Departing Facebook security officer advocated for shifts in company’s culture(buzzfeednews.com)
buzzfeednews.com
Departing Facebook security officer advocated for shifts in company’s culture
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-alex-stamos-memo-cambridge-analytica-pick-sides
291 comments
I disagree. Given the criticisms Stamos has leveled in this memo against the executive team, the quote of the headline seems very apt to me.
The memo has Stamos making points very critical of the approach of the Facebook executives (the "we") to these issues over the past several years. Much of the word count of the memo was spent on "spin" / "setting the record straight", but that is also understandable given the context, and the compensation Stamos still likely has on the table.
Perhaps Facebook _does_ need to take a side (not promoting the posts of users directly advocating violence, not selling data to 3rd parties, not employing UI 'dark patterns' to encourage users to unconsciously share private information, etc.).
The memo has Stamos making points very critical of the approach of the Facebook executives (the "we") to these issues over the past several years. Much of the word count of the memo was spent on "spin" / "setting the record straight", but that is also understandable given the context, and the compensation Stamos still likely has on the table.
Perhaps Facebook _does_ need to take a side (not promoting the posts of users directly advocating violence, not selling data to 3rd parties, not employing UI 'dark patterns' to encourage users to unconsciously share private information, etc.).
Facebook has taken a side, it's just the side of dark patterns and selling all of everything it can get it's hands on. It's had this side for as long as I can remember it existing.
This is nonsense. Of course they're already picking sides with every editorial action they take.
It's not like suddenly they're going to switch from being a bulletin board to a publisher. They're already a publisher. They're the first and only worldwide newspaper-tv-town-crier. They pick sides everyday. The only thing left to decide is how honest and open to be about it. The more honest and open they are, the more the jig is up and everybody says "What the hell? Why do we want one publishing company controlling the information stream for billions of people? Who the hell thought that was a good idea?"
And of course they don't want to have that conversation. So more and more of this silliness of being one thing while pretending to be something else.
It's not like suddenly they're going to switch from being a bulletin board to a publisher. They're already a publisher. They're the first and only worldwide newspaper-tv-town-crier. They pick sides everyday. The only thing left to decide is how honest and open to be about it. The more honest and open they are, the more the jig is up and everybody says "What the hell? Why do we want one publishing company controlling the information stream for billions of people? Who the hell thought that was a good idea?"
And of course they don't want to have that conversation. So more and more of this silliness of being one thing while pretending to be something else.
Of course they're picking sides, that's the whole point. The problem is that right now they aren't picking sides based on morality - in a failed attempt to be impartial they're picking a side based on policy or technical issues, and ignoring the morality of the side that decision puts them on.
If they keep trying not to pick sides, they're going to continue to accidentaly pick the wrong side sometimes. "we have to be willing to pick sides" is not the same thing as "we have to start picking sides"
If they keep trying not to pick sides, they're going to continue to accidentaly pick the wrong side sometimes. "we have to be willing to pick sides" is not the same thing as "we have to start picking sides"
> they're picking a side based on policy or technical issues
Let's be realistic. They're picking a side based on commercial motivations.
Let's be realistic. They're picking a side based on commercial motivations.
Well to be specific, when it comes to how content gets distributed across a billion Facebook newsfeeds...
The big problem is not that Facebook the company is picking sides, the big problem is that Facebook the company built a machine to pick sides, and told the machine to base its decisions solely on how much reaction content gets from people. So of course it over-prioritizes the worst, most shocking, most manipulative, most extreme content--because that's what gets the biggest reactions.
And the really big problem is that Facebook either doesn't understand, or wants to pretend it doesn't understand, why that is bad.
Understanding, accepting the implications, and doing something--that's what Facebook needs to do.
The big problem is not that Facebook the company is picking sides, the big problem is that Facebook the company built a machine to pick sides, and told the machine to base its decisions solely on how much reaction content gets from people. So of course it over-prioritizes the worst, most shocking, most manipulative, most extreme content--because that's what gets the biggest reactions.
And the really big problem is that Facebook either doesn't understand, or wants to pretend it doesn't understand, why that is bad.
Understanding, accepting the implications, and doing something--that's what Facebook needs to do.
from a long enough view, every decision a business makes is commercially motivated, so simplifying a decision down to picking a side based on commercial motivations isn't really helpful. Optimizing for immediate growth, long term growth, good PR, capital outlay, or maintaining a relationship with a valuable customer are all "commercial motivations" but usually in conflict with each other.
it's pretty hard to find a business decision that can be reduced down to "should we make money, or not make money?"
it's pretty hard to find a business decision that can be reduced down to "should we make money, or not make money?"
Is Facebook in danger of not making money? I think the decision is a bit easier: should we make as much money as we possibly can, or should we forgo some profit to mitigate the assault on privacy and democracy that is the by-product of our business model.
My point was that "should we make as much money as we possibly can" is simplifying the question beyond the point of usefulness. Yes, facebook wants to make as much money as they possibly can. But it's not obvious that selling political ads to russians is the best money-making scheme.
You can't simplify the issue down to there being one action that is more profitable and one that is less so. the world is more complicated than that. Forgoing some profit in the short term in order to gain some trust from the userbase may be more profitable in the long run. Or maybe it won't be. It's a decision that facebook's leadership has to make, and it's not as simple as "we'll take the option that makes more money".
Burning down my house would net me a nice payout from the insurance company, but it's probably not a good financial decision in the longer term. when looking at corporate motivations, it's easy to say they're going to pick the most evil choice if it's the profitable one, but business leaders aren't all stupid, and picking the evil choice is often stupid.
You can't simplify the issue down to there being one action that is more profitable and one that is less so. the world is more complicated than that. Forgoing some profit in the short term in order to gain some trust from the userbase may be more profitable in the long run. Or maybe it won't be. It's a decision that facebook's leadership has to make, and it's not as simple as "we'll take the option that makes more money".
Burning down my house would net me a nice payout from the insurance company, but it's probably not a good financial decision in the longer term. when looking at corporate motivations, it's easy to say they're going to pick the most evil choice if it's the profitable one, but business leaders aren't all stupid, and picking the evil choice is often stupid.
from a long enough view, every decision a business makes is commercially motivated
Sure, but Facebook doesn’t look any further into the future than “the next click”.
Sure, but Facebook doesn’t look any further into the future than “the next click”.
while money is not null
if make money
getdata(users)
getmoney(data)
else
getdata(users)
getdata(money)
set make money
Right. What they're really struggling with (or not facing) is what their values are.
Every "side" has their own morality. And believes that they are good and the other "side" is evil. This is just a fact of life.
It is very noble to attempt to adjudicate based on impartial rules rather than picking one of the many possible moralities and enforcing it with an iron fist.
Despite not being a fan of Facebook as a product, I'm impressed that they've been principled enough to not go the route of petite totalitarians like Twitter.
It is very noble to attempt to adjudicate based on impartial rules rather than picking one of the many possible moralities and enforcing it with an iron fist.
Despite not being a fan of Facebook as a product, I'm impressed that they've been principled enough to not go the route of petite totalitarians like Twitter.
[flagged]
As a general rule, I'd expect companies to deliver morality in line with how much the consumer can tell they're actually buying morally, and also actually cares.
So, with infinitely long supply chains and very complicated products of unclear provenance, and people who care more about looking moral than being it… not well.
Information asymmetry is not a problem well handled by default in a standard free market, I think. But all you need is certification! If only companies that don't make things in sweatshops are allowed to brand with Not Made In A Sweatshop stickers, the consumer can naturally prefer those. Of course if anyone can make up their own certification and stick it on a product, consumers get confused and can't tell what's legit.
As an example, consider the success of nutrition labelling (nutrition facts). It's much harder to make and sell food that only LOOKS healthy, calorie-wise, when anyone can check pretty easily.
So, with infinitely long supply chains and very complicated products of unclear provenance, and people who care more about looking moral than being it… not well.
Information asymmetry is not a problem well handled by default in a standard free market, I think. But all you need is certification! If only companies that don't make things in sweatshops are allowed to brand with Not Made In A Sweatshop stickers, the consumer can naturally prefer those. Of course if anyone can make up their own certification and stick it on a product, consumers get confused and can't tell what's legit.
As an example, consider the success of nutrition labelling (nutrition facts). It's much harder to make and sell food that only LOOKS healthy, calorie-wise, when anyone can check pretty easily.
I'm not sure I'd hold up nutrition labeling as a success. Feel free to correct if I'm missing some great shift that it caused (I mean this honestly, I haven't been paying much attention) but the biggest impact I see of nutritional labels is e.g. "Non GMO" on like, a can of soda, and "Gluten Free" on a steak. For me as a consumer, nutritional advertising has been diluted into nothing more than yet another set of stickers to be gamed.
(Disclaimer, the actual Nutritional Facts on the back are more useful, but as the endless debate about "what is actually good vs not good" might indicate, it's far from a Source Of Truth, and in many cases can likely be gamed as well. Similarly to how even if a news article lists all their funding sources, an average person probably doesn't care/might still not get much information from it/might still be mislead by crafting of that fact. I don't say this to encourage gatekeepers, but to call out that I'm not sure the current approaches are effectual)
Post-factum-edit: To the downvoters, before this post disappears, at least tell me where I'm wrong. US Obesity rate is through the roof[0]; and while this absolutely has socioeconomic roots, that's the crux of my statement: we're not addressing root causes, and are thus lacking many of the outcomes we'd want.
[0]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf
(Disclaimer, the actual Nutritional Facts on the back are more useful, but as the endless debate about "what is actually good vs not good" might indicate, it's far from a Source Of Truth, and in many cases can likely be gamed as well. Similarly to how even if a news article lists all their funding sources, an average person probably doesn't care/might still not get much information from it/might still be mislead by crafting of that fact. I don't say this to encourage gatekeepers, but to call out that I'm not sure the current approaches are effectual)
Post-factum-edit: To the downvoters, before this post disappears, at least tell me where I'm wrong. US Obesity rate is through the roof[0]; and while this absolutely has socioeconomic roots, that's the crux of my statement: we're not addressing root causes, and are thus lacking many of the outcomes we'd want.
[0]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf
I actually did mean the nutrition facts on the back. Edited my post if that was unclear.
>It's much harder to make and sell food that only LOOKS healthy, calorie-wise, when anyone can check pretty easily.
Have you read the back of a package recently? This is directly from some nuttella in the pantry:
"Energy 332KJ Daily Intake 4%"
in one point font gray on white "Per 15 gram serve."
Average adult diet of 8700KJ.
On other side of the package: 220g net.
So the actual energy in the package is 4869KJ. This is by far not the worst. I have seen chocolates where the "serving size" was two squares.
You can count on any regulation that is bad for business to be subverted to the point of uselessness.
Have you read the back of a package recently? This is directly from some nuttella in the pantry:
"Energy 332KJ Daily Intake 4%"
in one point font gray on white "Per 15 gram serve."
Average adult diet of 8700KJ.
On other side of the package: 220g net.
So the actual energy in the package is 4869KJ. This is by far not the worst. I have seen chocolates where the "serving size" was two squares.
You can count on any regulation that is bad for business to be subverted to the point of uselessness.
I have a box of microwavable popcorn I bought recently that's the best example I've ever seen of this. It reads:
> Serving Size: 2 Tbsp unpopped (makes about 4.5 cups popped)
> Servings Per Bag: about 2.5
> Calories (2 Tbsp unpopped): 170
> Calories (1 Cup popped): 35
How many calories per bag?
The worst thing is, it fooled me. I wouldn't've bought it if I'd realized the answer was about 400.
> Serving Size: 2 Tbsp unpopped (makes about 4.5 cups popped)
> Servings Per Bag: about 2.5
> Calories (2 Tbsp unpopped): 170
> Calories (1 Cup popped): 35
How many calories per bag?
The worst thing is, it fooled me. I wouldn't've bought it if I'd realized the answer was about 400.
PR and branding exists to make the consumer think that the product is aligned to the consumer in some way, and can even drive product design (think of the "healthy choices" now available at McDonalds). Projecting some morality in your brand isn't too much different, is it?
Generally through regulation
Hewlett and Packard said it would be better not to make a single dime of profit than to ship a defective product. That’s how it used to work.
Is it not moral to have an economic system where transactions are mutually agreed upon?
Can you name a more moral economic system than that?
Can you name a more moral economic system than that?
They're willing to pick sides when there is profit to made. They are not willing to pick sides to clean up there platform when there is a cost to them (potentially fewer users and increased staff needed for moderation). They try to disguise it as a free speech issue when it's just a business decision based around cost - they don't want to spend money to do it.
"They're already a publisher."
Actually, they're a media company. They want you think they're a publisher so they can skirt the laws as long as they can. Media companies are regulated.
Facebook crafts thousands of tiny narratives using their many millions of users as the writers/editors/publishers through posted links, status updates, and media such as live video and photos. Currently, those narratives are algorithmically determined using advertisers and eventually those narratives will trend towards Facebook's nebulous definition of being deemed culturally acceptable, non-threatening, and, most important, the age-old advertiser friendly.
It's a slightly democratically-controlled but primarily advertiser-driven narrative creation machine with each narrative crafted by algorithms that are guided by a set of heuristics augmented after each public incident. It's the same as TV, but because 100's of millions of people/advertisers are involved it still looks like it's something else entirely.
