killing of a population.
Parler caused 1 night of rioting.
How is that for percentages of content being objectionable?
Parler caused 1 night of rioting.
How is that for percentages of content being objectionable?
Well, neither "caused" those events per see, they were just places where people gathered and talked about doing them and riled each other up.
That's one of my frustrations with this: these issues should be dealt with by police and governments and society as a whole. The total failure of those leaves us looking to Big Tech firms to do things they were never designed to do (change human nature, police speech AND make a profit). Things they really can't do without collaboration and intrusive behaviour. But enough of my hair splitting...
Re the percentages, Any platform over a certain size will have racists (and pedophiles and other illegal or undesirable users). The question isn't whether someone on Facebook is being racist. The question is whether Facebook encourage it and whether they effectively moderate it when it is reported/discovered.
Facebook is huge and has much less racism etc than Parler did exactly because they ban it and mod it. They're not perfect, but they're making an effort. That is all you can expect from a platform that allows user content.
Parler encouraged and refused to moderate the same content. That's how it grew from zero users up. That's how it marketed itself. It could have moderated, it removed all sorts of legal content that didn't fit its brand. But it's taken little to no action on violent right wing groups. Quite the opposite, it's encouraged and courted them.
Percentage measures are a measure of the effectiveness of the mods and the actions of the people running the platform and that's what we can reasonably expect. Absolute measures are at least partly just down to size of platform.
The also percentage matters because parler is small right now. If we ignore it because it's "only a night of rioting" what happens when parler has 330mil users like twitter? Or 2.7bn users like FB? You'll get a lot more than 1 genocide out of a mega-parlar...
Density also matters. If I browse reddit, Facebook, twitter and parler randomly, how long before I see crazy conspiracy theories or calls to violence? That's what's concerning here as well: echo Chambers. All the others are much broader, but on parler you just got a very right wing, fact free and urgent set of inputs. That's much more likely to lead to someone being radicalised than the same amount of BS spread over a much bigger collection of cake recipes, kitten pics and funny gifs. That's the other reason percentages (a density measure) matter.
At least that's how I understand it.
Back to my soap box for a moment: I think we have a real problem with people who are not used to social media not having any BS filter. Thats the root cause of both the riots and the Burmese genocide (I assume that what you refer to, correct me otherwise).
We don't have a solution to that. Facebook et al tried to solve it by dilution and moderation. Parler saw it as an opportunity to profit off of and lean into. Those are 2 different business models morally even if its a difference of degree rather than ultimate outcome.
That's one of my frustrations with this: these issues should be dealt with by police and governments and society as a whole. The total failure of those leaves us looking to Big Tech firms to do things they were never designed to do (change human nature, police speech AND make a profit). Things they really can't do without collaboration and intrusive behaviour. But enough of my hair splitting...
Re the percentages, Any platform over a certain size will have racists (and pedophiles and other illegal or undesirable users). The question isn't whether someone on Facebook is being racist. The question is whether Facebook encourage it and whether they effectively moderate it when it is reported/discovered.
Facebook is huge and has much less racism etc than Parler did exactly because they ban it and mod it. They're not perfect, but they're making an effort. That is all you can expect from a platform that allows user content.
Parler encouraged and refused to moderate the same content. That's how it grew from zero users up. That's how it marketed itself. It could have moderated, it removed all sorts of legal content that didn't fit its brand. But it's taken little to no action on violent right wing groups. Quite the opposite, it's encouraged and courted them.
Percentage measures are a measure of the effectiveness of the mods and the actions of the people running the platform and that's what we can reasonably expect. Absolute measures are at least partly just down to size of platform.
The also percentage matters because parler is small right now. If we ignore it because it's "only a night of rioting" what happens when parler has 330mil users like twitter? Or 2.7bn users like FB? You'll get a lot more than 1 genocide out of a mega-parlar...
Density also matters. If I browse reddit, Facebook, twitter and parler randomly, how long before I see crazy conspiracy theories or calls to violence? That's what's concerning here as well: echo Chambers. All the others are much broader, but on parler you just got a very right wing, fact free and urgent set of inputs. That's much more likely to lead to someone being radicalised than the same amount of BS spread over a much bigger collection of cake recipes, kitten pics and funny gifs. That's the other reason percentages (a density measure) matter.
At least that's how I understand it.
Back to my soap box for a moment: I think we have a real problem with people who are not used to social media not having any BS filter. Thats the root cause of both the riots and the Burmese genocide (I assume that what you refer to, correct me otherwise).
We don't have a solution to that. Facebook et al tried to solve it by dilution and moderation. Parler saw it as an opportunity to profit off of and lean into. Those are 2 different business models morally even if its a difference of degree rather than ultimate outcome.
The main arguments are proportionality and enforcement. Facebook probably had more violating content in total but out of a much much larger pool of content. In other words, the percentage of violating content on Facebook is still much smaller. Likewise, Facebook still makes efforts to moderate and police content.
Pointing to the large size of ToS violations on Facebook and concluding that Facebook is a dangerous platform is akin to pointing out how many Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas get into collisions and concluding they are dangerous models of cars. They're perfectly safe cars there's just a lot of them on the road.
Pointing to the large size of ToS violations on Facebook and concluding that Facebook is a dangerous platform is akin to pointing out how many Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas get into collisions and concluding they are dangerous models of cars. They're perfectly safe cars there's just a lot of them on the road.
Google has their own complicity as their algorithm similarly encourages monetising conspiracy theories - which is the problem. Facebook just have a bigger problem in that their monetisation requires a captive audience which amplifies any groupthink, not just showing people what they might be looking for.
Call it the Alex Jones method. Promote a conspiracy theory and monetise the traffic via advertising views, affiliate links or actually selling products that mitigate the effects of conspiracy theory you pushed. All online advertising makes this profitable to anyone and that's what needs to be addressed.
Call it the Alex Jones method. Promote a conspiracy theory and monetise the traffic via advertising views, affiliate links or actually selling products that mitigate the effects of conspiracy theory you pushed. All online advertising makes this profitable to anyone and that's what needs to be addressed.
Because Google and Facebook made a deal to work together:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-facebook-agreed-to-team-...
Parler doesn't moderate their content. Facebook has the worlds most advanced content moderation systems and team. I mean you can dislike Facebook, but they clearly try to moderate their platform.
Also, why is Discord not on the conversation?
Seems a far worse offender to me. At least Parler chats were public.
Seems a far worse offender to me. At least Parler chats were public.
> What's the argument for banning one social media and not another
Google’s argument would be Facebook has shown good-faith efforts to respond to the problem, e.g. by freezing Trump. Parler didn’t or couldn’t. (Counterfactual: they weren’t given much time.)
In reality, a greater fraction of Parler’s users are engaging in criminal activity. By virtue of market share. (I reckon the number of problem users is higher at Facebook. Again by virtue of size.) And disconnecting hundreds of millions of voters from their kids’ photos is a good way to get slapped.
Great arguments for breaking up Facebook.
Google’s argument would be Facebook has shown good-faith efforts to respond to the problem, e.g. by freezing Trump. Parler didn’t or couldn’t. (Counterfactual: they weren’t given much time.)
In reality, a greater fraction of Parler’s users are engaging in criminal activity. By virtue of market share. (I reckon the number of problem users is higher at Facebook. Again by virtue of size.) And disconnecting hundreds of millions of voters from their kids’ photos is a good way to get slapped.
Great arguments for breaking up Facebook.
Didn't they freeze Trump only after the entire backlash? and last I checked, Trump was not on Parler was he? Infact, that was the big issue - Trump not moving to Parler or Gab while calling out Twitter.
It's funny because if he did do the move earlier, he'd have hurt twitter where it counts - their stock price. But I guess the attention on Twitter was just too much to ignore.
It's funny because if he did do the move earlier, he'd have hurt twitter where it counts - their stock price. But I guess the attention on Twitter was just too much to ignore.
> and last I checked, Trump was not on Parler was he? Infact, that was the big issue - Trump not moving to Parler or Gab while calling out Twitter.
This is a legitimate criticism even for people on the right about Trump. He knew these Tech Giants were questionable about uneven censorship, he’s been complaining about it for years.
So why in the hell wasn’t he posting to gab, parlor, bitchute, streamable, all the “alternatives” first, then the tech giants on automatically on delay? Someone could have EASILY set that up for him.
The media for the past four years set around salivating for the next Trump tweet. They would’ve had to say Parler, Gab, whatever. They would’ve had to show the logos. They would’ve had to make it more about the words in the platform.
You could be a diehard Trump supporter, and realize that this is largely his fault for not being smart about how his message got out. I really think he thought he was above censorship, they wouldn’t DARE... I guess he was right, just until until he lost power.
This is a legitimate criticism even for people on the right about Trump. He knew these Tech Giants were questionable about uneven censorship, he’s been complaining about it for years.
So why in the hell wasn’t he posting to gab, parlor, bitchute, streamable, all the “alternatives” first, then the tech giants on automatically on delay? Someone could have EASILY set that up for him.
The media for the past four years set around salivating for the next Trump tweet. They would’ve had to say Parler, Gab, whatever. They would’ve had to show the logos. They would’ve had to make it more about the words in the platform.
You could be a diehard Trump supporter, and realize that this is largely his fault for not being smart about how his message got out. I really think he thought he was above censorship, they wouldn’t DARE... I guess he was right, just until until he lost power.
I'm surprised how no-one ever brings up this point. I've thought about it many times too.
> Didn't they freeze Trump only after the entire backlash?
Yes. To be fair, Parler didn’t do much including after the backlash. But I’m not going to argue this is another advantage Facebook accrues due to its size.
Yes. To be fair, Parler didn’t do much including after the backlash. But I’m not going to argue this is another advantage Facebook accrues due to its size.
How much money has Parler?
> How much money has Parler?
Parler probably pays Google and Apple more for ads than Facebook.
Parler probably pays Google and Apple more for ads than Facebook.
Ads are cheap compared to moderation teams.
Parler was kicked out for refusing to take down violence inciting posts...
Facebook on the other hand is doing the bare minimum :p
Facebook on the other hand is doing the bare minimum :p
Social networks that reach a critical mass of regular people become too big to block. And social networks that exist as landing pads for people who aren’t tolerated on mainstream platforms naturally have targets on their backs.
I really don’t think this is liberal vs conservative, left vs right. Mainstream social networks are full of conservatives. YouTube is basically Fox News mixed with Drudge Report once you start down that path. Even Reddit —- once you get past the post titles you realize that Reddit commenters are actually right leaning now. They look different than the stereotypical portrayal of gods and guns conservatives but the views are the same save a few social issues. Scott Alexander called them the “grey tribe” and I expect they’ll start being called the “new right” eventually. HN is basically entirely left-passing conservatives.
But then there’s this tiny subgroup of legit insane people who with nothing better to do than get angry at the internet all day and push conspiracy theories. They keep getting passed around and banned from social networks while more mainstream right-wing talking heads use them as the poster children for their victim complex.