But it's not, it's just another media company.
Actually, they're a media company. They want you think they're a publisher so they can skirt the laws as long as they can. Media companies are regulated.
Facebook crafts thousands of tiny narratives using their many millions of users as the writers/editors/publishers through posted links, status updates, and media such as live video and photos. Currently, those narratives are algorithmically determined using advertisers and eventually those narratives will trend towards Facebook's nebulous definition of being deemed culturally acceptable, non-threatening, and, most important, the age-old advertiser friendly.
It's a slightly democratically-controlled but primarily advertiser-driven narrative creation machine with each narrative crafted by algorithms that are guided by a set of heuristics augmented after each public incident. It's the same as TV, but because 100's of millions of people/advertisers are involved it still looks like it's something else entirely.
But it's not, it's just another media company.
Media companies and publishers are the same thing. Media companies, as such, are not regulated. Certain media functions (broadcasting, for example) are regulated, FB isn't, for instance, a broadcaster.
[deleted]
In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech."
This would be possible to test empirically. One could to to identify groups of people who express racism, flat earthism, etc and require some of them to watch an educational video and answer a quiz. Ban another portion of them from posting for a set amount of time. Afterwards, compare the rate of posting about those beliefs to a control group.
Personally, I believe that unchallenged false beliefs are only reinforced over time.
This would be possible to test empirically. One could to to identify groups of people who express racism, flat earthism, etc and require some of them to watch an educational video and answer a quiz. Ban another portion of them from posting for a set amount of time. Afterwards, compare the rate of posting about those beliefs to a control group.
Personally, I believe that unchallenged false beliefs are only reinforced over time.
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
This is an interesting study on a related issue, a ban of hate-speech subreddits on reddit.
I think the authors found some remarkable things. Not only was hate-speech on the website reduced (which would be an achievement in and of itself but it could be argued that containment is not enough), but the real kicker was that they followed individuals who were displaced from hate-speech subreddits, and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in.
That in my book is a really strong argument because it means that we can not just push hate-speech out of view, but combatting it actively reduces it. By destroying organised platforms, the ability to organise and normalise hate is reduced and when engaging with the public at large, attitude is changed.
This is an interesting study on a related issue, a ban of hate-speech subreddits on reddit.
I think the authors found some remarkable things. Not only was hate-speech on the website reduced (which would be an achievement in and of itself but it could be argued that containment is not enough), but the real kicker was that they followed individuals who were displaced from hate-speech subreddits, and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in.
That in my book is a really strong argument because it means that we can not just push hate-speech out of view, but combatting it actively reduces it. By destroying organised platforms, the ability to organise and normalise hate is reduced and when engaging with the public at large, attitude is changed.
> and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in
Did they reduce their amount of hate speech because they no longer had a, erm, "safe place" to express it? There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs.
Did they reduce their amount of hate speech because they no longer had a, erm, "safe place" to express it? There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs.
To add to that, the authors acknowledge a similar weakness of the study: "We note that while the ban may have worked for Reddit, from a macro-perspective, it may have also relocated the behavior onto other sites."
Since in this discussion we're concerned about macro effects, I'd be careful not to over-index on this study.
Since in this discussion we're concerned about macro effects, I'd be careful not to over-index on this study.
> it may have also relocated the behavior onto other sites."
...thus raising the costs to share and promote the views, to the extent that Facebook is a more efficient shared-medium for exchanging ideas versus a random website without the built-in virality possible with Facebook.
...thus raising the costs to share and promote the views, to the extent that Facebook is a more efficient shared-medium for exchanging ideas versus a random website without the built-in virality possible with Facebook.
People used to engage in hate speech in every subreddit. Several months before /r/hatpeoplehate was banned, every single submission containing a fat person was flooded with insults unrelated to the topic. The same thing happened with older racist subreddits.
> There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs.
To society - or victims - the difference is moot. Do you care if the former rapist was genuinely reformed by a prison sentence, or are just "self-censoring"? Changing beliefs is not the goal, reducing harm is.
To society - or victims - the difference is moot. Do you care if the former rapist was genuinely reformed by a prison sentence, or are just "self-censoring"? Changing beliefs is not the goal, reducing harm is.
Social psychologists who study stereotypes and prejudice have conducted experiments testing roughly what you describe. What they've largely concluded is that educational content does not significantly change anyone's views.
I don't know about flat earth, but for negative stereotypes (racism) the only thing found so far to change minds has been prolonged, direct interaction with the stereotyped group. Attending a single service at a black church would probably do more to ameliorate someones racism against blacks than hundreds of hours of videos making detailed logical arguments.
Keep in mind, this applies to people's views as opposed to their behavior.
I don't know about flat earth, but for negative stereotypes (racism) the only thing found so far to change minds has been prolonged, direct interaction with the stereotyped group. Attending a single service at a black church would probably do more to ameliorate someones racism against blacks than hundreds of hours of videos making detailed logical arguments.
Keep in mind, this applies to people's views as opposed to their behavior.
I think about this a lot: If someone arrived at at conclusion through irrational means, what makes you think that a rational argument would change their mind?
I'm convinced that rational thinking is often so unhelpful for survival that humans developed this massive set of patterns to recognize (read stereotypes and logical fallacies) in order to simply keep living. Now that we are starting to push the limits of our biology we run into these anti-patterns that arise.
I'm convinced that rational thinking is often so unhelpful for survival that humans developed this massive set of patterns to recognize (read stereotypes and logical fallacies) in order to simply keep living. Now that we are starting to push the limits of our biology we run into these anti-patterns that arise.
It's not an uncommon conclusion. So common, it's been attributed to many famous thinkers over the years: You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Also, I would say you're not too far off with how we've developed. A lot of things that are useful for a more "primitive" species work against us now. Pareidolia just really messes with us now. Whereas before when the risk of being mauled by a predator was much more real, the fact that what you thought was a bear was really a funny shaped rock 9 times out of 10 will save you that 1 time it is a bear.
Also, I would say you're not too far off with how we've developed. A lot of things that are useful for a more "primitive" species work against us now. Pareidolia just really messes with us now. Whereas before when the risk of being mauled by a predator was much more real, the fact that what you thought was a bear was really a funny shaped rock 9 times out of 10 will save you that 1 time it is a bear.
Your ideas largely agree with this empirical evidence [1]. An additional lesson we can learn from Davis is that hatred does not solve hatred - if anything it makes the intolerant feel justified in their beliefs because it plays directly into their self-serving bias.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
100% agree. What people believe is reflected in what they see and have repeatedly reinforced.
If they've seen someone live up to a stereotype once and then have others just talk to reinforce that same stereotype, they'll continue to believe because it's the only real exposure they have.
You'll never convince someone unless they see it with their own eyes, which is one of the major reasons that internet publications built to reinforce different stereotypes are such a problem.
If they've seen someone live up to a stereotype once and then have others just talk to reinforce that same stereotype, they'll continue to believe because it's the only real exposure they have.
You'll never convince someone unless they see it with their own eyes, which is one of the major reasons that internet publications built to reinforce different stereotypes are such a problem.
>If they've seen someone live up to a stereotype
The thing is that stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. That reason being that they apply well on majority of cases.
For others who think that showing educational videos is going to change minds, think why you call some videos propaganda and others educational. Now try and think what the person you are trying to influence will think about your video. You'll see the problem quickly.
For others who think that showing educational videos is going to change minds, think why you call some videos propaganda and others educational. Now try and think what the person you are trying to influence will think about your video. You'll see the problem quickly.
I've heard from gun owners that the most effective way to convert people who are pro gun control is to take them to the range.
The corollary works just as often though.
I agree, though the person that needs to be convinced of that is Zuck :)
> Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech."
However, there's a theory out there that's starting to congeal that to refute bullshit it takes an order of magnitude more energy to do so.
However, there's a theory out there that's starting to congeal that to refute bullshit it takes an order of magnitude more energy to do so.
Bullshit has the distinct advantage of not needing to be correct. If you and I were arguing about giraffes and I could just make up random facts about giraffes. Like their long necks give them exceptional hearing because they're so much further away from everything.
You'd actually have to provide research and facts to counter my bullshit. Whereas in the meantime, I could make up 10 more bullshit facts that you'd then also have to refute.
You'd actually have to provide research and facts to counter my bullshit. Whereas in the meantime, I could make up 10 more bullshit facts that you'd then also have to refute.
This is often called the "Gish Gallop", named after creationist Duane Gish. The technique is very simple: throw out as many arguments as possible to overwhelm everyone else.
Personally, I believe that false beliefs that are reinforced through a filter bubble are reinforced much faster over time. Which is precisely what happens in neo-nazi communities.
When they don't have a place to organize and talk, they may retain their private viewpoints. Those viewpoints -may- strengthen over time.
When they do have a place to organize and talk with like-minded individuals, these viewpoints absolutely strengthen. I'm not sure how this is controversial.
When they don't have a place to organize and talk, they may retain their private viewpoints. Those viewpoints -may- strengthen over time.
When they do have a place to organize and talk with like-minded individuals, these viewpoints absolutely strengthen. I'm not sure how this is controversial.
> In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech."
There's no way to fight speech with more speech when the audience your speech reaches is determined by algorithms you have no control over or even insight into.
There's no way to fight speech with more speech when the audience your speech reaches is determined by algorithms you have no control over or even insight into.
My recollection of the research is that even challenged false beliefs are only reinforced over time. Education works on the open-minded, not the openly hostile.
I can't look them up easily now, but there are studies that show that false information persists even when it's debunked after (or even before!) being disseminated.
Declarative statements, either true or false, seem to be sticky in human memory.
Declarative statements, either true or false, seem to be sticky in human memory.
What about groups that promote abortion? Should they be required to watch educational videos as well?
There was already an experiment with holocaust denial on reddit. The moderators found it was a waste of every reputable historians' time to rebut the same arguments over and over, and, the holocaust deniers were using that platform to insinuate some respectability behind their cause to recruit people so giving them a platform helped the holocaust deniers cause.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
That’s right, I had picked sides too... and I’ve deleted facebook.
I did too, but was forced back because I need their API. Their latest move is to close of much of their Event API so people are forced to use their Facebook Local app, naturally this was justified with "privacy".
>We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.
It's refreshing to see this. Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free speech" refrain when we're talking about private companies. Facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists (as one relevant example) a platform or support their cause in any capacity, and should do the right thing.
It's refreshing to see this. Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free speech" refrain when we're talking about private companies. Facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists (as one relevant example) a platform or support their cause in any capacity, and should do the right thing.
I don't disagree with you (I mean, facebook not being required to allow free speech isn't really even something you can disagree with to begin with anyway - it's a fact). However, a while ago someone made a comment that has stuck with me: Why do you want Facebook to silence people like this? Let them identify themselves as awful people, so you know you want nothing to do with them.
Instead of becoming friends with a closet racist, then finally getting to know them well enough to realize they're a terrible person, let them identify themselves outright so you waste no time involving them in your life.
Instead of becoming friends with a closet racist, then finally getting to know them well enough to realize they're a terrible person, let them identify themselves outright so you waste no time involving them in your life.
I've been thinking about this (and the obvious rebuttal of "What about the people who think $your_politics should be silenced in polite society"). I think my answer is that these particular ideas - ethnic nationalism and its friends - are deceptively simple explanations for problems in the world, and therefore platforms for publishing, especially platforms for short-attention-span publishing like Facebook or Twitter, should be particularly cautious in whether they let themselves be used by these ideologies.
It is easy to say that the reason that Americans or Greeks or Germans are struggling with their lives is all the Mexicans or Muslims or Jews, and that if only society weren't spending resources on these other people, things would be better for us. I can fit that in a sentence. It is much harder to talk about the complex effects of local, national, and international politics over decades if not centuries; about specific instances of poor leadership or corruption; about the proper interpretation of data; about things that really need papers or books to discuss. I claim that - universally - these longer explanations are more likely to be right. "It's these damn Others" is too simple to fit the observed data, but even listing each complexity in the observed data and whether the explanation fits or not it is a paper's worth of discussion.
Not everyone will recognize that these positions are the positions of awful people. Some will find the simplistic answer appealing. This is arguably a bug in human cognition - but if a platform is designed for humans, it makes perfect sense to take human bugs into account.
It is easy to say that the reason that Americans or Greeks or Germans are struggling with their lives is all the Mexicans or Muslims or Jews, and that if only society weren't spending resources on these other people, things would be better for us. I can fit that in a sentence. It is much harder to talk about the complex effects of local, national, and international politics over decades if not centuries; about specific instances of poor leadership or corruption; about the proper interpretation of data; about things that really need papers or books to discuss. I claim that - universally - these longer explanations are more likely to be right. "It's these damn Others" is too simple to fit the observed data, but even listing each complexity in the observed data and whether the explanation fits or not it is a paper's worth of discussion.
Not everyone will recognize that these positions are the positions of awful people. Some will find the simplistic answer appealing. This is arguably a bug in human cognition - but if a platform is designed for humans, it makes perfect sense to take human bugs into account.
That would be very smart if we had some super-human bug-free angels to oversee the platform and fix out human bugs for us. In reality, since angels are otherwise engaged and unavailable to serve as Facebook moderators, what we'd end up with is one set of humans forcing their bugs onto other set of humans, motivating it as "we are fixing your bugs for your own benefit, you see!". I don't see any reason to prefer the bugs of an anonymous Facebook moderator to my own, at least I know my own and had time to learn to deal with them.
But the buggy / fallen humans are already the people implementing the platform itself: writing algorithms to detect spam, writing the "algorithmic timeline," prioritizing some features over others, measuring and responding to engagement metrics, planning capacity expansions for particular APIs, etc. They already have some idea of what they expect platform usage to look like and are building a system that supports that. It'd be better if the incorruptible were doing this, sure, but sinful man already is designing the platform and its intended uses.
If you offer people a platform that lends itself to certain forms of abuses, those abuses are your responsibility, even if you didn't set out to cause them - just like outages are your responsibility even though you almost certainly did not set out to cause them. Sure, before the Fall, Adam could write code that never crashed. That doesn't mean we can absolve ourselves of the responsibility to attempt to fix and prevent crashes, even though we won't succeed perfectly. Nor can we absolve ourselves of the responsibility to make sure our platforms are being used for things we want them to be used for.
If you offer people a platform that lends itself to certain forms of abuses, those abuses are your responsibility, even if you didn't set out to cause them - just like outages are your responsibility even though you almost certainly did not set out to cause them. Sure, before the Fall, Adam could write code that never crashed. That doesn't mean we can absolve ourselves of the responsibility to attempt to fix and prevent crashes, even though we won't succeed perfectly. Nor can we absolve ourselves of the responsibility to make sure our platforms are being used for things we want them to be used for.
The problem is not buggy code - i.e. code that is meant to do one thing but actually does the other. The problem is buggy goals - e.g. goals that is meant to foster thoughtful discussion but actually create echo chamber increasingly intolerant to dissent and incapable of considering new ideas on merits instead of panicking on any deviation for the orthodoxy. Unless conscious and constant effort is taken to avoid it, it is very easy to get into such failure mode. Not because people are evil but because people are buggy and weak.
So if someone advocates ethnic nationalism in a complex and multifaceted way, backed by data and statistics, You would allow it?
If they advocate it in a way that is not abusive (and there are certainly abuses of long-form platforms, too, mostly involving a Gish gallop and the use of too much data to check each case of misuse), sure. I think then the "best cure is more speech" argument kicks in, and people can just rebut the argument on its merits.
If you say the argument cannot be easily rebutted ... at some point the question turns into, "Ethnic nationalism is obviously wrong, but if someone made a coherent, logical, good-faith argument demonstrating that ethnic nationalism was definitely right, would you allow that argument despite it being obviously wrong?" which isn't very well-formed. :)
If you say the argument cannot be easily rebutted ... at some point the question turns into, "Ethnic nationalism is obviously wrong, but if someone made a coherent, logical, good-faith argument demonstrating that ethnic nationalism was definitely right, would you allow that argument despite it being obviously wrong?" which isn't very well-formed. :)
No. Immoral objective is still immoral even if backed by data supporting it.
Maybe it'd be easier to parse on a less controversial example:
> We should steal things instead of earning them. Here is the objective factual and irrefutable data showing that robbery is more profitable than hard work.
Maybe it'd be easier to parse on a less controversial example:
> We should steal things instead of earning them. Here is the objective factual and irrefutable data showing that robbery is more profitable than hard work.
Japan has a rather objectively ethnically nationalist stance, do you consider Japanese people to be immoral? And when answering that question, consider the possible irony of your response.
As a Christian this argument doesn't make sense to me. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." It's not super difficult (nor is it a high-information-content claim) to consider an entire nation immoral for a specific thing when you believe that everyone alive today does immoral things in their own ways.
And as a student of history, entire nations have certainly been immoral. The Confederate States of America is a good example, and a significant number of northerners were also morally wrong on the subject of slavery—almost all of them, a few generations back. There's also Godwin's favorite example, of course. There are the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children. There were the Indians—probably including some of my own ancestors—who practiced sati.
I'm certainly not expressing an opinion about Japan; I don't know enough to have a well-informed one. But I'm not going to ignore one possible conclusion because it would force me to say that the nation is immoral.
(You switch from "Japan" to "Japanese people" without support or reasoning; of course, we are talking about an organized nation and the culture and norms in power, not about ethnicity in its own right.)
And as a student of history, entire nations have certainly been immoral. The Confederate States of America is a good example, and a significant number of northerners were also morally wrong on the subject of slavery—almost all of them, a few generations back. There's also Godwin's favorite example, of course. There are the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children. There were the Indians—probably including some of my own ancestors—who practiced sati.
I'm certainly not expressing an opinion about Japan; I don't know enough to have a well-informed one. But I'm not going to ignore one possible conclusion because it would force me to say that the nation is immoral.
(You switch from "Japan" to "Japanese people" without support or reasoning; of course, we are talking about an organized nation and the culture and norms in power, not about ethnicity in its own right.)
I don't disagree, but I asked a fairly specific question of someone else who was casting judgement based on the morality of a specific behavior, I would like them to defend that insult.
As for your final point, go watch some man on the street interviews on YouTube and you might be surprised, this is how they generally feel, it's just not based on any form of hatred, it just is how they think.
Lots of strong opinions on these topics, very few have the ability to defend those opinions.
As for your final point, go watch some man on the street interviews on YouTube and you might be surprised, this is how they generally feel, it's just not based on any form of hatred, it just is how they think.
Lots of strong opinions on these topics, very few have the ability to defend those opinions.
I don't know if you are trying to build some kind of strawman or if you truly don't understand the difference.
Simply: for you to steal someone else needs to be earning, thus you premise doesn't work. Your data would show this immediately.
Simply: for you to steal someone else needs to be earning, thus you premise doesn't work. Your data would show this immediately.
No, I think you're falling for exactly the problem addition of data creates: the discussion has shifted to the data, and jumped past the whole issue of immorality.
It's now "we don't steal because it doesn't work (under implied assumption of some eventual equilibrium if everyone steals)". BTW, under assumption of that "we" steal from "them", and "they" don't steal from "us", the data could support stealing. The data, conditions and objectives to maximize can also imply moral judgements, but are easy to launder in datasets, e.g. "better for the economy" sounds objective, but who is given access to benefit from that economy is a very moral judgement (touching hot topics like immigration).
But the data is irrelevant, because the argument should stop at "we don't steal, period".
It's now "we don't steal because it doesn't work (under implied assumption of some eventual equilibrium if everyone steals)". BTW, under assumption of that "we" steal from "them", and "they" don't steal from "us", the data could support stealing. The data, conditions and objectives to maximize can also imply moral judgements, but are easy to launder in datasets, e.g. "better for the economy" sounds objective, but who is given access to benefit from that economy is a very moral judgement (touching hot topics like immigration).
But the data is irrelevant, because the argument should stop at "we don't steal, period".
What if science and facts support a terrible conclusion?
Do we ignore the science to feel better?
I'm not saying that any arguments put forth do, but what does a society that prides itself on logic and rationality do in such a case?
Do we ignore the science to feel better?
I'm not saying that any arguments put forth do, but what does a society that prides itself on logic and rationality do in such a case?
This sounds like Lysenkoism [0]. See, it was politically rather important for the Soviet Union to have heritability of acquired traits in humans, which necessarily implied the same in plants. So all that genetic inheritance and crop breeding? Useless quackery. Of course, in the Soviet Union, "quacks" were executed... And this contributed to ongoing crop yield deficiencies.
Facts supporting a terrible conclusion (that blank slate theory is not correct in plants) is not a reason that the facts should be ignored.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Facts supporting a terrible conclusion (that blank slate theory is not correct in plants) is not a reason that the facts should be ignored.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Amusingly enough, plants have way more heritability of acquired traits than humans do. Epigenetic effects in plants are stable across multiple generations to a much greater extent than in mammals, as far as recent studies can tell.
Of course "epigenetic effects are real and persist across many generations" is very different from the blank slate theory.
Of course "epigenetic effects are real and persist across many generations" is very different from the blank slate theory.
You make a good point but what you're talking about is effectively the beginning of the end of liberalism. While it sounds simple to say in this case that "people aren't rational, therefore we're going to control their speech and we're technically a private company so nah nah nah," you are in fact opening a huge can of worms with incredibly far reaching consequences. I don't blame Facebook for refusing to take a stand on this point. As much as people like to accuse Facebook and Zuckerberg of being greedy and arrogant, I think on this point they've shown a remarkable amount of humility. Sticking to the same principles that have guided humanity's most successful decisions for the past 200+ years while being constantly mocked by the mob shows an incredible amount of restraint. People who think no platforming tens of millions of people is a simple decision are the reckless and arrogant ones with no regard for how serious such a decision really is.
If tens of millions of Americans lack the competence and morality to be allowed to talk freely amongst themselves, why do we let them raise kids and vote?
If tens of millions of Americans lack the competence and morality to be allowed to talk freely amongst themselves, why do we let them raise kids and vote?
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world-- "No, you move."
So we can easily identify ethnic nationalism as one of the ways in which right wing politics can go very, very wrong. The problem with calling it out on it's own, without calling out something equally vile on the left, is that whoever does it ends up looking very partial to the left as a consequence.
Left wing politics can clearly go very wrong as well, but it's harder to identify what the destructive ideas on the left because they are cloaked in compassion for the downtrodden. Jordan Peterson has put forward the idea that it is something like the trifecta of "equity diversity and inclusion" that we need to look out for from the left, but obviously these are very desirable things on first glance, and so it isn't that simple to just put these ideas in a box that's off limits.
Left wing politics can clearly go very wrong as well, but it's harder to identify what the destructive ideas on the left because they are cloaked in compassion for the downtrodden. Jordan Peterson has put forward the idea that it is something like the trifecta of "equity diversity and inclusion" that we need to look out for from the left, but obviously these are very desirable things on first glance, and so it isn't that simple to just put these ideas in a box that's off limits.
Jordan Peterson is espousing the same tired homophobic, xenophobic arguments dressed up in modern clothes. He’s a hack who appeals to people because he tells them the things they’re already feeling without actually advancing the conversation. His arguments are only appealing if you’re already in a position of privilege. Basically, he’s an advocate for the status quo.
Perhaps you'd be willing to offer your own answer to the question he poses though, which I believe is a good one. When does the left go too far?
With the right, we have at least one clear cut answer: ethnic nationalism. With the left: nothing beyond vague handwaving about "when it gets violent" or "when it gets censorious".
FWIW, I'm a leftist but I see a lot of worrying things coming from the left these days. I figure we could do with a little more introspection considering the results of the last election, a little less derangement about Trump, and a little less paranoia about the supposed hidden agendas of canadian psychologists.
With the right, we have at least one clear cut answer: ethnic nationalism. With the left: nothing beyond vague handwaving about "when it gets violent" or "when it gets censorious".
FWIW, I'm a leftist but I see a lot of worrying things coming from the left these days. I figure we could do with a little more introspection considering the results of the last election, a little less derangement about Trump, and a little less paranoia about the supposed hidden agendas of canadian psychologists.
> Perhaps you'd be willing to offer your own answer to the question he poses though, which I believe is a good one. When does the left go too far?
There's no a priori reason that one side of politics should go "too far" proportionate to the other.
Importantly, if you do assume such a reason exists, it gives cover for bad actors (of any side), who can then argue just as convincingly, I can't possibly be going "too far" because the other side isn't, and you're biased.
If the left is behaving reasonably and the right is not, or vice versa, have the moral courage to say what you observe.
There's no a priori reason that one side of politics should go "too far" proportionate to the other.
Importantly, if you do assume such a reason exists, it gives cover for bad actors (of any side), who can then argue just as convincingly, I can't possibly be going "too far" because the other side isn't, and you're biased.
If the left is behaving reasonably and the right is not, or vice versa, have the moral courage to say what you observe.
I don't mean to discuss this in the abstract. The left and the right both have proven themselves to go too far and the end result is the same: genocide.
The issue is that we have an indicator for the right (ethnic nationalism) and that we don't have one for the left.
The issue is that we have an indicator for the right (ethnic nationalism) and that we don't have one for the left.
My biggest criticism of Peterson is how he attacks “the left”.
“The left” is not one unified, cohesive group because it’s not centered on a single defining characteristic like white nationalism. “The left” includes everyone from teachers to catholic nuns to queer radical activists.
The defining characteristic of “the left” is that it is they are threatened by the advance of authoritarian, militaristic policies. Which is to say that they are the people who would lose out from white nationalism.
Therefore, the left is starting to organize around its opposition to white nationalism, but doesn’t yet know how to attack it because white nationalists deny their white nationalism. But the left is still just as fractured, divided, and focused on small specific things that don’t necessarily agree.
“The left” is not one unified, cohesive group because it’s not centered on a single defining characteristic like white nationalism. “The left” includes everyone from teachers to catholic nuns to queer radical activists.
The defining characteristic of “the left” is that it is they are threatened by the advance of authoritarian, militaristic policies. Which is to say that they are the people who would lose out from white nationalism.