I really don’t think this is liberal vs conservative, left vs right. Mainstream social networks are full of conservatives. YouTube is basically Fox News mixed with Drudge Report once you start down that path. Even Reddit —- once you get past the post titles you realize that Reddit commenters are actually right leaning now. They look different than the stereotypical portrayal of gods and guns conservatives but the views are the same save a few social issues. Scott Alexander called them the “grey tribe” and I expect they’ll start being called the “new right” eventually. HN is basically entirely left-passing conservatives.
But then there’s this tiny subgroup of legit insane people who with nothing better to do than get angry at the internet all day and push conspiracy theories. They keep getting passed around and banned from social networks while more mainstream right-wing talking heads use them as the poster children for their victim complex.
I completely disagree with your post, but I'm utterly intrigued on how you got there. My experience of Reddit is that it is extremely left-wing. I would even go so far as to say rabidly so.
YouTube seems more 'anti-woke' than 'right-leaning'. Those aren't the same, I don't think.
Please go into more detail on why you feel this way, or if you have evidence to support your view. You could be right, because both YouTube and Reddit are vast websites, and I admittedly stick mostly to tech and tech-related areas of both, so I may not be seeing it.
YouTube seems more 'anti-woke' than 'right-leaning'. Those aren't the same, I don't think.
Please go into more detail on why you feel this way, or if you have evidence to support your view. You could be right, because both YouTube and Reddit are vast websites, and I admittedly stick mostly to tech and tech-related areas of both, so I may not be seeing it.
I was a Parler registered user and there is no comparison. If you scroll through Facebook you see mostly unflatternig selfies, ads for stupid crap, somebody's random complaint about something you don't care about, a few Trumpies from high school, and maybe 1 comment every 200 meters saying something borderline-violent about Nancy Pelosi etc.
If you scroll through Parler, you barely had to go 1 meter before there's something aggressively violent.
If you scroll through Parler, you barely had to go 1 meter before there's something aggressively violent.
x86_64Ubuntu(3)
>>I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform.
Intent matters. Did FB purposefully tailored their site's pitch for such characters? Did they have enough mods to delete stuff or algos in place? I suppose in groups barely anyone would report posts as not appropriate.
Intent matters. Did FB purposefully tailored their site's pitch for such characters? Did they have enough mods to delete stuff or algos in place? I suppose in groups barely anyone would report posts as not appropriate.
I thought Parler tailored their site's pitch for be for people who didn't want to be restricted on their speech? That's what it seemed like when I signed up for Parler.
Many of my friends signed up. There was never hateful or violent rhetoric in their feeds, nor mine.
You can be removed from these platforms at any time, with almost no appeal. That's a significant flaw, not a design feature. Like it or not, Facebook and Twitter are the public square for the Internet now. I don't personally like it; I hate it... but that's the way it is. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe its time for everyone to build their own website, host their own video and audio, etc.
Many of my friends signed up. There was never hateful or violent rhetoric in their feeds, nor mine.
You can be removed from these platforms at any time, with almost no appeal. That's a significant flaw, not a design feature. Like it or not, Facebook and Twitter are the public square for the Internet now. I don't personally like it; I hate it... but that's the way it is. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe its time for everyone to build their own website, host their own video and audio, etc.
Parler, as far as I know, was billed as a refuge for all those too radical for Twitter and FB. Not all the people of course.
I agree with you on censorship and honestly there's no right way of doing this. What if someone in a certain position used Twitter to call for another gathering to "save our country" fight and show "our strength" and then we have dead senators and army boots in the ground? You can say we want no violence right after saying "fight like hell for the country" but... Maybe a timeout was the lesser of evils?
I agree with you on censorship and honestly there's no right way of doing this. What if someone in a certain position used Twitter to call for another gathering to "save our country" fight and show "our strength" and then we have dead senators and army boots in the ground? You can say we want no violence right after saying "fight like hell for the country" but... Maybe a timeout was the lesser of evils?
> Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler
The phrase of 2020 was "too many". An arbitrary line.
There are "too many" unarmed black men being killed.
There are "too many" fake news stories being posted to Facebook.
There are "too many", "too many", "too many". We have to do "something" -- and this is something.
What asinine thing to say. First, does that mean there's an acceptable number of unarmed black men to be killed every year? But what this is trying to do is play yourself off as a moderate. "You know, I don't think we should be doing censorship... but there are just TOO MANY"
No. You're an authoritarian playing to scared people who want the problem to stop, and don't care what it costs.
The phrase of 2020 was "too many". An arbitrary line.
There are "too many" unarmed black men being killed.
There are "too many" fake news stories being posted to Facebook.
There are "too many", "too many", "too many". We have to do "something" -- and this is something.
What asinine thing to say. First, does that mean there's an acceptable number of unarmed black men to be killed every year? But what this is trying to do is play yourself off as a moderate. "You know, I don't think we should be doing censorship... but there are just TOO MANY"
No. You're an authoritarian playing to scared people who want the problem to stop, and don't care what it costs.
Ideological flamewar and personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules.
Somebody from Facebook recently told me they developed the best system to flag radical/violent content in the world, I pointed out they first developed the best system to spread it.
What makes Facebook worse, in my mind, is that people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment. At least on something like 4Chan you'd be anonymous, but nope, people will write the most grotesque comments, while everyone can see their real name, where they live and who they work for. Some people don't seem to care, and that's pretty scary.
> people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment
They don't realize their comment is terrible or radical. To them it seems perfectly rational to be this angry or to respond to "attacks" with violence of their own.
They think they are voices of reason in a world that's losing its mind.
If you're a brave hero in an unjust world, why not use your real name?
They don't realize their comment is terrible or radical. To them it seems perfectly rational to be this angry or to respond to "attacks" with violence of their own.
They think they are voices of reason in a world that's losing its mind.
If you're a brave hero in an unjust world, why not use your real name?
> people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment
The hypothesis of real name policies was that people would be civil online if their real-world identities grounded them. In reality, the tail wagged the dog.
The hypothesis of real name policies was that people would be civil online if their real-world identities grounded them. In reality, the tail wagged the dog.
Yeah, but anyone who knew a thing about Usenet back in the day knows that was false.
I mean, it was a theory that was popular in the 00s, mostly because a ton of people at that time didn't have experience with Usenet.
But a lot of vile language was used in the clear, signed with the real names of many individuals. Anonymity doesn't seem to change much. Humans will be humans, whether or not they're anonymous.
I mean, it was a theory that was popular in the 00s, mostly because a ton of people at that time didn't have experience with Usenet.
But a lot of vile language was used in the clear, signed with the real names of many individuals. Anonymity doesn't seem to change much. Humans will be humans, whether or not they're anonymous.
Yeah, it may have worked in some contexts, but people also read the room. And when the algorithm is setting the room to "1 tick more extreme than you" they gradually dial up.
I've watched this process turn friends who had pretty mild political leanings to "burn it all down" radicals or transform into right wing talk radio hosts. It's not good.
I've watched this process turn friends who had pretty mild political leanings to "burn it all down" radicals or transform into right wing talk radio hosts. It's not good.
Was that the hypothesis, or just the marketing? Obviously real names make it easier to integrate marketing data from disparate sources.
Very astute observation.
One key takeaway from 1/6 is that a sizable chunk of the mob had no idea that they were doing anything wrong, and are surprised to find themselves in handcuffs after the fact.
At least most historical revolutionaries had the self awareness to understand that trying to overthrow the state is super illegal, and maybe a bit of clandestine-ness is in their own best interest.
At least most historical revolutionaries had the self awareness to understand that trying to overthrow the state is super illegal, and maybe a bit of clandestine-ness is in their own best interest.
I'm not sure self awareness is the best way to put it though if they thought they had the blessing and encouragement of the sitting president. That's what makes this hard to compare to most of the revolutionary uprisings of the past.
We could probably quibble on the precise definition of “revolution”[0], but it sure wouldn’t be the first time one part of a government has riled up a mob to attack another part of the government. The results are usually what you’d enthusiastically call “not a good time”. Seeing the executive attack the legislature with a mob is unusual though, as usually the executive leverages their control of the military in these sorts of self-coups.
0 - While I would argue that installing trump for a second term would constitute a revolution, it’s an interesting question whether or not the rioters saw themselves as revolutionary. Calling 1/6 the new 1776 certainly implies yes, but a lot of them seem to think that they were actually a pro-constitution group there to undo a coup done by “the deep state”. Long story short, it’s complicated.
0 - While I would argue that installing trump for a second term would constitute a revolution, it’s an interesting question whether or not the rioters saw themselves as revolutionary. Calling 1/6 the new 1776 certainly implies yes, but a lot of them seem to think that they were actually a pro-constitution group there to undo a coup done by “the deep state”. Long story short, it’s complicated.
I mean, even if they had a signed letter from Trump saying "this is bigly good, do this" that doesn't stop it from being super-illegal. He's not a dictator; he can't just give people license to do illegal things. As they should know very well.
well, as president he could always give them a pardon, couldn't he? (actually, I have no idea for what he could give pardons. And he won't be presdient long enough to do it for those people. But still...)
The president can pardon all federal offenses excluding impeachment. Whether or not he can self pardon is an untested question; it’s not exactly clear.
Him pardoning the rioters is a nightmare scenario, both politically and for the long term survival of the republic. But the only real solution for this is impeachment and conviction, as generally the pardon power is not subject to judicial review.
Him pardoning the rioters is a nightmare scenario, both politically and for the long term survival of the republic. But the only real solution for this is impeachment and conviction, as generally the pardon power is not subject to judicial review.
> I mean, even if they had a signed letter from Trump saying “this is bigly good, do this” that doesn’t stop it from being super-illegal.
It can make it impossible to prosecute, because the President is the Chief Executive and ultimately the authority to which all federal law enforcement answers.
(1) Honest, even if mistaken, belief that action is taken in cooperation with the government defeats the mental state requirement for most crimes.
(2) The doctrine of “entrapment by estoppel” bars criminal conviction where a defendant reasonably relied on misrepresentation of law by an official in undertaking action that is prohibited.
(3) The more common doctrine of entrapment bars criminal conviction where a defendant was induced by a government agent to commit a crime and was not otherwise inclined to commit the crime.
It can make it impossible to prosecute, because the President is the Chief Executive and ultimately the authority to which all federal law enforcement answers.
(1) Honest, even if mistaken, belief that action is taken in cooperation with the government defeats the mental state requirement for most crimes.
(2) The doctrine of “entrapment by estoppel” bars criminal conviction where a defendant reasonably relied on misrepresentation of law by an official in undertaking action that is prohibited.
(3) The more common doctrine of entrapment bars criminal conviction where a defendant was induced by a government agent to commit a crime and was not otherwise inclined to commit the crime.
> a sizable chunk of the mob had no idea that they were doing anything wrong
Has anyone dug into this? What were the actual stories that caused that suspension of critical thinking? (Serious answers, please.)
Has anyone dug into this? What were the actual stories that caused that suspension of critical thinking? (Serious answers, please.)
I guess that's because the world is not black and white. You see corrupt cops hurt you while the nice mob helps your family.