Therefore, the left is starting to organize around its opposition to white nationalism, but doesn’t yet know how to attack it because white nationalists deny their white nationalism. But the left is still just as fractured, divided, and focused on small specific things that don’t necessarily agree.
So Peterson characterizes the right as concerned with making sure that society functions efficiently and competently. And he characterizes the left as concerned with the inevitable fact that when a society is made to function efficiently and competently there are some people who get left out and fall to the bottom rung of society, and we need to make sure these people are taken care of and aren't completely neglected.
So both left and right are unified separately by their own ideals.
The right goes too far when it devolves into ethnic nationalism. When it says only people of race X are capable of being efficient and competent. The typical example here is Nazi Germany.
The left goes too far when... well, that's the question. But we still have plenty of good examples when it happens. Look at communist russia, communist china, (insert more communist countries here). Most of those states outright failed to function at some level, and plenty of them ended up being genocidal.
It looks to me that the left goes too far when it demonizes smart, efficient, competent people as thieves or other criminals, as the communists did.
We are on the verge of that right now as the left denigrates people for being privileged, in such a way as if it were some kind of crime. Or perhaps implying that crimes took place in the past that were not brought to justice, and not suggesting anything in particular but the obvious conclusion is that those crimes need to be brought to justice against the people who are benefitting from them now.
So both left and right are unified separately by their own ideals.
The right goes too far when it devolves into ethnic nationalism. When it says only people of race X are capable of being efficient and competent. The typical example here is Nazi Germany.
The left goes too far when... well, that's the question. But we still have plenty of good examples when it happens. Look at communist russia, communist china, (insert more communist countries here). Most of those states outright failed to function at some level, and plenty of them ended up being genocidal.
It looks to me that the left goes too far when it demonizes smart, efficient, competent people as thieves or other criminals, as the communists did.
We are on the verge of that right now as the left denigrates people for being privileged, in such a way as if it were some kind of crime. Or perhaps implying that crimes took place in the past that were not brought to justice, and not suggesting anything in particular but the obvious conclusion is that those crimes need to be brought to justice against the people who are benefitting from them now.
But what you call “the left” is this disjointed set of — not even ideologies but desires. Guarantee that not everyone in BLM is an LGBTQ ally, for example. Nor is everyone who is upset about college tuition pro-choice politically. But Peterson lumps it all into two camps: one that is the defender of life as we know it, and the other.
But all his definition of “the left” means is that people who are afraid of losing their right to exist within the dominance of the white Christian patriarchy. Cause let me tell you, when it happens to you on an individual level, it’s not the kind of thing you forgive or forget easily.
But all his definition of “the left” means is that people who are afraid of losing their right to exist within the dominance of the white Christian patriarchy. Cause let me tell you, when it happens to you on an individual level, it’s not the kind of thing you forgive or forget easily.
I'd have to say because you're wrong-ish. Or at least off.
The left isn't comprised of people who would lose out from white nationalism. A lot of people on the left would benefit from white nationalism.
Because they're white. 72% of the people in the U.S. identify as white. There is literally no competition if it came down to sheer numbers. White nationalism would benefit most people in the U.S.
But it is wrong. Ethnic nationalism is wrong. The color of one's skin does not define one's character. Does not define one's ability. Does not define one's worth. Even a lot of people who are white recognize that simple fact.
The problem the left has is that the more extreme stop attacking white nationalism and just start attacking "white people". When privilege stops being descriptive and starts be pejorative. And it is used as a pejorative. Tell some group they have privilege and they will rail against it, telling you all the ways in which they are not privileged. But there are privileges to most situations. Some of those privileges aren't worth the situation. Some of those privileges don't make up for the disadvantages. But still, they exist. And some of those privileges are not the fault of the person receiving them. To bring up one, it is easier to get hired as a white male. That's not the fault of white males. That's the fault of people doing the hiring. It's been found to be a subconscious bias among more than white males. It's not just a matter of like hiring like. But you can't ask someone to not take a job. To give up their livelihood, their survival, to sacrifice themselves for someone else because their group has it better. We can't sacrifice the individual for the vague betterment of mankind. That's a whole other kind of monstrous.
But what's the answer? It's obviously complicated. We need to find ways to get underrepresented groups the opportunity to gain interest and skill in various fields. We need to find ways to make things like admission to jobs, colleges, home loans, apartment leases, etc more blind to irrelevant factors like race, sexuality, and gender. And we're trying. And that's what I feel liberalism is about-ish. Trying to make things more progressive, protecting society as a whole, but I'd rather not see it at the expense of individuals.
The left isn't comprised of people who would lose out from white nationalism. A lot of people on the left would benefit from white nationalism.
Because they're white. 72% of the people in the U.S. identify as white. There is literally no competition if it came down to sheer numbers. White nationalism would benefit most people in the U.S.
But it is wrong. Ethnic nationalism is wrong. The color of one's skin does not define one's character. Does not define one's ability. Does not define one's worth. Even a lot of people who are white recognize that simple fact.
The problem the left has is that the more extreme stop attacking white nationalism and just start attacking "white people". When privilege stops being descriptive and starts be pejorative. And it is used as a pejorative. Tell some group they have privilege and they will rail against it, telling you all the ways in which they are not privileged. But there are privileges to most situations. Some of those privileges aren't worth the situation. Some of those privileges don't make up for the disadvantages. But still, they exist. And some of those privileges are not the fault of the person receiving them. To bring up one, it is easier to get hired as a white male. That's not the fault of white males. That's the fault of people doing the hiring. It's been found to be a subconscious bias among more than white males. It's not just a matter of like hiring like. But you can't ask someone to not take a job. To give up their livelihood, their survival, to sacrifice themselves for someone else because their group has it better. We can't sacrifice the individual for the vague betterment of mankind. That's a whole other kind of monstrous.
But what's the answer? It's obviously complicated. We need to find ways to get underrepresented groups the opportunity to gain interest and skill in various fields. We need to find ways to make things like admission to jobs, colleges, home loans, apartment leases, etc more blind to irrelevant factors like race, sexuality, and gender. And we're trying. And that's what I feel liberalism is about-ish. Trying to make things more progressive, protecting society as a whole, but I'd rather not see it at the expense of individuals.
Because racists aren't interested in discourse or even slightly concerned with the hit to reputation in outing themselves. They're seeking platforms to reinforce and spread their prejudicial bias, which Facebook and Twitter provide.
I think Jean Paul-Sartre said it best:
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
I think Jean Paul-Sartre said it best:
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Funny that Sartre said that after being a lifelong champion of Lenin and Stalin's way of dealing with power which had nothing to do with free discourse. And that, even after we all knew about the atrocities of the soviet regime, when the honeymoon stage was clearly over.
Except he didn't.
Sartre was a Marxist and was critical of Leninism, publicly attacking the Soviet Union's abuses of human rights and freedom. He was one the first to out the Soviet labor camps.
Also, Sartre said that quote in the Anti-Semite and Jew in 1945, before most of his writing of the Soviet Union (not after).
Sartre was a Marxist and was critical of Leninism, publicly attacking the Soviet Union's abuses of human rights and freedom. He was one the first to out the Soviet labor camps.
Also, Sartre said that quote in the Anti-Semite and Jew in 1945, before most of his writing of the Soviet Union (not after).
> Why do you want Facebook to silence people like this?
Because people use it to recruit and radicalize more members. Because being exposed to those ideas makes them more acceptable over time. Because if no one tells them that those views are bad then they feel they are ok to keep repeating.
Because people use it to recruit and radicalize more members. Because being exposed to those ideas makes them more acceptable over time. Because if no one tells them that those views are bad then they feel they are ok to keep repeating.
> if no one tells them that those views are bad then they feel they are ok to keep repeating.
I'd say quite the opposite: the more "persecuted" your group claims to be, the more resilient and special they feel about themselves. This is true in highly manipulative individuals as well as radical political groups.
I'd say quite the opposite: the more "persecuted" your group claims to be, the more resilient and special they feel about themselves. This is true in highly manipulative individuals as well as radical political groups.
There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes containing a problem and more attainable than complete eradication.
Terrible people can organise terrible consequences that spread off facebook and into the "real world".
Okay, but what of things like cannabis or prostitution. Major legal changes in these spaces have started online and many people would seek to see things like this banned in such a system.
Heck, I'm sure some people would describe those changes as "terrible consequences".
Heck, I'm sure some people would describe those changes as "terrible consequences".
That's what taking a side includes; Facebook have to listen to the politics and decide what's legitimately arguable either way and what's harmful per se.
It does not mean picking a side and then only allowing that side to post.
The opposite of this is iTunes' "ban all politics" policy.
It does not mean picking a side and then only allowing that side to post.
The opposite of this is iTunes' "ban all politics" policy.
prolepunk(1)
The folks who run /r/askhistorians had to go through several years of adjusting their rules until they found a solution for holocaust deniers - don't give them a platform to speak - they are just trolling and wasting the time of rebuttals and any re-publication is used by holocaust deniers to authenticate their views.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
I enjoy how strict r/askhistorians is, but the result of their policies is fewer (better) questions and definitely fewer comments. That won't fly with something like Facebook watching the bottom line, engagement, etc.
Strict policies on a subreddit essentially rule out a huge swathe of people who might be interested, but be unable/unwilling to pose a solid question or have the expertise to respond.
Strict policies on a subreddit essentially rule out a huge swathe of people who might be interested, but be unable/unwilling to pose a solid question or have the expertise to respond.
I wonder if there's some organized downvoting happening in this thread. "History forum blocks mass Holocaust denial" should not be controversial, even on HN.
Especially when it's a simple statement of facts.
[deleted]
Because when people like this aren't silenced and laughed at, from some angles they seem like normal people and not the ones promoting monstrous ideas.
No everyone have well informed world view.
No everyone have well informed world view.
Which sounds like a fine argument to make when dealing with the more extreme cases, but where do you draw the line of who gets silenced? The question is whether we are comfortable with corporations assuming the role of thought police - corporations that are not subject to the same discrimination standards that we hold our government(s) to.
It sounds to me like "informed world view" as a general standard for evaluation really just means "whatever world view is in vogue at the time", and is designed as an exclusive criteria. Think of how many cultures, customs, ethnicities, sexualities, philosophies, etc, were previously not part of the acceptable, "informed" world view, as well as those that previously were and are now considered taboo or unethical.
It sounds to me like "informed world view" as a general standard for evaluation really just means "whatever world view is in vogue at the time", and is designed as an exclusive criteria. Think of how many cultures, customs, ethnicities, sexualities, philosophies, etc, were previously not part of the acceptable, "informed" world view, as well as those that previously were and are now considered taboo or unethical.
I am certainly more comfortable with a corporation assuming the role of thought police than with a corporation saying "Sorry, we are bound to promote things happening that everyone knows will be terrible for the world."
Corporate thought police are certainly bad, but not the worst possible thing - since they are corporate thought police instead of governmental ones, there will be ways of communicating without them (and I already have positions I hold but do not feel comfortable expressing publicly, and if I want to share them with people I will need to find private and point-to-point means of conveying them, and I already have means of doing that). And since they are corporations subject to government, there are already positions that you cannot post on social media without getting in legal trouble of various sorts.
And at least with thought police, you have a hope - maybe a slim one, but a hope nonetheless - of convincing them that your thoughts are fine and should not be policed. (with corporate thought police, you can also try outcompeting them, of course.) With a corporation that feels obligated to promote all thoughts no matter how awful, they will not shut down something that 99.9% of society believes is dangerous, for any reason.
Corporate thought police are certainly bad, but not the worst possible thing - since they are corporate thought police instead of governmental ones, there will be ways of communicating without them (and I already have positions I hold but do not feel comfortable expressing publicly, and if I want to share them with people I will need to find private and point-to-point means of conveying them, and I already have means of doing that). And since they are corporations subject to government, there are already positions that you cannot post on social media without getting in legal trouble of various sorts.
And at least with thought police, you have a hope - maybe a slim one, but a hope nonetheless - of convincing them that your thoughts are fine and should not be policed. (with corporate thought police, you can also try outcompeting them, of course.) With a corporation that feels obligated to promote all thoughts no matter how awful, they will not shut down something that 99.9% of society believes is dangerous, for any reason.
[flagged]
There are lots of things that are widely believed unethical for no particularly good reason. People are raised into a set of beliefs and they mostly stick with them, especially when there's rarely a reason to re-examine those beliefs.
One example of something widely believed to be unethical is nudity. There is a belief that seeing a human being in its natural, naked state is inherently harmful and that nakedness itself is shameful.
I'm not a nudist; I very much prefer wearing clothing. I just think it's a good example, because few people ever think about it. Everybody just wears clothing and only weirdos don't. The mechanism by which it causes harm is rarely examined.
(The increasing reverence towards natural things in recent years suggests to me that people may be more open to reexamining that belief, making it a more effective example.)
It's not that the majority are always wrong. Just sometimes. And not just in the past or in some other society.
One example of something widely believed to be unethical is nudity. There is a belief that seeing a human being in its natural, naked state is inherently harmful and that nakedness itself is shameful.
I'm not a nudist; I very much prefer wearing clothing. I just think it's a good example, because few people ever think about it. Everybody just wears clothing and only weirdos don't. The mechanism by which it causes harm is rarely examined.