It's one of the reasons why successful criminals always have a good community outreach program. Once you have the people on your side, it's very hard for the police to do much.
When gangs selling drugs in Colombia originally started, while they were quite violent, they did take care and look after the local community they were based in. And in return, they local community took care of them by alerting them when the military was closing in as an example.
If you're a young kid growing up in that environment, it's easy to see how you'd consider the military as the bad guys since all you see them do is come in and create chaos / hurt people etc. while the local drug dealer on your street is ensuring that you have food to eat.
It's one of the reasons why successful criminals always have a good community outreach program. Once you have the people on your side, it's very hard for the police to do much.
When gangs selling drugs in Colombia originally started, while they were quite violent, they did take care and look after the local community they were based in. And in return, they local community took care of them by alerting them when the military was closing in as an example.
If you're a young kid growing up in that environment, it's easy to see how you'd consider the military as the bad guys since all you see them do is come in and create chaos / hurt people etc. while the local drug dealer on your street is ensuring that you have food to eat.
As a group they more often value personal and property rights above government institutions. A more common view in rural areas where you can be quite far from community/govt. services. After seeing months of property rights violations by large groups of people doing the same/similar in D.C. seems reasonable. It’s simple trespassing on govt. property. If someone does something malicious there should be repercussions for them but nearly everyone just trespassed.
Not being sarcastic, but a lot of them are honest-to-god cultists; their connection with concrete reality is tenuous at best. They think that Q is real, and that Trump had secret information about vague evilness being done by Congress (eating babies or similar) that was going to be revealed when they got into the Capitol. Then they were going to arrest them all and execute them as punishment for their alleged crimes. This is what Q believers call “the storm”.
It’s never possible to point to one or two stories that radicalize people like that; it’s not possible to do it that quickly. It takes a certain prior mental state (having a weak social net seems to make it worse), and continual exposure to increasingly radical stories. Like any cult, the rejection of non-members is heavily pushed, which leaves the victim more dependent on the cult and with fewer anchors to reality.
I think any good book about how cults work would be relevant for these people, given that I believe they’re in a cult. But if you’re looking for something more specific, Bellingcat has a great article[0] on the Ashli Babbitt, the Q supporter shot and killed by Capitol police as she breached the final barrier to where congress members were hiding.
0 - Content Warning: lethal violence is discussed and shown in this article. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-as...
It’s never possible to point to one or two stories that radicalize people like that; it’s not possible to do it that quickly. It takes a certain prior mental state (having a weak social net seems to make it worse), and continual exposure to increasingly radical stories. Like any cult, the rejection of non-members is heavily pushed, which leaves the victim more dependent on the cult and with fewer anchors to reality.
I think any good book about how cults work would be relevant for these people, given that I believe they’re in a cult. But if you’re looking for something more specific, Bellingcat has a great article[0] on the Ashli Babbitt, the Q supporter shot and killed by Capitol police as she breached the final barrier to where congress members were hiding.
0 - Content Warning: lethal violence is discussed and shown in this article. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-as...
I've heard that too, not that they're a cult so much as a kind of Live-Action Role-Playing that escaped into the real world. I don't know to what extent that's true, but it helps me try to answer one of the questions foremost on my mind, to wit: what the hell did these folks think they were going to do? What was the plan here?
- - - -
From the article you posted there's a line that seems particularly telling to me as an older person who does not use a smart phone:
> As Babbitt lay dying on the floor, her fellow members of the crowd pulled out their phones and began to film
Even in this media-saturated era, that seems particularly cold-blooded or rather disassociated. They didn't help, nor leave, they started taking video.
- - - -
From the article you posted there's a line that seems particularly telling to me as an older person who does not use a smart phone:
> As Babbitt lay dying on the floor, her fellow members of the crowd pulled out their phones and began to film
Even in this media-saturated era, that seems particularly cold-blooded or rather disassociated. They didn't help, nor leave, they started taking video.
I don’t think “LARPers escaped into reality” is a good metaphor, because LARPers know they’re playing a game.
The QAnon crowd unquestionably has a lot of members who genuinely believe this stuff. Generally LARPers don’t play act their way into hundreds of federal felonies, nor do LARPers vote along LARP lines.
Also, those guns and bombs are sure real.
The QAnon crowd unquestionably has a lot of members who genuinely believe this stuff. Generally LARPers don’t play act their way into hundreds of federal felonies, nor do LARPers vote along LARP lines.
Also, those guns and bombs are sure real.
> I don’t think “LARPers escaped into reality” is a good metaphor, because LARPers know they’re playing a game.
That's all I meant by "escaped into reality". These folks (and it seems like most of them were pretty young) seem more like Pokemon GO players who think Pokemon are real than a out right cult.
That's all I meant by "escaped into reality". These folks (and it seems like most of them were pretty young) seem more like Pokemon GO players who think Pokemon are real than a out right cult.
This post like this that remind me the people seriously believe there aren’t just the same number of crazies on the right and left. That “your side“ has all of the “reasonable people” and is “morally right”, what an amazing coincidence.
You only want one side to have to “own“ their crazies. That isn’t how it works. Neither side should be thought of or represented by their “crazies”, that isn’t anywhere near good faith.
You only want one side to have to “own“ their crazies. That isn’t how it works. Neither side should be thought of or represented by their “crazies”, that isn’t anywhere near good faith.
I mean, currently one 'side' is lead by a guy who's still in complete denial that he lost the election, against all available evidence, so this may not be as 'both-sides'-y as you seem to believe.
That just means that one side has a crazy who is currently in power. It doesn't mean that the other side doesn't have just as much crazy.
Sure. But that’s a pretty weird digression when we’re talking about one specific group of crazies that just attempted an insurrection and got 5 people killed in the Capitol.
When the crazies on the left do something crazy, we can talk about them. But in this context bringing up such a “both sides” argument smacks of whataboutism.
When the crazies on the left do something crazy, we can talk about them. But in this context bringing up such a “both sides” argument smacks of whataboutism.
> when we’re talking about one specific group of crazies that just attempted an insurrection and got 5 people killed in the Capitol.
Thats only because you are choosing to talk about that exclusively. You aren’t taking into account the violence and destruction about BLM.
I mean, a known BLM voice/advocate went and murdered 5 cops, and not one bit of that blew back at BLM the Org, because no one forced them to own their crazies. None of the destruction, murder and lawlessness over the summer blew back on BLM, Dems, Antifa.
It’s not whataboutism when it’s similar events. A whataboutism would be if someone said “the left doesn’t need to own their crazies because Obama faced criticism for Benghazi”.
Thats only because you are choosing to talk about that exclusively. You aren’t taking into account the violence and destruction about BLM.
I mean, a known BLM voice/advocate went and murdered 5 cops, and not one bit of that blew back at BLM the Org, because no one forced them to own their crazies. None of the destruction, murder and lawlessness over the summer blew back on BLM, Dems, Antifa.
It’s not whataboutism when it’s similar events. A whataboutism would be if someone said “the left doesn’t need to own their crazies because Obama faced criticism for Benghazi”.
Well, FWIW, I grew up in SF and I'm mostly Left-leaning (although I would have voted for Mitt Romney rather than Biden if that had been an option) and I'll go ahead and "own" our crazies.
I've met a few Left-wing nut jobs here over the years. I once attended a Communist rally by accident (I had a crush on the math teacher's daughter, no one told me the overnight field trip was to a Commie rally until we were already on the freeway.) Even as a kid I could tell that they were just a pathetic "religion"-without-God, I would say the lot of them (American Communists) are card-carrying loonies.
But (and you can see it coming can't you?)
But they never stormed the capitol.
Two questions for you:
1) What were they trying to do? (If they are not weird cultists?)
2) Can you think of a group on the Left like Qanon on the Right?
I'm sincere, I'm not trying to troll you or talk shit. What do you think?
I've met a few Left-wing nut jobs here over the years. I once attended a Communist rally by accident (I had a crush on the math teacher's daughter, no one told me the overnight field trip was to a Commie rally until we were already on the freeway.) Even as a kid I could tell that they were just a pathetic "religion"-without-God, I would say the lot of them (American Communists) are card-carrying loonies.
But (and you can see it coming can't you?)
But they never stormed the capitol.
Two questions for you:
1) What were they trying to do? (If they are not weird cultists?)
2) Can you think of a group on the Left like Qanon on the Right?
I'm sincere, I'm not trying to troll you or talk shit. What do you think?
The 9/11 truthers were left wingers. The Bernie Bros seem pretty cult-like. Obama certainly had a bit of a cult-of-personality around him at the beginning of his first term.
The difference is that on the right the inmates are currently running the asylum, and a significant portion of the right wing media / messaging apparatus has been pushing this stuff.
The difference is that on the right the inmates are currently running the asylum, and a significant portion of the right wing media / messaging apparatus has been pushing this stuff.
Please point to the sentence where I made any of those claims.
They are in a bubble. Watch interviews where some are convinced Trump win because nobody they knew voted for Biden.
If you’re in this bubble and the President tells you to do something, you figure how can it be wrong. The leader of our country is telling me to do this.
If you’re in this bubble and the President tells you to do something, you figure how can it be wrong. The leader of our country is telling me to do this.
It's easy, just give people a soci^H^H^H^H ... community rating to motivate them to behave better!
From newspapers’ biographical sketches of the people who were arrested for the Capitol siege, some of them were on the dole and so they didn't have an employer they could shock, why the others came from parts of the US where their small-business employers may well have sympathized with “Stop the Steal” rhetoric.
And some were business owners who flew in on their private jet, some were privately-schooled children of millionaire parents, and others were Olympic medallists.
On the other hand this probably makes the task easier for law enforcement when people make credible threats.
Though that of course has down sides. There used to be periodic news stories about people frivolously calling the cops on facebook posts. (Somehow I don't see a lot of that lately, but I haven't been looking either.)
Though that of course has down sides. There used to be periodic news stories about people frivolously calling the cops on facebook posts. (Somehow I don't see a lot of that lately, but I haven't been looking either.)
We don't know if it's worse or not. Anonymity may help people go wilder than if their name is attached. Or it might be the other way around... it's not clear.
Worse than what? Parler seems to also enforce real names only
I actually think this is a good sign. I'd rather live in a world where social norms relax to take into account the loss of privacy and anonymity. The ideal world would be one with those two things still intact, but I guess that ship has long sailed...
The unexpected Trump era served to speed this up, which is probably one of the few silver linings it has. Remember the debates about whether future politicians could be blackmailed on account of what they posted online in their youth? A Boomer of all people just dove right in and bypassed that.
The unexpected Trump era served to speed this up, which is probably one of the few silver linings it has. Remember the debates about whether future politicians could be blackmailed on account of what they posted online in their youth? A Boomer of all people just dove right in and bypassed that.
It is a bit like saying ex-nazis could still have economic leadership after the war, saying “tsallright, everyone did it”. For all we know, social rules didn’t relax around their usage after the war, “collabo” were chased all around the world.