(The increasing reverence towards natural things in recent years suggests to me that people may be more open to reexamining that belief, making it a more effective example.)
It's not that the majority are always wrong. Just sometimes. And not just in the past or in some other society.
Except we're talking about Nazis and not nudists.
As a society we are re-examining those beliefs and something that used to be considered normal (i.e. slavery) is now considered grossly unjust.
Just because someone is old, that person is not entitled to spew their racist, white nationalist beliefs.
I will repeat this again, I haven't hear a single instance of nudists building death camps.
As a society we are re-examining those beliefs and something that used to be considered normal (i.e. slavery) is now considered grossly unjust.
Just because someone is old, that person is not entitled to spew their racist, white nationalist beliefs.
I will repeat this again, I haven't hear a single instance of nudists building death camps.
I don't disagree that there are differences. I'm trying to point out that if you merely demand that Facebook take sides, they will probably take the side of the majority. Most of the time that's fine—like in the case of Nazis—but sometimes it will result in them suppressing minorities that deserve to be heard.
I'm going to try making a counterpoint by playing devil's advocate for a moment. Please try to see the larger point I'm making, rather than the particulars:
Abortion is monsterous - it's genocide on an unfathomable scale.
Homosexuality is monsterous - it's unnatural and sinful.
Promoting (Christianity | Islam | athiesm) is monsterous - those belief systems lead to death and destruction.
Promoting (democracy | socialism) is monsterous - it leads to massive suffering inside and outside our borders.
Main point: Different people have diametrically different ideas of what's monsterous. I'm pretty sure you don't want to live in a land where some of those definitions are used to limit your speech.
Abortion is monsterous - it's genocide on an unfathomable scale.
Homosexuality is monsterous - it's unnatural and sinful.
Promoting (Christianity | Islam | athiesm) is monsterous - those belief systems lead to death and destruction.
Promoting (democracy | socialism) is monsterous - it leads to massive suffering inside and outside our borders.
Main point: Different people have diametrically different ideas of what's monsterous. I'm pretty sure you don't want to live in a land where some of those definitions are used to limit your speech.
This is not wholly surprising, this site is full of hot takes of devil's advocates.
This arguments ignore a ton of details most importantly the relationship between oppressed and oppressors. When Nazis are calling for extermination of people, they aren't going after white men.
In every example you have, there's oppressed group that have their rights that you completely ignore.
Abortion -- women right to control their body (the right that's being constantly challenged)
Homosexuality -- do I even need to make an argument here.
Religion -- it's not about any particular religion, it's oppressing religions minority by majority i.e Christians in predominantly Islamic country and vise versa.
Promoting democracy/socialism -- basically vilifying alternative form of government by people in power by cherry-picking examples (because no one would dare to criticize that argument).
My point is, Nazis are toxic and are always vilify and making scapegoats from people who are not in power, because those people can't answer.
I don't want to live in a land where it's okay to say we should kill this particular group of people, that speech be acceptable and eventually carried out.
This arguments ignore a ton of details most importantly the relationship between oppressed and oppressors. When Nazis are calling for extermination of people, they aren't going after white men.
In every example you have, there's oppressed group that have their rights that you completely ignore.
Abortion -- women right to control their body (the right that's being constantly challenged)
Homosexuality -- do I even need to make an argument here.
Religion -- it's not about any particular religion, it's oppressing religions minority by majority i.e Christians in predominantly Islamic country and vise versa.
Promoting democracy/socialism -- basically vilifying alternative form of government by people in power by cherry-picking examples (because no one would dare to criticize that argument).
My point is, Nazis are toxic and are always vilify and making scapegoats from people who are not in power, because those people can't answer.
I don't want to live in a land where it's okay to say we should kill this particular group of people, that speech be acceptable and eventually carried out.
You do realize that there are plenty of people, atheists and women included, who feel that abortion is genocide and that the people who advocate for abortion are advocating for the extermination of people, right?
The way they see it, a living person was created and attached to someone against their will and now the one who did that gets to just outright murder them because it's "inconvenient" under the guise of "right to control their body". Basically if I took out your kidneys, attached you to me so my kidneys would filter your blood as well, then decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I let you die. (I know the example is kind of fucked, mainly because there is no good analog to pregnancy).
There's all sorts of things going on with the abortion debate that I can't really get behind anyone who frames it as a "simple" debate. I currently side with the opinion that it's a private matter and only the people involved should be the ones to wrestle with whatever ethical considerations that are tied up with it. The decision is too big for anyone to decide for someone else.
Regardless, his point isn't that those opinions he posted are correct, but what would happen if a group took power that pushed that view and "deplatformed" dissent. Because they had the "correct" view. No one actually thinks they're wrong.
The way they see it, a living person was created and attached to someone against their will and now the one who did that gets to just outright murder them because it's "inconvenient" under the guise of "right to control their body". Basically if I took out your kidneys, attached you to me so my kidneys would filter your blood as well, then decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I let you die. (I know the example is kind of fucked, mainly because there is no good analog to pregnancy).
There's all sorts of things going on with the abortion debate that I can't really get behind anyone who frames it as a "simple" debate. I currently side with the opinion that it's a private matter and only the people involved should be the ones to wrestle with whatever ethical considerations that are tied up with it. The decision is too big for anyone to decide for someone else.
Regardless, his point isn't that those opinions he posted are correct, but what would happen if a group took power that pushed that view and "deplatformed" dissent. Because they had the "correct" view. No one actually thinks they're wrong.
> Regardless, his point isn't that those opinions he posted are correct, but what would happen if a group took power that pushed that view and "deplatformed" dissent. Because they had the "correct" view.
Yes, thanks for the good summary of my point. Based on how down-voted my original post was, it appears I wasn't clear.
Yes, thanks for the good summary of my point. Based on how down-voted my original post was, it appears I wasn't clear.
I think explicitly saying you're going to play devil's advocate is pretty much dog-whistling whether you intend to or not.
> People who claim to be "playing devil's advocate" are either people who just like arguing for its own sake, or use the excuse to espouse their own shitty beliefs.
> And instead of actually having to defend the positions they put forth, they claim they're just playing the devil's advocate.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that meme / idiom / whatever. It's good to know.
FWIW, in my OP, my point in claiming "devil's advocate" was to flag that I wasn't trying to advocate any of those individual positions I was citing. My larger point hinged simply on the sheer number of people holding views, regardless of the views' defensibly.
I wonder if "devil's advocate" was the wrong term for what I had in mind.
> And instead of actually having to defend the positions they put forth, they claim they're just playing the devil's advocate.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that meme / idiom / whatever. It's good to know.
FWIW, in my OP, my point in claiming "devil's advocate" was to flag that I wasn't trying to advocate any of those individual positions I was citing. My larger point hinged simply on the sheer number of people holding views, regardless of the views' defensibly.
I wonder if "devil's advocate" was the wrong term for what I had in mind.
I'm of the opinion, just state your case, make your examples, etc.
For instance I'd have brought up the various religious people who think they're right and have no regard for the free speech of other religious opinions. That they believe that those opinions are not only wrong, but dangerous and harmful to society.
Would you want any one of them deciding who gets a platform?
I got what you were putting down. But then again, I'm already of that opinion: That what can be used against my enemies can be used against me, so you better be damn careful about what tactics you allow.
But not everyone subscribes to that thought and people who are convinced that "there are no bad tactics, just bad targets" are hard to convince. They're already convinced of their moral righteousness, that they know the bad targets and that they'll never be the target because they aren't "bad".
And becoming a target doesn't necessarily change their mind either. For some people, that's enough. They realize that some tactics are bad. That the act of choosing to use them is bad. That not all tactics are applicable to all situations. That there is something called an inappropriate response. But others, they'll just figure that people who see them as bad are bad themselves. Their worldview doesn't really change. They cannot conceive a world in which their worldview doesn't eventually have power to right the wrongs because they are right.
The simple fact that some good people just won't like you doesn't cross their minds. That being right doesn't confer upon you any advantage in any sort of struggle is an absurd concept to them. That they may not even be right or that the situation may be more complicated than a simple right or wrong doesn't play to them.
In that case, I don't know what you do.
For instance I'd have brought up the various religious people who think they're right and have no regard for the free speech of other religious opinions. That they believe that those opinions are not only wrong, but dangerous and harmful to society.
Would you want any one of them deciding who gets a platform?
I got what you were putting down. But then again, I'm already of that opinion: That what can be used against my enemies can be used against me, so you better be damn careful about what tactics you allow.
But not everyone subscribes to that thought and people who are convinced that "there are no bad tactics, just bad targets" are hard to convince. They're already convinced of their moral righteousness, that they know the bad targets and that they'll never be the target because they aren't "bad".
And becoming a target doesn't necessarily change their mind either. For some people, that's enough. They realize that some tactics are bad. That the act of choosing to use them is bad. That not all tactics are applicable to all situations. That there is something called an inappropriate response. But others, they'll just figure that people who see them as bad are bad themselves. Their worldview doesn't really change. They cannot conceive a world in which their worldview doesn't eventually have power to right the wrongs because they are right.
The simple fact that some good people just won't like you doesn't cross their minds. That being right doesn't confer upon you any advantage in any sort of struggle is an absurd concept to them. That they may not even be right or that the situation may be more complicated than a simple right or wrong doesn't play to them.
In that case, I don't know what you do.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I take your meaning. I'd be grateful if you could clarify.
People who claim to be "playing devil's advocate" are either people who just like arguing for its own sake, or use the excuse to espouse their own shitty beliefs.
And instead of actually having to defend the positions they put forth, they claim they're just playing the devil's advocate.
And instead of actually having to defend the positions they put forth, they claim they're just playing the devil's advocate.
Social platforms amplify and normalize those messages. I'm willing to bet that they create more closet racists than they reveal.
One angle that I haven't seen covered is the "gang" nature of hate groups. They advocate for the commission of murder, either directly or obliquely. That could be one line in the sand that could be drawn. No groups may promote the extermination of, or by extension, scapegoating society's problems on, a group of people. The scapegoating could be aligned to implicit murder because none of these groups is advocating for assisting or "rehabilitating" that scapegoated group.
Further, offering a means to join a hate group affords anyone an "immediate membership to a gang", in the sense that an otherwise disempowered person can quickly appear menacing by aligning himself with an established hate group and facebook is the vehicle he uses to advertise it
Further, offering a means to join a hate group affords anyone an "immediate membership to a gang", in the sense that an otherwise disempowered person can quickly appear menacing by aligning himself with an established hate group and facebook is the vehicle he uses to advertise it
This has nothing to do with wanting Facebook to police your friends list for you. It's about allowing racists and other toxic bigots to use Facebook to push their agendas, recruit others, and harass their victims en masse.
> It's about allowing racists and other toxic bigots to use Facebook to push their agendas, recruit others, and harass their victims en masse."
If Facebook had existed in the 1950s:
"It's about allowing commies and other liberal lunatics to use Facebook to push their agendas, recruit others, and harass their victims en masse."
When you ask the tech industry to build a muzzle, don't forget that it fits onto you just as easily as onto the people you hate.
If Facebook had existed in the 1950s:
"It's about allowing commies and other liberal lunatics to use Facebook to push their agendas, recruit others, and harass their victims en masse."
When you ask the tech industry to build a muzzle, don't forget that it fits onto you just as easily as onto the people you hate.
That's an important consideration, but taken to extremes it's basically appeasement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement Don't try to resist bad people, don't try to protect their victims, because they might turn around and push back.
Where does it end? When are we finally allowed to take action?
Where does it end? When are we finally allowed to take action?
You take action with your own speech, not by using the power of the majority to censor opinions and ideas that the majority doesn't like. You have the ability to do this anytime without fear that someone will tell you your perspective and opinions are wrong.
If the roles were reversed and you were living in an authoritarian dictatorship, you might be considered a "bad person", and your speech might be censored or worse.
If the roles were reversed and you were living in an authoritarian dictatorship, you might be considered a "bad person", and your speech might be censored or worse.
This is the first response in this conversation that has made any sense.
A reasonable question but I think it's caused by confusion. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship. The answer to unjust violence is just violence, not appeasement.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for continuing to use HN for ideological battle after we asked you to stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Where does it end? When are we finally allowed to take action?
Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground. If you meet speech with oppression, how are you any better than the oppressors of the past that liberal movements fought and won victories against?
Now if you're facing oppression, that's a different story and at that point "taking action" (your words, not mine) might be justified.
Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground. If you meet speech with oppression, how are you any better than the oppressors of the past that liberal movements fought and won victories against?
Now if you're facing oppression, that's a different story and at that point "taking action" (your words, not mine) might be justified.
> Speech must only ever be met with speech if liberals want to keep the moral high ground.
Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. (Now, if a notionally private platform is a protected monopoly on an essential avenue of communication, you are in the domain of effective government action which is why common carriers exist; but while FB may be a popular social media venue, I don't think it reaches that level.)
Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. (Now, if a notionally private platform is a protected monopoly on an essential avenue of communication, you are in the domain of effective government action which is why common carriers exist; but while FB may be a popular social media venue, I don't think it reaches that level.)
> Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech.
Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now?
The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). The irony of people calling themselves liberals trying to use it to put an aura of legitimacy over their behavior too is delicious.
Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now?
The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). The irony of people calling themselves liberals trying to use it to put an aura of legitimacy over their behavior too is delicious.
> Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now?
In fact, major social media sites such as Youtube and Twitter frequently ban or otherwise sanction queer people for talking about their sexuality or gender and approximately no one cares.
In fact, major social media sites such as Youtube and Twitter frequently ban or otherwise sanction queer people for talking about their sexuality or gender and approximately no one cares.
> Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse.
Yes, it's the same excuse, but it's not the same facts. There is, in general, a difference between regulating who you will do business with and regulating the content of the speech you will engage in.
> The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?).
I do remember Masterpiece Cakeshop, but I don't think you do, so CE it doesn't involve freedom in the a sense of a protected target group, but impermissible government animus toward religion in apply the existing protection of a protected group.
Yes, it's the same excuse, but it's not the same facts. There is, in general, a difference between regulating who you will do business with and regulating the content of the speech you will engage in.
> The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?).
I do remember Masterpiece Cakeshop, but I don't think you do, so CE it doesn't involve freedom in the a sense of a protected target group, but impermissible government animus toward religion in apply the existing protection of a protected group.
You have summarized the view of the courts. Is that the most relevant perspective? Isn't the whole point convincing people not to be Nazis? If average private monopolistic platform users perceive Nazis to be subject to special treatment, it doesn't matter to them whether that's coming from the platform owner or from the government.
Although, let's not kid ourselves, Facebook would love to regulate themselves into even more of our lives. Would anyone be shocked to hear of some municipality requiring FB login in order to receive public services?
Although, let's not kid ourselves, Facebook would love to regulate themselves into even more of our lives. Would anyone be shocked to hear of some municipality requiring FB login in order to receive public services?
There are mealy-mouthed refrains on all sides of this issue. For instance, I would be happy to see Tom Metzger and his White American Resistance group banned from Facebook, however the core of his white ethno-nationalist agenda isn’t too different from the black ethno-nationalism espoused by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. In fact Tom Metzger has been invited to talk at NOI events and collaborated with their leadership in the past. Banning NOI on Facebook would cause an uproar, but a consistent policy would require it. A lot of organizations who want to ban certain groups but don’t want to have an entire department adjudicating culture would like to rely on outside groups for certification. But even once-august groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center can lose the plot, as they did when they recently and perplexingly called liberal Muslim reformer Majid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist (they had to settle a lawsuit with him and issue an apology). [1]
I’m not saying that a company like Facebook shouldn’t take sides at all, but you can certainly see the attraction of a simple open platform doctrine once you get into the weeds.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/ma...
I’m not saying that a company like Facebook shouldn’t take sides at all, but you can certainly see the attraction of a simple open platform doctrine once you get into the weeds.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/ma...
NOI is more or less a branch of Scientology now, with much of their antisemitism and sedition activity being from the last century. [1]
I get that you're trying to paint an all-sides slippery slope argument for banning hate speech, but this is more of a false equivocation here when comparing to an active Aryan supremacy group.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Criticism
I get that you're trying to paint an all-sides slippery slope argument for banning hate speech, but this is more of a false equivocation here when comparing to an active Aryan supremacy group.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Criticism
The two of these groups advocate subjugation of minority demographics at their best, genocide at their worst. It doesn't matter who says it. Taking a stand against these ideas and refusing to support these ideas is ethically clear.
The Nawaz issue was far from an open and shut case for one thing, I'll just leave it at that for the moment.
As far as the sloppy comparison of NOI and WAR its important to point out that while NOI sucks (really, really) it is not now, has never been and never will be anywhere near power. From Viktor Orban to Christian Strache to Salvimini to Trump (specifically Bannon, Anton, Miller, etc) we're seeing a very real spectrum of white supremacist leaders winning power. Salvimini literally said there needs to be a "cleansing" of Roma in Italy. If Facebook wants to facilitate that, so be it, but its on them if they do. Its important for them to recognize the social impact of the choices they make. There is no real world equivalence between Viktor Orban and Louis Farrakhan and treating them the same is democratically suicidal.
> As far as the sloppy comparison of NOI and WAR its important to point out that while NOI sucks (really, really) it is not now, has never been and never will be anywhere near power.
By the time a group is anywhere near power, deplatforming is a protest move rather than something which has much direct effect. So that's not really a reason NOI should be less subject to deplatforming than groups of similarly repugnant ideology that are, if not in power, at least aligned with it.
By the time a group is anywhere near power, deplatforming is a protest move rather than something which has much direct effect. So that's not really a reason NOI should be less subject to deplatforming than groups of similarly repugnant ideology that are, if not in power, at least aligned with it.
dtornabene(3)
To be transparent on this issue, I lean towards a more open platform that takes steps to stop algorithmically promoting hate "accidentally" while they are measuring engagement. A "first do no harm" approach would be a nice start. The humanitarian disaster and division they have contributed to in Myanmar is a great case-in-point.
> The Nawaz issue was far from an open and shut case for one thing, I'll just leave it at that
I brought it up to show how arbitrary a list of extremist thinkers can become. Very few would think it appropriate to ban Nawaz or the Quilliam foundation from Facebook, but you could see how a social media site would be motivated to outsource its list of extremists to a third party and cause a lot of problems for itself and civil discourse in general.
> As far as the sloppy comparison of NOI and WAR
This was a convenient point of comparison because Metzger has spoken at NOI events. Forgive me for making it concisely. Sometimes guilt-by-association is enough, and I think you'll agree that cavorting with Metzger meets that criteria.
> while NOI sucks (really, really) it is not now, has never been and never will be anywhere near power
You're calling on Facebook to make two evaluations now. First, is a group advocating an unacceptable or abhorrent viewpoint, and secondly are they successful enough at it to warrant their removal from the platform? If NOI were resurgent again, as they were in the 90s, or ran candidates in some local elections, would it then justify a ban from Facebook? It's even harder to evaluate an concept like power, and when a group has too much of it, than it is to evaluate what is acceptable speech. One could point out that there are are major recording artists (many of the best actually) and politicians who have an ongoing relationship with Farrakhan [1][2]. He can definitely raise large crowds on a regular basis much more effectively than Richard Spencer's pathetic 200-people annual conferences.
Incidentally, Farrakhan made overtures to Spencer and the alt-right earlier this year too [3].
> There is no real world equivalence between Viktor Orban and Louis Farrakhan
I never suggested that there was, and there's no shortage of things to criticize Orban over, but if you're proposing that Facebook should ban the Prime Minister of Hungary, you might consider the unintended consequences of such a move.
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edi...
[2] https://www.adl.org/blog/farrakhan-receives-support-from-rap...
[3] https://youtu.be/sNveCUCm41Y?t=6082
> The Nawaz issue was far from an open and shut case for one thing, I'll just leave it at that
I brought it up to show how arbitrary a list of extremist thinkers can become. Very few would think it appropriate to ban Nawaz or the Quilliam foundation from Facebook, but you could see how a social media site would be motivated to outsource its list of extremists to a third party and cause a lot of problems for itself and civil discourse in general.
> As far as the sloppy comparison of NOI and WAR
This was a convenient point of comparison because Metzger has spoken at NOI events. Forgive me for making it concisely. Sometimes guilt-by-association is enough, and I think you'll agree that cavorting with Metzger meets that criteria.
> while NOI sucks (really, really) it is not now, has never been and never will be anywhere near power
You're calling on Facebook to make two evaluations now. First, is a group advocating an unacceptable or abhorrent viewpoint, and secondly are they successful enough at it to warrant their removal from the platform? If NOI were resurgent again, as they were in the 90s, or ran candidates in some local elections, would it then justify a ban from Facebook? It's even harder to evaluate an concept like power, and when a group has too much of it, than it is to evaluate what is acceptable speech. One could point out that there are are major recording artists (many of the best actually) and politicians who have an ongoing relationship with Farrakhan [1][2]. He can definitely raise large crowds on a regular basis much more effectively than Richard Spencer's pathetic 200-people annual conferences.
Incidentally, Farrakhan made overtures to Spencer and the alt-right earlier this year too [3].
> There is no real world equivalence between Viktor Orban and Louis Farrakhan
I never suggested that there was, and there's no shortage of things to criticize Orban over, but if you're proposing that Facebook should ban the Prime Minister of Hungary, you might consider the unintended consequences of such a move.
[1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edi...
[2] https://www.adl.org/blog/farrakhan-receives-support-from-rap...
[3] https://youtu.be/sNveCUCm41Y?t=6082
I find it anything but refreshing. If anything I find this trend alarming where people are pushing for companies to ban everyone they disagree with. Just block someone if they say things you don't want to read. That's all there is to it. It's nowhere near "the right thing to do." Aside from the fact that I believe open discourse is vital to society and that restricting it on one of the world's most important platforms is reprehensible, it's short-sighted - eventually a view you agree with will be banned too. "First they came for people I disagreed with, and I did not speak out because I disagreed with them.."
Advocacy for murder and legal subjugation (in this example, of minorities, but it really applies to anyone) is devoid of value and legitimacy. Directly or indirectly supporting people who do it by giving them a microphone seems very clearly reprehensible from an ethical perspective.
The systematic explusion and extermination of innocents is not just "another opinion", like the best way to balance the budget. It is something to fight on all justifiable and effective fronts.
The systematic explusion and extermination of innocents is not just "another opinion", like the best way to balance the budget. It is something to fight on all justifiable and effective fronts.
The issue with this viewpoint is that you're correct - but not accounting for all the areas where other humans will hold a similar opinion about a less clear-cut issue. Abortion, 2A, etc.
I want anyone who talks openly about wanting to commit murder or having others do so, to be banned. But I have to recognize others will abuse that, calling abortion murder under all circumstances and silence any women's group that discusses such things.
The solution isn't an easy one. Personally, I'd be happier in a world with "No Politics" or "Everything (that isn't clearly illegal) goes" as the only options so as to avoid leveraging a tremendously powerful platform as a weapon.
I want anyone who talks openly about wanting to commit murder or having others do so, to be banned. But I have to recognize others will abuse that, calling abortion murder under all circumstances and silence any women's group that discusses such things.
The solution isn't an easy one. Personally, I'd be happier in a world with "No Politics" or "Everything (that isn't clearly illegal) goes" as the only options so as to avoid leveraging a tremendously powerful platform as a weapon.
I want anyone who talks openly about wanting to commit murder or having others do so, to be banned.
Sounds good, but this will be difficult. On lots of discussion sites (HN fortunately excluded, so far), advocating for the military invasion of various nations is like 60% of the comments.
Sounds good, but this will be difficult. On lots of discussion sites (HN fortunately excluded, so far), advocating for the military invasion of various nations is like 60% of the comments.
This right here is why I personally think that an open forum is the best way. Some people think war isn't murder, some do. Sadly, it just ends up being another 'edge case' in this context.
At the end of the day, for people to have the opportunity to explain why war might be a "not totally awesome" idea you've gotta let people discuss it - despite my personal desires.
At the end of the day, for people to have the opportunity to explain why war might be a "not totally awesome" idea you've gotta let people discuss it - despite my personal desires.
Do you really believe that Facebook is giving a platform to the extreme right ?
If one thing should be clear to everyone is that Facebook got a very clear Leftist bias, as pretty much any company in Silicon Valley. Whenever they will make a conscious decision of censorship it will definitely be more on censoring the Right than the Left.
If one thing should be clear to everyone is that Facebook got a very clear Leftist bias, as pretty much any company in Silicon Valley. Whenever they will make a conscious decision of censorship it will definitely be more on censoring the Right than the Left.
It may be easy enough to identify someone as Richard Spencer as a white nationalist, but the issue is with knowing where to draw the line. That line is not clearly drawn right now.
[flagged]
> How about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups
The issue with this approach is what constitutes a dog whistle seems to be growing rapidly, and largely relies upon the imagination of the person judging.
On a related note, I'm curious where you are encountering all these nazis you speak so passionately about, and what definition you're using for nazi.....might the deciding factor be the detection of a dog whistle, which is why you seem to encounter so many?
Or for a more concrete approach to the question: I an an unambiguous opponent of open borders - does that make me a nazi?
The issue with this approach is what constitutes a dog whistle seems to be growing rapidly, and largely relies upon the imagination of the person judging.
On a related note, I'm curious where you are encountering all these nazis you speak so passionately about, and what definition you're using for nazi.....might the deciding factor be the detection of a dog whistle, which is why you seem to encounter so many?
Or for a more concrete approach to the question: I an an unambiguous opponent of open borders - does that make me a nazi?
The only exception would be if you're a NIMBY talking about the "borders" of your neighborhood. Social media critics have to worry about home values, too.
Just to confirm I'm not misunderstanding you (and the downvoters, presumably).....if I am opposed to the complete removal of my nation's borders, you consider me to generally support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Is that correct?
If so, do you realize the implications of that belief?
Is that correct?
If so, do you realize the implications of that belief?
See irony, dude. My comment highlighted the hypocrisy of your downvoters, in an amusing way. They're happy to have immigrants in the county, because fast food. They're much less happy to have them in the neighborhood, because racism.