Although you are correct that a lot of people with a shaddy past succeeded to have it forgotten, thanks to a lot of pardons after the war.
Although you are correct that a lot of people with a shaddy past succeeded to have it forgotten, thanks to a lot of pardons after the war.
I get your point but don't you agree that it's overall better for sexual mores to be freer, eccentric opinions and lifestyles to be less costly (not talking about politics exclusively here), and so on?
The reductio ad nazium isn't a full stop to the discussion
The reductio ad nazium isn't a full stop to the discussion
Although I am concerned about the 1A and big tech being the arbiters of it, it seems like such a system has yet to go to production (probably never will). I understand that there are technical, financial, and legal complexities that are much more nuanced than 'FB doesn't care, as long as they can profit from potentially dangerous content' and 'FB just wants to suppress any speech which doesn't align with their neo-liberal ideologies'.
What I find troubling is that, a system to find/flag radical/violent content likely exists within the auspices of the NSA. Despite the massive infringement of privacy that these systems create, it seems that they still can't prevent people from being 'radicalized' by content from the platforms that is designed to do exactly that. Furthermore, they couldn't (or didn't) do anything to actually prevent people from storming the Capital. This begs the question, does this massive surveillance state need to exist if it does not do the thing it is purported to do (find and suppress violence, prevent terrorist attacks, etc).
If the owners of the platforms have any conscience, unfortunately, it seems that the responsibility will be up to them. It's murky territory for sure, and you have to strike a balance between far reaching censorship (i.e. infringing of 1A) and allowing disinformation, hate speech, and calls to violence to spread like wild-fire (i.e. how we got into this mess in the first place). I hate to say it, but the older I get, the more something like 'the great firewall' of China seems to make more sense.
What I find troubling is that, a system to find/flag radical/violent content likely exists within the auspices of the NSA. Despite the massive infringement of privacy that these systems create, it seems that they still can't prevent people from being 'radicalized' by content from the platforms that is designed to do exactly that. Furthermore, they couldn't (or didn't) do anything to actually prevent people from storming the Capital. This begs the question, does this massive surveillance state need to exist if it does not do the thing it is purported to do (find and suppress violence, prevent terrorist attacks, etc).
If the owners of the platforms have any conscience, unfortunately, it seems that the responsibility will be up to them. It's murky territory for sure, and you have to strike a balance between far reaching censorship (i.e. infringing of 1A) and allowing disinformation, hate speech, and calls to violence to spread like wild-fire (i.e. how we got into this mess in the first place). I hate to say it, but the older I get, the more something like 'the great firewall' of China seems to make more sense.
I don't think the NSA was engineered with internet / social networks scale though. But they were already failing in the 9/11 days soo..
I mean, PRISM was a post 9/11 thing and yeah, Snowden's leaks directly noted Facebook, YouTube, etc. There is really no telling what exactly is out there, but we know the NSA has massive Data Centers and a massive budget. Basically, even the most personal private information about literally any citizen is just a FISA Warrant away. Things posted in a public forum are a cakewalk.
Maybe they aren't doing anything novel with this data, whatever, this is beside the point. The point is, we can't really count on the State to regulate this stuff, even though, you know, creating and enforcing laws is literally the reason the state exists...
IDK, I hesitantly have to side with big-tech on this, but this is a problem that the State either can't fix, or will not fix.
The internet is a wonderful thing, but it is also very dangerous. Having unfettered access to information, be it true or false, can wield some horrible side effects when such a large swath of the population lacks basic BS detection, critical-thinking and like, base level understanding of civics. Do we need a Vanguard? I wouldn't trust one coming from either side of the aisle in the current climate. Seems like 'censorship' from the platforms is the only viable solution I can see, but that can take a pretty dark turn. At least if it's a private company, you can always leave, create your own thing or find something else...for now.
Maybe they aren't doing anything novel with this data, whatever, this is beside the point. The point is, we can't really count on the State to regulate this stuff, even though, you know, creating and enforcing laws is literally the reason the state exists...
IDK, I hesitantly have to side with big-tech on this, but this is a problem that the State either can't fix, or will not fix.
The internet is a wonderful thing, but it is also very dangerous. Having unfettered access to information, be it true or false, can wield some horrible side effects when such a large swath of the population lacks basic BS detection, critical-thinking and like, base level understanding of civics. Do we need a Vanguard? I wouldn't trust one coming from either side of the aisle in the current climate. Seems like 'censorship' from the platforms is the only viable solution I can see, but that can take a pretty dark turn. At least if it's a private company, you can always leave, create your own thing or find something else...for now.
Prism is the tool. But I assume that the paradigm is surveilling/fighting small groups not large mobs going slowly insane. But this is just a bedroom idea.
Well they didn't develop the platform specifically for spreading radical/violent content. They build a generic platform for spreading thoughts among friends, and racist/violent people used the generic platform to spread their thoughts.
The key thing is that they built a reward system into sharing each of those thoughts, which enables an addiction for acceptance from users on the platform. Facebook’s engagement systems / algorithms feed on these addictions. As the article discusses, this causes users to radicalize their posts to garner more attention.
Not quite. They tweaked the way it was run to keep people addicted.
That is the thing, many argue as if Facebook is a flat, neutral forum, and leave out the whole big algorithmic blackbox it entails. In reality there are no chronological timelines and the regular user is pushed towards the most rage inducing (or as Facebook employees probably euphemize it: "most engaging") content and group recommendations Facebook can apply to an individual.
Facebook was very much an actor in this, not some mere communication infrastructure. Facebook wasn't "warped" by malicious actors, it fanned the flames and by doing so nurtured their hatred and multiplied their reach, all to get the users as addicted as possible to this endless loop. (The same goes for Twitter and Google/Youtube too, of course)
Facebook was very much an actor in this, not some mere communication infrastructure. Facebook wasn't "warped" by malicious actors, it fanned the flames and by doing so nurtured their hatred and multiplied their reach, all to get the users as addicted as possible to this endless loop. (The same goes for Twitter and Google/Youtube too, of course)
Philip Morris didn’t intentionally develop a system to spread lung cancer, and yet they did.
It's not a bad metaphor since PM and FB both did develop their addiction systems on purpose. Cigarettes are not just dried tobacco leaf, there was a ton of R&D to identify and add chemicals that make them extremely addicting. Same with FB, they have optimized for outrage culture etc. - whatever brings the most "engagement".
I've had fb friends report spammed into being temp or permabanned very easily (personal feuds, stalkers), so I would question how they're even measuring quality at this point.
Not trying to defend Facebook, but they did not do it on purpose. They developed a really addicting social network where you do as many interactions as possible.
When Facebook started it was a different world: Almost no data privacy laws, internet security in its infancy (e.g. in 2008 HTTPS was a rare new thing, not cross-origin security etc.) and people were spamming Farmville notifications to each other. It just turned out that this structure is an excellent ground for lots of bad things.
When Facebook started it was a different world: Almost no data privacy laws, internet security in its infancy (e.g. in 2008 HTTPS was a rare new thing, not cross-origin security etc.) and people were spamming Farmville notifications to each other. It just turned out that this structure is an excellent ground for lots of bad things.
[deleted]
That's not true: the EU had lots of national privacy laws under the privacy directive (GDPR was partially intended to unify/simplify that), and the US had sectoral laws such as COPPA and HIPAA, the former of which very much applies to Facebook.
Wasn't there also a system developed that was really good at flagging radical content and proceeded to flag all the conservative posts? :p
On a side-note, I hate how Facebook sticks to their real name policy and does not allow for the creation of multiple accounts (I'd want one for my startup / work etc. and another for my personal use case for my friends / family etc.).
That said, all the mainstream social media apps - Facebook and Twitter had a hand and if Parler was de-platformed with that reason, then they should be as well.
I mean, if a 700B and a 50B company can't solve this issue, than how can we expect a much much smaller company like Parler to tackle it?
But it's obvious that these companies don't give a damn about the insurrection - This was entirely to pacify the dems by giving them a "Win" considering they have the House, Senate and Presidency.
It's funny because the company I'm currently consulting for a company that has a ~1B/yr account with Amazon and we've decided to slow our cloud migration projects. We run a major media site and if AWS decides to capitulate to the pressure from essentially people on social media or the wrath of the US Govt, what's stopping them from doing the exact same from Govts of other countries?
That said, all the mainstream social media apps - Facebook and Twitter had a hand and if Parler was de-platformed with that reason, then they should be as well.
I mean, if a 700B and a 50B company can't solve this issue, than how can we expect a much much smaller company like Parler to tackle it?
But it's obvious that these companies don't give a damn about the insurrection - This was entirely to pacify the dems by giving them a "Win" considering they have the House, Senate and Presidency.
It's funny because the company I'm currently consulting for a company that has a ~1B/yr account with Amazon and we've decided to slow our cloud migration projects. We run a major media site and if AWS decides to capitulate to the pressure from essentially people on social media or the wrath of the US Govt, what's stopping them from doing the exact same from Govts of other countries?
Isn't the Real Name policy a bit of a joke? I have a few test/fake/dev accounts, never had any issues (but for new accounts, need to associate them with a mobile number, but only for the initial signup).
That said, I think the structure of Facebook intentionally makes it difficult to moderate. Reddit, for example, has public groups, group mods, etc. Far from perfect, but Facebook could definitely do more validation before promoting groups.
That said, I think the structure of Facebook intentionally makes it difficult to moderate. Reddit, for example, has public groups, group mods, etc. Far from perfect, but Facebook could definitely do more validation before promoting groups.
I have been permanently banned from Facebook for using an incorrect birthday :/
Uploaded government id, correct information, phone number but I'm no longer allowed to create an account.
Uploaded government id, correct information, phone number but I'm no longer allowed to create an account.
According to the CEO of Parler, banks and payment vendors, law firms, text and mail services also cancelled on them. Shouldn’t there be some discussion about banning those banks and lawyers too?
Should a law firm be able to quit you? Should a bank be able to cancel on you? We even have major banks cancelling on the US President. At what point ought those who despise you be free to ditch you? These are all parties exercising their freedom of association.
Parler was a red hot potato for anyone who didn’t leave fast enough.
Should a law firm be able to quit you? Should a bank be able to cancel on you? We even have major banks cancelling on the US President. At what point ought those who despise you be free to ditch you? These are all parties exercising their freedom of association.
Parler was a red hot potato for anyone who didn’t leave fast enough.
Specific lawyers? Yes. Some clients are just horrible, and forcing them to work with a certain person is ... decidedly unethical.
Banks? Now we're starting to have fun. If all banks cancel you, you cannot reasonably do business in this country. That's a very real concern and something that needs to be looked at.
There may be some real value in investigating all of the oligopolies in the United States, and their behaviors in cancelling.
Banks? Now we're starting to have fun. If all banks cancel you, you cannot reasonably do business in this country. That's a very real concern and something that needs to be looked at.
There may be some real value in investigating all of the oligopolies in the United States, and their behaviors in cancelling.
I dont think they were trying to pacify dems. I think they have wanted to do this for a long time but couldnt with Trump in power. This was a cathartic release for San Francisco bay liberals
Emotional content elicits a larger response, says the article with the provocative headline. There is nothing new here.
Why does the responsibility never lie with the people who say these things, only where they say it? It reminds of of the Columbine shootings, where many articles where written about the violent video games that must of inspired the shooters to do it. Those arguments sucked then and they still suck now.
Why does the responsibility never lie with the people who say these things, only where they say it? It reminds of of the Columbine shootings, where many articles where written about the violent video games that must of inspired the shooters to do it. Those arguments sucked then and they still suck now.
This, right here.
In 2016, when Facebook was charged with hosting "fake news", their response should have been "It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet."
When Facebook replied, "We accept responsibility, and we will do better", they spelled their own doom.
In 2016, when Facebook was charged with hosting "fake news", their response should have been "It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet."
When Facebook replied, "We accept responsibility, and we will do better", they spelled their own doom.
"It's your fault for believing everything you read on the internet."
I disagree, it's our fault as a society for not allocating proper resources towards education. You can't expect people to understand critical thinking, media/source analysis, etc. if no-one ever taught it to them.
Now, Facebook capitalized on that societal failure point and developed an algorithm that exploited individuals who lack that critical thinking skill by shoving progressively angrier and more unhinged content in front of their eyeballs, and recommending them groups of extreme individuals, therefore normalizing their way of thinking. They did this because they realized content that causes anger, outrage, and fear is extremely effective at keeping people clicking, scrolling, reading, and overall "engaged" which means more data, more ads shown, more money. They basically took the Fox News model and injected pure racing fuel into it.
This, like most issues, cannot be explained by one specific cause, but Facebook absolutely shares the blame.
I disagree, it's our fault as a society for not allocating proper resources towards education. You can't expect people to understand critical thinking, media/source analysis, etc. if no-one ever taught it to them.
Now, Facebook capitalized on that societal failure point and developed an algorithm that exploited individuals who lack that critical thinking skill by shoving progressively angrier and more unhinged content in front of their eyeballs, and recommending them groups of extreme individuals, therefore normalizing their way of thinking. They did this because they realized content that causes anger, outrage, and fear is extremely effective at keeping people clicking, scrolling, reading, and overall "engaged" which means more data, more ads shown, more money. They basically took the Fox News model and injected pure racing fuel into it.
This, like most issues, cannot be explained by one specific cause, but Facebook absolutely shares the blame.
Critical thinking is not an effective antidote to propaganda especially that which is spread peer-to-peer.
It sounds good and is an intuitive concept but it's not enough to rely on critical thinking.
It sounds good and is an intuitive concept but it's not enough to rely on critical thinking.
Perhaps it’s less about education and more about innate tendencies of people towards shaping their beliefs in a way that belittles their enemies.
Here is a question posed by the article:
IT’S HARD TO DETERMINE the extent to which Facebook caused this hyperpartisanship or simply stumbled into it. Did Facebook cultivate more extreme beliefs or simply take what was already simmering and thrust it into the open?
Mr. McGee argued that he always thought this way. Before Facebook, he said, he watched conspiracy-laden videos on YouTube. Facebook merely helped him find his people.
“People are engaging me, encouraging me to share what I think, but these are the inner workings of my mind,” he said. “I’ve been feeling this way for years. That’s why it’s so easy for me to make posts, because I’ve been suppressing this stuff forever.”
And yet when he talks about Facebook, he focuses on algorithms and optimization, not community or ideology. It’s worth considering: Would he be attempting to influence others so forcefully without Facebook’s incentives?
IT’S HARD TO DETERMINE the extent to which Facebook caused this hyperpartisanship or simply stumbled into it. Did Facebook cultivate more extreme beliefs or simply take what was already simmering and thrust it into the open?
Mr. McGee argued that he always thought this way. Before Facebook, he said, he watched conspiracy-laden videos on YouTube. Facebook merely helped him find his people.
“People are engaging me, encouraging me to share what I think, but these are the inner workings of my mind,” he said. “I’ve been feeling this way for years. That’s why it’s so easy for me to make posts, because I’ve been suppressing this stuff forever.”
And yet when he talks about Facebook, he focuses on algorithms and optimization, not community or ideology. It’s worth considering: Would he be attempting to influence others so forcefully without Facebook’s incentives?
Facebook is intrinsically a passion-group generator. Where "passion" is the edges of "adoration" to "enmity".
Anything that "triggers" you (to interact w/ the platform), be it pottery or anarchy, FB will find "your people".
If you are prone to fits of passion, FB will find your passion-mates... mated to you by fear, anxiety, rage ... or joy.
Anything that "triggers" you (to interact w/ the platform), be it pottery or anarchy, FB will find "your people".
If you are prone to fits of passion, FB will find your passion-mates... mated to you by fear, anxiety, rage ... or joy.
I really don't know about this. There are certainly fringe groups active on Facebook but at least in my immediate circle it's mostly a tool to connect families, friends and communities. I really don't see it as a forum for ideas or activism, unlike Twitter or reddit. but maybe that's just the bubble I'm in.
> I really don't see it as a forum for ideas or activism, unlike Twitter or reddit. but maybe that's just the bubble I'm in.
Exactly -- and that's the real danger of algorithmic engagement-driven content.
For you, it's picking harmless content because that's what you engage with. But once you start engaging with, say, some crazy cult, Facebook's algo will pick up on that, and start prioritizing content from the crazy cultists. In time, you'll get to the point where you're only seeing content from the cultists, and come to believe that's what everyone thinks, because that's all you'll ever see. YouTube suffers from this too.
Exactly -- and that's the real danger of algorithmic engagement-driven content.
For you, it's picking harmless content because that's what you engage with. But once you start engaging with, say, some crazy cult, Facebook's algo will pick up on that, and start prioritizing content from the crazy cultists. In time, you'll get to the point where you're only seeing content from the cultists, and come to believe that's what everyone thinks, because that's all you'll ever see. YouTube suffers from this too.
For me, when I had a Facebook account, it would show me this kind of content. Not because I agreed with it, but I felt compelled to argue with it. But with their algorithm that counted as engagement. So whenever I logged in I had a wall full of hostile content. It was affecting my mental wellbeing so I just deleted the whole thing and haven’t looked back.
If you're unlucky enough to have lots of crazy Trump cultist family members, or live in the conservative South, or both, Facebook will show you a never-ending stream of this content as well. It's like having to walk past an overflowing toilet on the way to the cafeteria, every time I go to check my Facebook.
I don't think Facebook really works this way. People get impassioned, sure, but I don't think the platform generates it. Compare this to something like Twitter, a machine deliberately devised to maximize outrage and fights, where the top trending content is almost always clapbacks and 'mic-drop' put-downs. It's a curiosity that they don't get any of the blame for "destroying democracy", while Facebook takes all of it.
My suspicion is that journalists use Twitter more, and enjoy their audience and aura of authority they get through the Verified system, so they have an incentive to protect the platform against regulatory action.
My suspicion is that journalists use Twitter more, and enjoy their audience and aura of authority they get through the Verified system, so they have an incentive to protect the platform against regulatory action.
No more than any social website. If anything, it’s more moderate than pseudo anonymous social sites like forums, chat rooms, blogs, etc.
My crazy uncles rants on Facebook are tame compared to the ones he makes on FreeRepublic.com—the web1.0 version of parlar. He’s not preaching the choir and he’s knows normal people will see it.
My crazy uncles rants on Facebook are tame compared to the ones he makes on FreeRepublic.com—the web1.0 version of parlar. He’s not preaching the choir and he’s knows normal people will see it.
I think Facebook should not have the power they have: to grant or deny speech as _they_ see fit, which may or may not align with the locales they operate in.
They are a supranational entity without any local governance. So their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies. They should not force their world view across the world.
That said, this is sour grapes from the NYT. They want to pile on because this is their direct competitor to setting agenda in the anglosphere.
They are a supranational entity without any local governance. So their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies. They should not force their world view across the world.
That said, this is sour grapes from the NYT. They want to pile on because this is their direct competitor to setting agenda in the anglosphere.
> their policies are left up to them. That’s not good for democracies.
I think many economists and many people from all political parties would argue the exact opposite, that companies having enough freedom to set their own policies (as long as they’re legal) is very much one feature of the United States that has been supporting democracy in the last century.
Why should a private company not be allowed to establish their own rules on their own platform? Does your opinion apply to all private companies?
Does Facebook have a history of limiting legal speech? There are many types of speech that are not legal and not protected as free speech by the constitution. Surely Facebook should be free to limit such speech on their own platform, so they don’t become liable for it? False statements of fact, incitement, commercial speech, fighting words, threats, obscenity, among many other types of speech, are not protected free speech in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
I think many economists and many people from all political parties would argue the exact opposite, that companies having enough freedom to set their own policies (as long as they’re legal) is very much one feature of the United States that has been supporting democracy in the last century.
Why should a private company not be allowed to establish their own rules on their own platform? Does your opinion apply to all private companies?
Does Facebook have a history of limiting legal speech? There are many types of speech that are not legal and not protected as free speech by the constitution. Surely Facebook should be free to limit such speech on their own platform, so they don’t become liable for it? False statements of fact, incitement, commercial speech, fighting words, threats, obscenity, among many other types of speech, are not protected free speech in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
The issue is that it’s not federated by jurisdiction, so they apply American laws and principles to people in Ghana as well as Mexico and Indonesia, but all these countries have different frameworks for speech and what’s allowed and not. Facebook however does not observe that unless they get pressured (like Turkey).
We may both hold that Turkey has issues with authoritarianism and freedom of speech, but that’s up to them and the international community, not Facebook to set and settle.
They are not accountable to the local population they are serving.
We may both hold that Turkey has issues with authoritarianism and freedom of speech, but that’s up to them and the international community, not Facebook to set and settle.
They are not accountable to the local population they are serving.
> They are not accountable to the local population they are serving.
That’s not true, Facebook is accountable to the laws of local populations. And populations aren’t forced to use Facebook, China chose not to.
What are you advocating for here? An international cloud platform with different standards in every country? How is that supposed to work online? What exactly would Facebook do differently ... while obeying the laws of the countries it operates in?
Doesn’t it make some sense, liability-wise, for Facebook to apply the union of all (or most... many are similar globally) free speech exceptions globally across the entire platform, and therefore subject Europeans to US limitations and vice-versa?
You didn’t answer the core question: why should Facebook not be able to apply their own rules? That goes against the grain of the idea of private companies. Are you suggesting that Facebook is too large to be private? Or are you suggesting that no private companies should censor any speech, regardless of company standards? Or that there shouldn’t be private companies? I don’t understand.
That’s not true, Facebook is accountable to the laws of local populations. And populations aren’t forced to use Facebook, China chose not to.
What are you advocating for here? An international cloud platform with different standards in every country? How is that supposed to work online? What exactly would Facebook do differently ... while obeying the laws of the countries it operates in?
Doesn’t it make some sense, liability-wise, for Facebook to apply the union of all (or most... many are similar globally) free speech exceptions globally across the entire platform, and therefore subject Europeans to US limitations and vice-versa?