That isn't to say that I agree with you. Although it's true that immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing and we're only now approaching the percentages we had at the turn of the century. Immigration back then has been a long-term benefit to the nation, and immigration now will probably be the same.
That isn't to say that I agree with you. Although it's true that immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing and we're only now approaching the percentages we had at the turn of the century. Immigration back then has been a long-term benefit to the nation, and immigration now will probably be the same.
> See irony, dude.
More likely a misunderstanding on my part, and now on yours if you believe this is irony.
> That isn't to say that I agree with you.....< immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing>
I'm not saying anything about immigration levels, I am talking about this increasingly popular idea that a lack of support for open borders is inherently racist. It is lazy, stupid thinking, and the prevalence of this sort of thinking seems to be growing, even on relatively highly objective and intellectual sites like HN. This sort of thinking has consequences.
More likely a misunderstanding on my part, and now on yours if you believe this is irony.
> That isn't to say that I agree with you.....< immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing>
I'm not saying anything about immigration levels, I am talking about this increasingly popular idea that a lack of support for open borders is inherently racist. It is lazy, stupid thinking, and the prevalence of this sort of thinking seems to be growing, even on relatively highly objective and intellectual sites like HN. This sort of thinking has consequences.
Don't worry, I detect zero irony on your part. I've been called "racist" (by family members!) for not believing the Russia fairy tale. This despite loudly proclaiming my antipathy to Trump and my opinion that a vote for anyone other than Stein or Johnson was wasted. This week our heroic investigators are reading tweets!
So, there's sort of a sliding scale of ridiculousness in racism accusations. When you say your objections are to "open borders", a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade, it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really against...
So, there's sort of a sliding scale of ridiculousness in racism accusations. When you say your objections are to "open borders", a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade, it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really against...
> a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade
There is a growing number of people who believe borders, and border enforcement, are literally racist. I am protesting against that movement.
> it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really ag
If(!) my previous statement doesn't change your mind on this, then you might want to adjust your dog whistle detector, or even better, reconsider the utility of that mode of perception entirely.
There is a growing number of people who believe borders, and border enforcement, are literally racist. I am protesting against that movement.
> it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really ag
If(!) my previous statement doesn't change your mind on this, then you might want to adjust your dog whistle detector, or even better, reconsider the utility of that mode of perception entirely.
You're protesting against what people believe? What does that even mean? Do you expect everyone to believe what you believe?
Ocasio-Cortez is one candidate for the House. In this fall's elections, she will be as potent a symbol for the right as she is for the left. There is no chance that the resulting Congress will vote to eliminate borders, and there is even less chance that the current president would fail to veto such a vote. You're crying about something that cannot happen. That isn't rational. Why aren't you rational?
We have our suspicions. Please note, these are suspicions based on an entire thread of increasingly unhinged whinging. In my first comment I made a joke in your support. In my second I explained the joke and observed that immigration isn't so bad. Only after you displayed a real commitment to a weird paranoia about racism did I start pressing that button.
Some people aren't clever enough for dog whistles.
Ocasio-Cortez is one candidate for the House. In this fall's elections, she will be as potent a symbol for the right as she is for the left. There is no chance that the resulting Congress will vote to eliminate borders, and there is even less chance that the current president would fail to veto such a vote. You're crying about something that cannot happen. That isn't rational. Why aren't you rational?
We have our suspicions. Please note, these are suspicions based on an entire thread of increasingly unhinged whinging. In my first comment I made a joke in your support. In my second I explained the joke and observed that immigration isn't so bad. Only after you displayed a real commitment to a weird paranoia about racism did I start pressing that button.
Some people aren't clever enough for dog whistles.
> You're protesting against what people believe? What does that even mean?
It means, when and where I encounter people propagating a false claim (that enforcing the law as written, regardless of race, is racist....that opposition to open borders is racist.....claims that people are calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups), I will point out the lies, as there seems to be a growing problem of people believing absolute nonsense without thinking, just because they've heard it so many times.
> Do you expect everyone to believe what you believe?
I expect people to make an attempt at sorting out lies vs the truth. Do you honestly think I "expect everyone to believe what I believe?"
> There is no chance that the resulting Congress will vote to eliminate borders
The fact that I've made no such claim is abundantly clear by simply reviewing this comment thread. Here, I'll give you a handy tip on how to self-detect when you've made an error in thinking: take what you think I said, and then post an excerpt from my words where I said it. You'll find you can't do it.
Another thing to look out for in your own behavior is obviously emotional based statements and insults, such as: "You're crying about something that cannot happen. That isn't rational. Why aren't you rational?"
> We have our suspicions.
What does this refer to?
> Only after you displayed a real commitment to a weird paranoia about racism did I start pressing that button.
Shameful. You very well know a large portion of the public is very vocal about their belief that enforcing existing immigration law is "racist". Or, will you continue your disingenuous, dishonest claims that you have no idea what I refer to? Then try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+border+racist
PS: Cool it on the personal insults. Stick to the facts. Check your emotions at the door. Think.
It means, when and where I encounter people propagating a false claim (that enforcing the law as written, regardless of race, is racist....that opposition to open borders is racist.....claims that people are calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups), I will point out the lies, as there seems to be a growing problem of people believing absolute nonsense without thinking, just because they've heard it so many times.
> Do you expect everyone to believe what you believe?
I expect people to make an attempt at sorting out lies vs the truth. Do you honestly think I "expect everyone to believe what I believe?"
> There is no chance that the resulting Congress will vote to eliminate borders
The fact that I've made no such claim is abundantly clear by simply reviewing this comment thread. Here, I'll give you a handy tip on how to self-detect when you've made an error in thinking: take what you think I said, and then post an excerpt from my words where I said it. You'll find you can't do it.
Another thing to look out for in your own behavior is obviously emotional based statements and insults, such as: "You're crying about something that cannot happen. That isn't rational. Why aren't you rational?"
> We have our suspicions.
What does this refer to?
> Only after you displayed a real commitment to a weird paranoia about racism did I start pressing that button.
Shameful. You very well know a large portion of the public is very vocal about their belief that enforcing existing immigration law is "racist". Or, will you continue your disingenuous, dishonest claims that you have no idea what I refer to? Then try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+border+racist
PS: Cool it on the personal insults. Stick to the facts. Check your emotions at the door. Think.
[deleted]
It's easy to start drawing the line at the low hanging fruit. Let's start with holocaust denial which Zuckerberg raised last week. This argument that it's complex doesn't mean we can't do something and act in the most agregious and obvious cases.
Facebook already censors for business reasons and draws lines. Why can't they do it in other places and make it clear where they are. Their objections are based on free speech but are likely really about cost - they don't want to spend money to do it.
Facebook already censors for business reasons and draws lines. Why can't they do it in other places and make it clear where they are. Their objections are based on free speech but are likely really about cost - they don't want to spend money to do it.
The same can be said about pornography, and Facebook has no issue with drawing a wobbly line on that subject. They ban porn, they ban maybe-porn, and they sometimes ban things-that-are-probably-not-porn-but-let's-be-safe-and-ban-it-anyways.
They don't want pornography on their website. That's all there is to it. It speaks a lot about their position on it: "Not on our platform."
That they refuse to draw a line about holocaust deniers speaks volumes. Specifically, it speaks that they are perfectly fine with being a platform for white nationalism.
They don't want pornography on their website. That's all there is to it. It speaks a lot about their position on it: "Not on our platform."
That they refuse to draw a line about holocaust deniers speaks volumes. Specifically, it speaks that they are perfectly fine with being a platform for white nationalism.
> They don't want pornography on their website.
They wont allow it because they thoroughly understand the effects of positive feedback loops if they had allowed a tiny bit of porn even partially. See Tumblr.
They wont allow it because they thoroughly understand the effects of positive feedback loops if they had allowed a tiny bit of porn even partially. See Tumblr.
But they deny any such effect at all when it comes to fascist content. Dynamic is exactly the same; appeal is thankfully more limited.
This whole situation is risible. Did everyone ignore the real meaning of “meme”? Some ideas are like viruses in more ways than one. It’s time we brought hygiene and basic plumbing into the information Wild West
This whole situation is risible. Did everyone ignore the real meaning of “meme”? Some ideas are like viruses in more ways than one. It’s time we brought hygiene and basic plumbing into the information Wild West
[flagged]
Even though Facebook is not prohibited by law from censoring the speech of their users, they have a moral obligation to not do so. Cracking down on speech is never the answer to problems where we need to have more discussion. It only shows that we care about that speech enough to block it, which motivates them to cling tighter to their beliefs.
I am all for individuals blocking other individuals or groups, but when something is blocked from the entire community without their consent, it falls under unwanted censorship. We do not want to limit free speech to just the majority opinion.
I am all for individuals blocking other individuals or groups, but when something is blocked from the entire community without their consent, it falls under unwanted censorship. We do not want to limit free speech to just the majority opinion.
No one has a moral obligation to enable immoral acts. In fact, it could be argued that you have a moral obligation to act against immoral acts.
> Facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists (as one relevant example) a platform or support their cause in any capacity, and should do the right thing.
Authoritarian liberals seem to forget the old saying that "What goes around, comes around." If the majority viewpoint shifts so that your opinions become unpopular, will you happily accept getting deplatformed yourself? Don't be so naive as to think it can't happen.
Authoritarian liberals seem to forget the old saying that "What goes around, comes around." If the majority viewpoint shifts so that your opinions become unpopular, will you happily accept getting deplatformed yourself? Don't be so naive as to think it can't happen.
> If the majority viewpoint shifts so that your opinions become unpopular, will you happily accept getting deplatformed yourself? Don't be so naive as to think it can't happen.
I've seen this happen recently. The same people cheering on the deplatorming of Milo Yiannopoulos shouting "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" were just stunned when James Gunn was fired for his tweets.
I've seen this happen recently. The same people cheering on the deplatorming of Milo Yiannopoulos shouting "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" were just stunned when James Gunn was fired for his tweets.
They were stunned because Disney execs got trolled into footgunning their business, not because Disney chose not to work with someone they disliked or because a boycott cost Disney some sales.
Deplatforming Milo's intellectually bankrupt hateful message is not at all like "Deplatforming" a movie wholly unrelated to bad jokes told long ago by the movie's director.
Deplatforming Milo's intellectually bankrupt hateful message is not at all like "Deplatforming" a movie wholly unrelated to bad jokes told long ago by the movie's director.
I'd like to think that Disney execs are smarter than you give them credit for.
The reason I compared Milo and Gunn is because both of them were deplatformed (by Simon and Schuster and Disney respectively) for making comments related to pedophilia. Milo says he was an abuse victim himself, Gunn says they're jokes. I don't know so I won't judge. But I'm pointing out that making shocking statements to gain popularity can be easily misused by your opponents (on all political sides), with career-ending consequences.
The reason I compared Milo and Gunn is because both of them were deplatformed (by Simon and Schuster and Disney respectively) for making comments related to pedophilia. Milo says he was an abuse victim himself, Gunn says they're jokes. I don't know so I won't judge. But I'm pointing out that making shocking statements to gain popularity can be easily misused by your opponents (on all political sides), with career-ending consequences.
If saying that minority people have the right to live and be free becomes an "unpopular opinion", we have considerably bigger problems and the need for revolution grows closer. Human rights matter. This is an objective, universal notion that must be always defended. Even, as the American South has proven, against a majority.
Minority people having the right to live and be free was an unpopular opinion for most of history until very recently (in our lifetimes or our parents' lifetimes), which may prove an aberration.
This all falls apart when you realize there are very few clear moral issues (and nearly all of them are already covered by laws). Preventing the election of Donald Trump, or removing him from presidency is a very clear moral issue for many people. Anybody who promotes or supports nationalism could also very easily be thrown in with the example you provided.
masterleep(2)
tzahola(2)
>Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free speech" refrain
Where-in nudity is forbidden but holocaust denial is tolerated. Facebook obviously allows editorial decisions to supersede profit. And they come form a very particular world view about what is and is not acceptable. A world view that is not remotely universal viewed as "free speech".
Where-in nudity is forbidden but holocaust denial is tolerated. Facebook obviously allows editorial decisions to supersede profit. And they come form a very particular world view about what is and is not acceptable. A world view that is not remotely universal viewed as "free speech".
I think it's because nudity gets you banned on just about any corporate webfilter, but simple text won't.
Perhaps so, and this "freedom of free speech" is really just "that which can get through a corporate web filter". Either way intentionally of not, a particular value system is being enforced. One in which dismissing genocide is acceptable but nudist vacations are not.
There are places where sunbathing naked is less of a crime than wearing a tee-shirt advocating race violence. Facebook has chosen the opposite value system.
There are places where sunbathing naked is less of a crime than wearing a tee-shirt advocating race violence. Facebook has chosen the opposite value system.
[deleted]
Facebook runs the internet's de facto social network. They're a monopoly that only exists because open solutions didn't come about in time. It's an accident of history that a few companies control what should have been decentralized protocols.
The internet itself permits unfettered free speech and so should the largest social networks of the internet. As private companies they're not required to by law, but they should feel required to by their own ethics.
Facebook could provide tools to allow people to do whatever they want with the data. Users themselves should be in control of censoring whatever it is they don't want to see.