You didn’t answer the core question: why should Facebook not be able to apply their own rules? That goes against the grain of the idea of private companies. Are you suggesting that Facebook is too large to be private? Or are you suggesting that no private companies should censor any speech, regardless of company standards? Or that there shouldn’t be private companies? I don’t understand.
Again, it is not up to Facebook to serve the needs of the government. It’s why transparency is so critical for the platform, and they are transparent that they value American ideals.. which no surprise include skepticism against government.
They don’t attempt to solve authoritarianism in Turkey, but they do not allow authoritarian comments which lead to harm.
There are obvious issues with Facebook, but this seems pretty cut and clear. Turkey is free to ban Facebook but what kind of values do you want to spread to the world?
They don’t attempt to solve authoritarianism in Turkey, but they do not allow authoritarian comments which lead to harm.
There are obvious issues with Facebook, but this seems pretty cut and clear. Turkey is free to ban Facebook but what kind of values do you want to spread to the world?
No, not the government, local laws. Libel in the US is different from libel in the U.K., for example.
They should federate the service and have moderators for every market who know local laws and mores.
One issue is everyone is in the global user bucket, rather than having jurisdictional buckets (the way Wikipedia does).
They should federate the service and have moderators for every market who know local laws and mores.
One issue is everyone is in the global user bucket, rather than having jurisdictional buckets (the way Wikipedia does).
> I think Facebook should not have the power they have: to grant or deny speech as _they_ see fit, which may or may not align with the locales they operate in.
They don't. You can still speak and publish outside of Facebook.
They don't. You can still speak and publish outside of Facebook.
Yeah that’s as good as saying that since you can use Tor in China, it’s really not censorship because you DO have alternatives.
That's not a good comparison, since the government will still punish you for doing the same thing, regardless of whether you put it through tor or not
I think there is an important distinction between censorship done by the government and done by companies, at least in the US. Companies (usually) have competition, but you can't really switch your federal government as easily as you can change email providers.
Social media like Facebook/Twitter is basically a vibrator for narcissistic supply. We should all just step back, put these toys down, recognize it's a vice, and that there is a real world out there to be lived in.
100% agree.
Social Media should be treated like anything else in life that is addictive and potentially self-destructive: alcohol, drugs, junk food, video games, porn, gambling, online shopping, whatever. Actively moderate and track your usage, and if you ever feel like it's negatively impacting your life, take a step back and think carefully about if you're really still in control.
Social Media should be treated like anything else in life that is addictive and potentially self-destructive: alcohol, drugs, junk food, video games, porn, gambling, online shopping, whatever. Actively moderate and track your usage, and if you ever feel like it's negatively impacting your life, take a step back and think carefully about if you're really still in control.
[deleted]
Well put.
Unless you want to be angry without reason it's a waste of time. Back in 2019 I went social media/ online dating free. Had more fun and better partners than I could ever imagine. Also boosted my income significantly
Unless you want to be angry without reason it's a waste of time. Back in 2019 I went social media/ online dating free. Had more fun and better partners than I could ever imagine. Also boosted my income significantly
Yes and I think you can add Reddit and potentially even some HN posts to this. The world would benefit from an engagement diet.
Yes, social media and maybe even the internet as a whole will radicalize its users. Facebook is a groupthink incubator. So is hacker news. I've witnessed many people change their political beliefs to match whichever group they belong to.
Likes and upvotes. I was off the social media for a couple of years and now I can say for sure that it's screwing with peoples heads. For some reason it makes you care about some meaningless numbers and that incentivizes people on the social media to go along with the status quo.
In what direction does HN radicalize us?
There are many Taboo opinions and thought tracks on HN that guarantee downvoting and as a result anyone not exposed to them in advance might be inclined to think that they must be heresies that should never be considered by the intelligentsia.
Example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25768269
And things that contradict The Great Stallman teachings like TiVoization (even in self-driving cars) or saying that something can be done more efficiently with Windows (or just not Linux/OSS in general) or that plenty of ML is outright useless BS that does more harm that good.
Edit: Thanks to whoever unflagged the HN post! Let's see how long it'll stay unflagged this time!
Example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25768269
And things that contradict The Great Stallman teachings like TiVoization (even in self-driving cars) or saying that something can be done more efficiently with Windows (or just not Linux/OSS in general) or that plenty of ML is outright useless BS that does more harm that good.
Edit: Thanks to whoever unflagged the HN post! Let's see how long it'll stay unflagged this time!
> or saying that something can be done more efficiently with Windows
are people here this naive?
are people here this naive?
I loved developing all kinds of command line and UI tools for Windows, so I might be a little biased, but I found the Linux equivalents..well..not as easy and straightforward to say the least. But, there is countless posts here passionately defending and stating otherwise, that I don't even know if I should bring it up in a discussion.
What do you think?
What do you think?
>I loved developing all kinds of command line and UI tools for Windows, so I might be a little biased, but I found the Linux equivalents..well..not as easy and straightforward to say the least.
Well, I think very often commands have very not intuitive names of parameters, very often some seemingly random letters
When it comes to me,
I use Linux for server related stuff, hosting my things and stuff, also I like raw terminal Linux because there's nothing happening, so no distractions
but day-to-day I use Windows.
Well, I think very often commands have very not intuitive names of parameters, very often some seemingly random letters
When it comes to me,
I use Linux for server related stuff, hosting my things and stuff, also I like raw terminal Linux because there's nothing happening, so no distractions
but day-to-day I use Windows.
Not sure I agree that HN "radicalizes" but I would say that the obsession with the need for sources and the tendency to apply algorithmic-level logic to comments leaves this place lacking imagination and/or a touch of humanity that the world otherwise applies to thinking. In other words, there isn't much reading between the lines or "zooming out", it's a lot of nit-picking.
Can one be too logical? Too empirical? Too scientific?
Can one be too logical? Too empirical? Too scientific?
HN for me is far too convinced of its own rationality and the rationality of others, leading to arguments based on weird idealised versions of human behaviour at odds with the real world. It could do with being a lot more empirical to be honest, but it's about what I expect from a site with a lot of Silicon Valley-flavoured naïve libertarianism.
I think it makes everyone feel like they're not earning enough money.
It makes certain ideas look more common than they are.
For example, if you've been hanging around here for the last few months, you might pick up on a sizable percentage of the population believes that paying people who live in SF more than people who live in Minneapolis is literally the worst thing ever.
Radicalizing is the wrong word, but this is a pretty strange bubble and it's easy to lose sight of that.
For example, if you've been hanging around here for the last few months, you might pick up on a sizable percentage of the population believes that paying people who live in SF more than people who live in Minneapolis is literally the worst thing ever.
Radicalizing is the wrong word, but this is a pretty strange bubble and it's easy to lose sight of that.
Try telling HN that you can generally "only do what Apple allows you to do on a Mac" and how that basically makes it "less of a general purpose computer" than others and see how people respond.
To be fair, I don't think of these people as radicals so much as they are suffering from Stockholm syndrome. The bubble that protects them is strong here.
To be fair, I don't think of these people as radicals so much as they are suffering from Stockholm syndrome. The bubble that protects them is strong here.
> I've witnessed many people change their political beliefs to match whichever group they belong to.
Social animals conform to the social norms of their pack.
Social animals conform to the social norms of their pack.
Radicalization is a good thing in a group as traditionally as discouraging as nonconformity as much of the US.
We should bar mega corporations like Amazon and Facebook from receiving public funds and subsidies. One of the many things that invalidates that argument that one should just "start your own ISP/cloud service/etc" is the fact that these megacorporations receive billions in things like subsidies. I would argue that if private companies can do what they want but the government is forbidden from favoring religion, controlling speech, then they shouldn't be giving assistance to companies that do so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-news/amazon-hq...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-news/amazon-hq...
One further: we should bar the government from giving subsidies and contracts. The government should do the work itself, not contract out to third parties who don't have to spend the money with the same constraints government has.
I would agree with this too. If contractors are able to attract the talent after government money is filtered through however many layers of bureaucracy, why wouldn't the government be able to attract that talent by paying directly?
As an american software engineer I've dreamed of working for the government, but unfortunately the opportunities with contractors far outnumber (not to speak of how the compensation and benefits compare) direct government employment, let alone private industry overall. I would gladly take a 5-figure pay cut for the chance to do the equivalent of my current work but for the government.
As an american software engineer I've dreamed of working for the government, but unfortunately the opportunities with contractors far outnumber (not to speak of how the compensation and benefits compare) direct government employment, let alone private industry overall. I would gladly take a 5-figure pay cut for the chance to do the equivalent of my current work but for the government.
Twitter is full of hostility, threats, doxxing, and violent comments. As well. Justice would have that banned, or nothing banned.
The call of journalists wanting to shut down, regulate and censor is deeply disturbing. One argument is that these are mainstream media outlets (NYT, WP, Fox, MSNBC, etc.) up against and wanting to use various "unassailable" arguments to shut down alternative new media.
When we call for banning things, we should not just look at how bad and awful the stuff we're asking to be banned is (even if it is absolutely terrible), but what are the long-term consequences for stuff-that-isn't-harmful but simply alternative once the precedent has been set.
The call of journalists wanting to shut down, regulate and censor is deeply disturbing. One argument is that these are mainstream media outlets (NYT, WP, Fox, MSNBC, etc.) up against and wanting to use various "unassailable" arguments to shut down alternative new media.
When we call for banning things, we should not just look at how bad and awful the stuff we're asking to be banned is (even if it is absolutely terrible), but what are the long-term consequences for stuff-that-isn't-harmful but simply alternative once the precedent has been set.
The NY Times changed the title of this article to: "They Used To Post Selfies. Now They Are Trying To Reverse The Election." from "How Facebook Incubated The Insurrection."
This seems like more of a sad story of people needing love and attention from the people around them so they don’t need to seek it out from anonymous people online.
I think the title says one thing but the body doesn't really provide enough evidence to support the title (aka linkbait).
The body shows some people got a bunch of likes for saying crazy things on Facebook. I assume that's true of twitter or all social media, and true for all conspiracy theories. I'd be curious what exactly the proposal is from this post.
The body shows some people got a bunch of likes for saying crazy things on Facebook. I assume that's true of twitter or all social media, and true for all conspiracy theories. I'd be curious what exactly the proposal is from this post.
This is just NY times' daily anti-Facebook tirade. Facebook pissed the NYTimes off a few years ago when they backed off on an ads deal and since then NYT has daily hit pieces against facebook.
Related: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
I think we should ban the use of opaque algorithms to mediate communication between individuals. You need to be able to understand and predict the semantics of communication.
Yeah, I would say that algorithmic curation is the key difference between "before" and "after" here. Social media makes it easy to form filter bubbles, but on its own it's just an iterative change to an existing phenomenon. But when you curate and present content for engagement, especially content from outside of your chosen set of interactions, it becomes a positive feedback loop of ever-increasing extremism - even in the most benign of topics.
Google's search personalisation and targeted ads fall under this even if they're not as effective at radicalisation IMO.
Google's search personalisation and targeted ads fall under this even if they're not as effective at radicalisation IMO.
The last two paragraphs seem strangely familiar. Almost like I have read it somewhere else before.
> Over the past week, they’ve [Trump supporters] flocked to an array of other platforms, including encrypted text-messaging services like Signal and Telegram, which were among the most popular apps in the country this week.
That statement is a bit annoying, given that a fair few people have been switching to Signal/Telegram et al in the same time period for another reason - namely WhatsApp's changes to its terms to allow more data-sharing with FaceBook.
Edited to add this:
Regardless of what I might think of the people highlighted in the NYT article, I found this affecting:
He’s paid a price. He said he lost a few customers of the credit repair business he runs, which he also promotes on Facebook. And members of his family started distancing themselves. After his cat died in December, Mr. McGee said, no one in his family offered condolences.
A bereavement is horrible, and I'd offer condolences to anyone who had lost a friend, relative or pet, regardless of what I thought of their behaviour or views. The feeling of loss is, I think, something common in humanity. It should make us reach out - even in this case if, as I am, you are a dog person rather than a cat person (and definitely not a Trump person). I would definitely have commiserated. Shame on his family.
That statement is a bit annoying, given that a fair few people have been switching to Signal/Telegram et al in the same time period for another reason - namely WhatsApp's changes to its terms to allow more data-sharing with FaceBook.
Edited to add this:
Regardless of what I might think of the people highlighted in the NYT article, I found this affecting:
He’s paid a price. He said he lost a few customers of the credit repair business he runs, which he also promotes on Facebook. And members of his family started distancing themselves. After his cat died in December, Mr. McGee said, no one in his family offered condolences.
A bereavement is horrible, and I'd offer condolences to anyone who had lost a friend, relative or pet, regardless of what I thought of their behaviour or views. The feeling of loss is, I think, something common in humanity. It should make us reach out - even in this case if, as I am, you are a dog person rather than a cat person (and definitely not a Trump person). I would definitely have commiserated. Shame on his family.
Well I guess it's indeed true that people only realized the sin when themselves are the victims...
This should be obvious and media and propaganda tools have always been like this. If there were no Facebook, it would be another news paper brooding the insurrection.
This should be obvious and media and propaganda tools have always been like this. If there were no Facebook, it would be another news paper brooding the insurrection.
I've been a huge critic of Facebook right from the beginning. I was that guy who quit Facebook back in 2008 when it was really uncool to do so. But I really don't understand why they are being blamed for recent events.
What, in particular, has Facebook done to encourage this kind of behaviour? Are we really going to blame them for making it easier for people to be heard and to find other like-minded people to communicate with?
What we are witnessing is a societal problem. It's possibly a new problem, or maybe just one that has never been seen at such large scale. But all that's being done about is the oldest trick in the book: scapegoating.
I get it. It's a huge and complex problem and it's easier to focus one entity and call it the enemy. But we can do better than this. All we'll achieve by blaming Facebook is less free speech. Is that really the best solution here? Again? This has been tried so many times before.
What, in particular, has Facebook done to encourage this kind of behaviour? Are we really going to blame them for making it easier for people to be heard and to find other like-minded people to communicate with?
What we are witnessing is a societal problem. It's possibly a new problem, or maybe just one that has never been seen at such large scale. But all that's being done about is the oldest trick in the book: scapegoating.
I get it. It's a huge and complex problem and it's easier to focus one entity and call it the enemy. But we can do better than this. All we'll achieve by blaming Facebook is less free speech. Is that really the best solution here? Again? This has been tried so many times before.
This was discussed yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25769840
[deleted]
So.. suppose you're Superman, and you can just burn every last Facebook data centre to the ground.
Would removing FB from the internet help, or is it too late at this point?
Would removing FB from the internet help, or is it too late at this point?
I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. If FB was forced to shut down tonight, there would be a new FB-clone in a few weeks gaining traction. It's fairly trivial for a bunch of coders to re-implement something that's already been done multiple times.
The only way out is some kind of a healthier platform that people move willingly to or maybe social media will just lose its interest at some point. It's hard to see that second option though since it gives people such strong emotional rewards.
The only way out is some kind of a healthier platform that people move willingly to or maybe social media will just lose its interest at some point. It's hard to see that second option though since it gives people such strong emotional rewards.
Only if we could remove and permanently prohibit what we currently think of as "social media", which in my opinion would include things like Discord and Reddit as well as Facebook and Twitter. A full-on Butlerian Jihad aimed at reverting the species back to traditional modes of human interaction. We clearly can't handle this drug.
But that won't happen, obviously, so we need to figure something else out.
But that won't happen, obviously, so we need to figure something else out.
I think FB could work if there was a hard limit on the size of groups/spread of ideas.
Say a group can have only 50 members
Anything a person shares can only be seen by X people and no re-sharing allowed.
Basically a return to old style forums, niche audience etc.
Say a group can have only 50 members
Anything a person shares can only be seen by X people and no re-sharing allowed.
Basically a return to old style forums, niche audience etc.
This has been obvious to anyone with a clue since 2015. Facebook is barely more than a propaganda machine where nefarious actors can spread lies and brainwash the masses who are either too lazy, too stupid or simply enjoy the confirmation bias too much to realize they're being manipulated. It's depressing and sad. Even more concerning is that seemingly intelligent people are equally susceptible and perfectly willing to go down the insane conspiracy rabbit hole.
Observation: A party can incite insurrections -- by claiming that other parties incited insurrections...
Advice: If a party doesn't want to incite insurrections -- it should never claim that other parties incited insurrections...
Shakespeare Quote: "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be..."
Advice: If a party doesn't want to incite insurrections -- it should never claim that other parties incited insurrections...
Shakespeare Quote: "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be..."
I experienced the inverse of this. When I was in the Army Reserve (in the UK) and still had Instagram, I was purchasing a lot of tactical kit and this caused Instagram to promote far-right groups to me.
I couldn't be further from the kind of person who would involve themselves with such grimy associations (and it's one of the reasons I deleted Instagram). I'm fairly left wing; in fact my entire unit was pretty centrist. And it was aggravating having right wing propaganda pushed down my throat, solely because Facebook's crude advertising algorithms could not distinguish between a soldier who needed some webbing for a deployment, and a far-right militiaman who had delusions of protecting their constitutional rights.
I couldn't be further from the kind of person who would involve themselves with such grimy associations (and it's one of the reasons I deleted Instagram). I'm fairly left wing; in fact my entire unit was pretty centrist. And it was aggravating having right wing propaganda pushed down my throat, solely because Facebook's crude advertising algorithms could not distinguish between a soldier who needed some webbing for a deployment, and a far-right militiaman who had delusions of protecting their constitutional rights.
There are so many problems with this NYT opinion piece. The most glaring and worrisome to me is that 2 out of the 3 did not consent to be subjects of this NYT op-Ed.
[deleted]
yrimaxi(2)
zyxzevn(3)
All Facebook really did is show blue city liberals how their fellow countrymen actually are. Yes, they have been like this the whole time, you just either didn’t care or were insulated from it your entire life.
If any of this is news to you, you should probably think twice before blaming it on Facebook, alone.
If any of this is news to you, you should probably think twice before blaming it on Facebook, alone.
This is revisionism. There have always been cranks in the Republican faithful, but never have they been as detached from reality in as large of numbers as with Q Anon. Consider all the stories of people "losing" their relatives to increasingly deranged Q-adjacent conspiracy nonsense. These aren't just the cranks that were always there, they're fresh converts.
They lost their relatives due to a declining living standard in the US. Qanon is a thing not because of Facebook, but because it gave people hope that the horrors and apparent wrongness of the globalism that has wiped out their communities, would be addressed.
Things like Qanon and BLM are a result of that declining living standard. No one would care if the country hadn’t been sold out. It absolutely is the slow death of the middle class and working class has led to all of this civil unrest and jumping at shadows. In a heathy, growing society, you just wouldn’t see things like this.
Things like Qanon and BLM are a result of that declining living standard. No one would care if the country hadn’t been sold out. It absolutely is the slow death of the middle class and working class has led to all of this civil unrest and jumping at shadows. In a heathy, growing society, you just wouldn’t see things like this.
I agree. But the idea of declining living standards as a causal factor is not mentioned, nor even hinted at, in your original comment.
Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It is as if the age of reason -- the era of evidential argument -- is ending. Knowledge is de-legitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy which depends on shared truths is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.
The above is by Sacha Baron Cohen, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
More excerpts:
Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories more than 1700 times to his 67 million followers.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
Zuckerberg says people should decide what's credible, not tech companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist.
The above is by Sacha Baron Cohen, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM
More excerpts:
Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories more than 1700 times to his 67 million followers.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly There will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers. We should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
Zuckerberg says people should decide what's credible, not tech companies. When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist.
> 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz
If this is true - which I very much doubt as a millenial, isn't that a giant failing of the US school system first and foremost?
If this is true - which I very much doubt as a millenial, isn't that a giant failing of the US school system first and foremost?
There was a Tablet magazine piece some years ago that claimed Spielberg hadn’t heard of Auschwitz until his 30s
> When 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz how are they supposed to know what's true? There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist.
Probably better to qualify the statistic when you are using it as a prelude to declaring "Facts do exist"
Maybe making the quote more exact slightly dampens the hyperbole you were aiming for:
first result for the line:
> 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz
gives https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/04...
which includes the excerpt of: > Two-thirds of American millennials
> how are they supposed to know what's true
Please do explain the equivalence of not knowing what is true with not knowing what Auschwitz is?
Probably better to qualify the statistic when you are using it as a prelude to declaring "Facts do exist"
Maybe making the quote more exact slightly dampens the hyperbole you were aiming for:
first result for the line:
> 2/3rds of millennials have not heard of Auschwitz
gives https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/04...
which includes the excerpt of: > Two-thirds of American millennials
> how are they supposed to know what's true
Please do explain the equivalence of not knowing what is true with not knowing what Auschwitz is?
Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
The violent comment botnets will continue to attack every social network until Twitter is the only one left. No due process required. Twitter has teamed up with Amazon now, they've got a giant in their corner.
Terrible. The storming of the capitol was probably the most frightening single event in American history in recent times.
I just got off the phone with my friend who lives in China. He was in tears. He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy to walk inside the capitol building in DC. It's completely against the law.
For those in the dark, the event caused serious international ripples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the...
I just got off the phone with my friend who lives in China. He was in tears. He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy to walk inside the capitol building in DC. It's completely against the law.
For those in the dark, the event caused serious international ripples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the...
> He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy...
Maybe he hasn't heard about Tiananmen Square[1], since in China it never happened[2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
Maybe he hasn't heard about Tiananmen Square[1], since in China it never happened[2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
It may well be that he didn't. I have had Chinese colleagues that thought the Dalai Lama was some kind of devil. I think it is difficult to imagine real life within Chinese borders.
>I think it is difficult to imagine real life within Chinese borders.
This is classic orientalism, especially the idea that people can't figure their way out of a plastic bag without Western input. In reality, the Chinese population holds a range of opinions just as diverse as in any other country. And why wouldn't it? It just takes time and effort to cross the language barrier and come into contact with it from the West.
This is classic orientalism, especially the idea that people can't figure their way out of a plastic bag without Western input. In reality, the Chinese population holds a range of opinions just as diverse as in any other country. And why wouldn't it? It just takes time and effort to cross the language barrier and come into contact with it from the West.
It is more than “language barrier” or “diverse opinions” in China: the government actively censors information and sways public opinion [1].
Regardless of your political stance (whether you think Dalai Lama is good or evil, Tiananmen Square is good or bad), the public at large in China receives different information and opinions from outside.
This is not orientalism. Concepts that could be discussed freely in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or India, could not be discussed with ease in China. This is hinted at above, that many in China are unaware of the Tiananmen Square incident.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/wechat-...
Regardless of your political stance (whether you think Dalai Lama is good or evil, Tiananmen Square is good or bad), the public at large in China receives different information and opinions from outside.
This is not orientalism. Concepts that could be discussed freely in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or India, could not be discussed with ease in China. This is hinted at above, that many in China are unaware of the Tiananmen Square incident.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/wechat-...
Public opinion is swayed elsewhere as well and in plain sight. Most people have barely any knowledge of their own history and usually don't care to find out. Americans have all the information at their fingertips and yet we can all see how that is working out in terms of discourse.
My point isn't to defend the CCP apparatus or to engage in whataboutism, but simply to point out that China isn't a blob of unthinking people as they are often portrayed to be. Nor are they basically primed to instantly adopt Western values should some Westerner bravely bust through the censorship wall and "educate" them. That's where the orientalism springs from: an inability to conceive of other cultures as anything other than relative actors to one's own.[0]
In my view, it is a widespread and serious flaw in thinking that only helps to weaken the West when dealing with China.
[0] For an amusing illustrative example see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/29/how-weste...
My point isn't to defend the CCP apparatus or to engage in whataboutism, but simply to point out that China isn't a blob of unthinking people as they are often portrayed to be. Nor are they basically primed to instantly adopt Western values should some Westerner bravely bust through the censorship wall and "educate" them. That's where the orientalism springs from: an inability to conceive of other cultures as anything other than relative actors to one's own.[0]
In my view, it is a widespread and serious flaw in thinking that only helps to weaken the West when dealing with China.
[0] For an amusing illustrative example see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/29/how-weste...
I agree that:
- the Chinese culture will never be the same as the US, and
- Chinese opinion is not a single blob,
but I think “oriental” countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan show that they could be persuaded (let’s not use “educated” here) to be:
- less aggressive to neighbors, and
- not trying to dominate, to overthrow world order by exporting authoritarianism and censorship.
And regarding swaying opinions, I agree that it happens elsewhere as well (just as Trump was swaying opinions with Twitter and Facebook before he was banned), but I would take a public discourse anytime.
- the Chinese culture will never be the same as the US, and
- Chinese opinion is not a single blob,
but I think “oriental” countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan show that they could be persuaded (let’s not use “educated” here) to be:
- less aggressive to neighbors, and
- not trying to dominate, to overthrow world order by exporting authoritarianism and censorship.
And regarding swaying opinions, I agree that it happens elsewhere as well (just as Trump was swaying opinions with Twitter and Facebook before he was banned), but I would take a public discourse anytime.
I concur with the general sentiment.
I don't want to speculate too much and go into armchair territory. That said, I wonder if it isn't more productive to look at China and each country in the region based on its own characteristics instead of a regional idea. Looking at all those you cited, they all have pretty specific ways of doing things and very different histories. I think they have less in common than say France and Germany have together, but that's my personal impression.
Ultimately China has much to gain from changing the world order, just like it was natural for the US to export its values and overthrow governments back in its own heyday. It's frustrating to see Western countries reason along the lines of "1. Be democratic 2. ??? 3. profit" instead of remembering why it has historically been a successful model and working from those first principles. This veering into cargo cult and magical thinking territory is of paramount danger if China is currently developing a competing model.
I don't want to speculate too much and go into armchair territory. That said, I wonder if it isn't more productive to look at China and each country in the region based on its own characteristics instead of a regional idea. Looking at all those you cited, they all have pretty specific ways of doing things and very different histories. I think they have less in common than say France and Germany have together, but that's my personal impression.
Ultimately China has much to gain from changing the world order, just like it was natural for the US to export its values and overthrow governments back in its own heyday. It's frustrating to see Western countries reason along the lines of "1. Be democratic 2. ??? 3. profit" instead of remembering why it has historically been a successful model and working from those first principles. This veering into cargo cult and magical thinking territory is of paramount danger if China is currently developing a competing model.
I agree that:
* each country has their own history and trajectory, including China, its neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, etc.), or others.
* China has much to gain from changing the world order.
But, I speculate that:
* a transition of power from a US dominated world order to a bipolar (or China dominated) world order would be chaotic and likely non-peacful, given the history of the bipolar world order of the Cold War with lots of proxy wars.
* hence the world has much to lose from such a transition of power: this is essentially the one-party stability argument of CCP applied to the world, because the world institution inherently lacks the peaceful transition of power that democratic countries have—the result will be more chaotic, and likely violent, than what US is having now.
I agree with your objections to cargo cult and magical thinking, and thus I support public discourse sans government censorship or unreasonable moderation, to find out why things are the way they are.
I love the discussion we are having now.
* each country has their own history and trajectory, including China, its neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, etc.), or others.
* China has much to gain from changing the world order.
But, I speculate that:
* a transition of power from a US dominated world order to a bipolar (or China dominated) world order would be chaotic and likely non-peacful, given the history of the bipolar world order of the Cold War with lots of proxy wars.
* hence the world has much to lose from such a transition of power: this is essentially the one-party stability argument of CCP applied to the world, because the world institution inherently lacks the peaceful transition of power that democratic countries have—the result will be more chaotic, and likely violent, than what US is having now.
I agree with your objections to cargo cult and magical thinking, and thus I support public discourse sans government censorship or unreasonable moderation, to find out why things are the way they are.
I love the discussion we are having now.
I must admit I have no idea at all what will happen when it comes down to it (nor does anyone, let's be real). I can't say I reject your vision outright, but I tend to believe that multipolar worlds (excluding bipolar) are more stable and in this case I do not believe it will only be China and the US in the game. Your comparison between the domestic situation in China and the world order is something I had never considered before.
But like you said it's fun to speculate about these things. Online discussion may lead to a lot of... issues but it also allows us to discuss intense topics where we might not otherwise be able to.
But like you said it's fun to speculate about these things. Online discussion may lead to a lot of... issues but it also allows us to discuss intense topics where we might not otherwise be able to.
I don't see how Tianemen Square is a refutation of the quoted statement. Tianemen Square is an event that demonstrates the value of democracy - people are willing to die to achieve it. Jan 6 shows disregard for democracy - those that broke into the Capitol were willing to destroy it.
Explain it to an engineer. A few people in a mostly peaceful protest got out of hand and this is the most frightening event ever? I'd say the congressmen shooting was 10x scarier yet received 100x less news coverage.
Just to be clear, sarcasm and unduly extreme language do not work as well on an engineer :)
Just to be clear, sarcasm and unduly extreme language do not work as well on an engineer :)
I find Jan 6th scarier just because of the number of people
We don’t know if it is going to happen again, if the mobs are going to be larger, etc
We don’t even know what kind of backlash Republicans that voted for impeachment will receive
People are afraid
The shooter was caught and that was it (though it could happen again, but with anyone really)
We don’t know if it is going to happen again, if the mobs are going to be larger, etc
We don’t even know what kind of backlash Republicans that voted for impeachment will receive
People are afraid
The shooter was caught and that was it (though it could happen again, but with anyone really)
>> The storming of the capitol was probably the most frightening single event in American history in recent times.
This is surely hyperbole or else recent times doesn’t include much of the 21st century.
This is surely hyperbole or else recent times doesn’t include much of the 21st century.
Or even much of the past year in Portland, or even the violent BLM riots in Washington DC.
Hysterical commentary is contributing to the radicalisation on both sides.
Not just hysterical, but unbelievably, cynically partisan.
Three and a half years ago, someone radicalised by Facebook shot a group of members of Congress after asking them about their party affiliation. One of them, Steve Scalise, was hospitalized for a couple of months fighting for his life, and my understanding is that if some of the bullets had been just a couple of inches across he'd be dead right now for sure. The response of the New York Times and the mainstream press was to lie - to falsely claim that actually, it had nothing to do with political polarization and his party was the one that had incited the shooting of a member of Congress, Gabby Giffords, as he lay in hospital with potentially fatal injuries. (This was literally the exact diametric opposite of the truth - Giffords was shot by someone who had a weird grudge against her personally which had nothing to do with national politics.) There certainly wasn't any kind of concern about the radicalization behind it.
In the eyes of the New York Times and the mainstream elite whose views it represents, it's like someone on the wrong side going to a protest and turning around when the property destruction starts is more violent, more dangerous, more in need of suppression by Facebook than someone on the correct side actually filling one of the other side's Congressman full of lead.
Three and a half years ago, someone radicalised by Facebook shot a group of members of Congress after asking them about their party affiliation. One of them, Steve Scalise, was hospitalized for a couple of months fighting for his life, and my understanding is that if some of the bullets had been just a couple of inches across he'd be dead right now for sure. The response of the New York Times and the mainstream press was to lie - to falsely claim that actually, it had nothing to do with political polarization and his party was the one that had incited the shooting of a member of Congress, Gabby Giffords, as he lay in hospital with potentially fatal injuries. (This was literally the exact diametric opposite of the truth - Giffords was shot by someone who had a weird grudge against her personally which had nothing to do with national politics.) There certainly wasn't any kind of concern about the radicalization behind it.
In the eyes of the New York Times and the mainstream elite whose views it represents, it's like someone on the wrong side going to a protest and turning around when the property destruction starts is more violent, more dangerous, more in need of suppression by Facebook than someone on the correct side actually filling one of the other side's Congressman full of lead.
To my way of thinking, building a gallows outside the Capitol, with apparent intent to use it on the Vice President, is in at least the same category as filling a Congressman full of lead.
I suspect living through the collapse of Libya as an innocent resident of that country, was probably one of the most frightening events in recent American history.
> disregard for the value of human life
While the deaths were sad, I don't think that's the main reason people are concerned.
While the deaths were sad, I don't think that's the main reason people are concerned.
Edited to include democracy, thank you for correcting me.
Is this satire? Political violence is so common in America (and violence in general) that I doubt anyone blinks an eye.
I have to believe this was written sarcastically, otherwise I cannot believe someone can be this obtuse, especially introducing China to the conversation...
Was this written by a CCP- sponsored bot?
[deleted]
I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform. Is it just because Facebook has other uses, because they're bigger or because an app store that doesn't have a Facebook app will experience a huge backlash from consumers?