It's extremely dangerous to have a single corporation in charge of deciding what people see. It's inherently tyrannical and paternalistic. It's a decision to remove agency from adults about what information they consume. It's hard to imagine a more damaging attack on individual freedom in a time where this is the primary source of information for many people.
The internet itself permits unfettered free speech and so should the largest social networks of the internet. As private companies they're not required to by law, but they should feel required to by their own ethics.
Facebook could provide tools to allow people to do whatever they want with the data. Users themselves should be in control of censoring whatever it is they don't want to see.
It's extremely dangerous to have a single corporation in charge of deciding what people see. It's inherently tyrannical and paternalistic. It's a decision to remove agency from adults about what information they consume. It's hard to imagine a more damaging attack on individual freedom in a time where this is the primary source of information for many people.
This is the kind of argument that makes people more dependent on Facebook.
The best way to fight Facebook's monopoly is to just get people off of it and let them form their own independent social networking strategies.
You are basically making the case for Facebook by arguing for them as the de facto social network.
Facebook is completely unnecessary. We need to remind people of that.
The best way to fight Facebook's monopoly is to just get people off of it and let them form their own independent social networking strategies.
You are basically making the case for Facebook by arguing for them as the de facto social network.
Facebook is completely unnecessary. We need to remind people of that.
I'm stating a fact that they are the de facto social network. As such, they have an ethical duty to not deprive their users of basic human rights like freedom of speech. I absolutely do want Facebook replaced but I'd also like them to do as little damage as possible until they are.
It would make a lot of sense to have laws that require massive monopolies like Facebook to abide by the same rules that constrain government organizations.
It would make a lot of sense to have laws that require massive monopolies like Facebook to abide by the same rules that constrain government organizations.
Yah the last thing I want is for anyone to treat Facebook as necessary.
You're a racist, and your racist overtly political comments dont belong on HN
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't do this again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm jaded by people who suddenly grow morals and speak out on the day they retire, after having not interest in those morals during their career when their opinions mattered.
I wouldn't vote for Ike again, either.
This feels like pre earnings FB pr to me, leveraging the 'security officer' departure for some 'we're not just relentlessly data mining at any cost' dialog...but really FB will carry on doing what they do, while apologizing and issuing mea culpas...
Society needs to pick a side. Do we want large private companies acting as the arbiters of public discourse?
You mean like every television station and newspaper that preceded them for decades and decades now?
The medium may change but the game does not.
You keep the cattle ignorant, fearful and nicely divided into two groups that you can steer and pit against each other on a whim whenever it suits your agenda.
The medium may change but the game does not.
You keep the cattle ignorant, fearful and nicely divided into two groups that you can steer and pit against each other on a whim whenever it suits your agenda.
When you build your website you set its rules. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to use Facebook.
So make a bakery and decide who you'll make cakes for? I don't think that businesses should operate under such simplistic standards.
"There are many amongst us who would not hesitate to build equipment to compromise the privacy of any given individual provided the price is right. These are the whores of industry. They would not hesitate building systems and devices contrary to the public interest; their only concern is the buck."
Paun Baran, "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy"
RAND. May, 1968.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html
One of many prescient insights friom that paper.
Paun Baran, "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy"
RAND. May, 1968.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html
One of many prescient insights friom that paper.
The beauty of Facebook's position is that by having sole control of the internet middlemanning market, they can solve it without taking a position. Members of the standard hate groups can experience Freedom Loving Facebook with ultimate liberty to 'poison the well' of opinion with spiteful shouting. The 'Anti-Hategroup' Hategroups will have full authority to shout down and silence unwelcome ideoligies, slowly cleaning the internet of hate. Your Facebook, your reality. Free from the burden of internet argumemts, we can all get back to scrolling through ads.
[deleted]
"You won't believe these 10 hate groups that Marc Zuckerberg refuses to ban, donates to!" > "Facebook stands firm, bans extremist nationalist hate group: <No longer available> from platform!
>> We need to deprioritze short-term growth and revenue and to explain to Wall Street why that is ok. We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues. And we need to be open, honest and transparent about challenges and what we are doing to fix them.
Those who want facebook to step up on various issues may regret it. Don't assume that Facebook will pick good over evil. Many Facebook people have spoken about the end of privacy, that it would be a good thing. Note that those who run Facebook don't actually use it, at least not in the way they want the rest of us to use Facebook. Do not expect Facebook to take the popular side. They have their own opinions that are likely very different than those of the common person.
Those who want facebook to step up on various issues may regret it. Don't assume that Facebook will pick good over evil. Many Facebook people have spoken about the end of privacy, that it would be a good thing. Note that those who run Facebook don't actually use it, at least not in the way they want the rest of us to use Facebook. Do not expect Facebook to take the popular side. They have their own opinions that are likely very different than those of the common person.
Many Facebook people have spoken about the end of privacy, that it would be a good thing.
Zuck famously tapes over his laptop camera even in a building and on a network he physically owns...
Zuck famously tapes over his laptop camera even in a building and on a network he physically owns...
Because physically owning something means no one can digitally hack it. This is why no ones personal computer ever gets hacked... Oh wait
Not comparable. Zuck employs an army of security experts to keep FBs network secure. He’s protecting himself against Facebook itself.
> Note that those who run Facebook don't actually use it
I would love this claim to be true, but could you back it up with some data?
I would love this claim to be true, but could you back it up with some data?
"None of the company’s (Facebook) key executives has a “normal” Facebook presence. You can’t add them as friends, they rarely post publicly and they keep private some information that the platform suggests be made public by default, such as the number of friends they have.
Over at Twitter, the story is the same. Of the company’s nine most senior executives, only four tweet more than once a day on average."
in https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-high...
Over at Twitter, the story is the same. Of the company’s nine most senior executives, only four tweet more than once a day on average."
in https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-high...
Off the FB topic, but when I was a consultant working at Google, implementing some mobile JS SDK stuff, I was an a presentation with country execs / project managers and team leads, there was about 12 in the room in total.
I said "here's the Android version, here put this URL in your phone"
There was a very sheepish silence as I looked around the table, and saw only iPhones. Nobody there had a single android phone in the room, except me, because I brought one in to test with.
I actually laughed out loud
I said "here's the Android version, here put this URL in your phone"
There was a very sheepish silence as I looked around the table, and saw only iPhones. Nobody there had a single android phone in the room, except me, because I brought one in to test with.
I actually laughed out loud
After one famous scandal it was revealed that FB actually forced moderators to have their personal accounts with real name and use them for moderation - that's how their identity was exposed:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/16/facebook-...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/16/facebook-...
> Don't assume that Facebook will pick good over evil
If Facebook doesn't, a new competitor will. People will switch if they no longer feel safe.
If Facebook doesn't, a new competitor will. People will switch if they no longer feel safe.
Ask a Rohingya: it makes no difference if you aren't on Facebook if your neighbour is on it being fed racist propaganda until they come to burn your house down.
If Facebook becomes too thoroughly ingrained in everything then it would be rather difficult for a new competitor to step up. People are too willing to sacrifice privacy in the name of convenience.
I feel like facebook is getting less, not more ingrained in everything. Not being on facebook has only gotten easier for me, and young people don't seem keen on signing up for the service anymore.
That's a fair point. I pulled myself out of it last year (only check occasionally for updates on events my friends are planning), so I don't see its influence as much anymore... for which I am grateful haha.
Instagram seems to be the hot new thing for the younger generation, from what I understand, but Instagram is owned by Facebook. So while Facebook itself may not be keeping up, the company as a whole (and its methodologies regarding privacy) will likely remain relevant for a while yet.
Instagram seems to be the hot new thing for the younger generation, from what I understand, but Instagram is owned by Facebook. So while Facebook itself may not be keeping up, the company as a whole (and its methodologies regarding privacy) will likely remain relevant for a while yet.
young people prefer... Instagram (bought by Facebook) or whatever hot new startup (soon to be bought by Facebook)
I used to ask my students (2/3rd year university kids) about facebook. Last year all the females said the same thing: Facebook has too much of a "creep factor". They didn't feel safe. But work, especially applying for jobs, often demands one have a facebook presence. I myself, during background checks, have had to justify why I don't have a facebook account. In many corners it is just expected that everyone uses it, with suspicion falling on those who don't. This isn't the free market of econ textbooks.
If you don't mind me asking, where are you located and what kind of jobs have asked you for this information? Do they ask for a username or do they try to friend you to access your private content?
This is something I have never experienced and I'm genuinely curious to know what goal it serves the employer and how common of a practice it is.
Law, but I was teaching forensics students. Law firms and police departments do extensive background checks. I'm now in defense and we do insane background checks. If you say that you don't drink, you better not have a facebook page full of drunken party pictures.
Is the expectation that you have some social media presence or facebook in particular? Would "I mainly use twitter/g+/linkedin/instagram fly?"
The expectation is that everyone has some social media presence. Anyone claiming not to be on facebook is suspected of hiding something, that they are a liar.
I am hiding something when I close the stall door in the bathroom, but that doesn't make me an awful person.
What an insane viewpoint!
What an insane viewpoint!
side note: Women tend to prefer to preferred to as "women", not "females", and adult students tend to preferred be referred to as "adults" or "young adults", not "kids".
What industry are you in where people expect a Facebook account?
What industry are you in where people expect a Facebook account?
> Don't assume that Facebook will pick good over evil
The first step is to realize that there is no such thing as good or evil, just what like-minded people choose or have been conditioned to see as good or evil. So saying that "Facebook will always do good and/or avoid evil" doesn't even make sense. Good according to whom? Evil according to whom? And since there ARE differences of opinion in those definitions, it will at some point be the case that whatever Facebook does do is something YOU would consider not-good, maybe even evil, even if the people who make up Facebook's decision making process legitimately think they are doing good. So you don't even have to be pessimistic or cynical for this argument to fall flat.
The first step is to realize that there is no such thing as good or evil, just what like-minded people choose or have been conditioned to see as good or evil. So saying that "Facebook will always do good and/or avoid evil" doesn't even make sense. Good according to whom? Evil according to whom? And since there ARE differences of opinion in those definitions, it will at some point be the case that whatever Facebook does do is something YOU would consider not-good, maybe even evil, even if the people who make up Facebook's decision making process legitimately think they are doing good. So you don't even have to be pessimistic or cynical for this argument to fall flat.
Your moral relativism argument might be relevant if everyone in this thread didn’t already have a shared understanding of what good/evil mean in the context of facebook and this discussion.
I'm sure numerous groups that you believe are evil have a shared understanding of good/evil in this context and others that does not agree with your own.
If you really want to practice empathy, you need to also practice empathy with those that you believe are evil. I'm certain that most of those people believe they are doing good.
If you really want to practice empathy, you need to also practice empathy with those that you believe are evil. I'm certain that most of those people believe they are doing good.
Can you summarise what that shared understanding is?
You do have to be pessimistic or cynical to think that the words good and evil have no real meaning, or even if they do then it’s not worth trying to use them because nothing is perfect and clear.
Refusing to deal with nuance and disagreement in a complex world might even be a good practical definition of pessimism. It’s a catch all “what’s the point of even trying?” excuse.
Refusing to deal with nuance and disagreement in a complex world might even be a good practical definition of pessimism. It’s a catch all “what’s the point of even trying?” excuse.
I believe you have it backwards. Believing the words good and evil “have real meaning” is “refusing to deal with nuance and disagreement in a complex world.”
[deleted]
Is he still working at Facebook?
This letter reads extremely weirdly. Almost like they are building a narrative inside the company to keep people entertained.
Politics playing at the highest levels. (Well when you are an exec in a company full of kids that are convinced they are making the world a better place, I cannot even imagine the amount of politics you need to play to get there).
This letter reads extremely weirdly. Almost like they are building a narrative inside the company to keep people entertained.
Politics playing at the highest levels. (Well when you are an exec in a company full of kids that are convinced they are making the world a better place, I cannot even imagine the amount of politics you need to play to get there).
He quit and the article is about his exit letter.
Did he ? Last two paragraphs :
> Now what? Are you staying? I honestly don’t know.
> If I do leave, I promise to be open and honest.
On twitter he is still listed as at Facebook, and Wikipedia is unclear.
> Now what? Are you staying? I honestly don’t know.
> If I do leave, I promise to be open and honest.
On twitter he is still listed as at Facebook, and Wikipedia is unclear.
> According to the post, his departure had long been in the works following an internal reorganization that left him with fewer responsibilities,
So he was basically already fired. It’s easy to take a moral stand then. Specially when it’s your department which fucked up recently.
So he was basically already fired. It’s easy to take a moral stand then. Specially when it’s your department which fucked up recently.
YouTube is no better. Alex Jones is making death threats against Mueller and neither Facebook or Google has taken it down. They’re cowards. All that money and they still can’t afford to do the right thing? What a sad reality we’ve created.
> We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.
This is a little depressing given Zuckerberg's recent interview in which he said, with regard to Sandy Hook or Holocaust deniers posting these things on Facebook, "I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, 'We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.'"
This email was sent in March. It seems pretty clear that Stamos' hopes for a major shift in Facebook's behavior have not come to pass.
This is a little depressing given Zuckerberg's recent interview in which he said, with regard to Sandy Hook or Holocaust deniers posting these things on Facebook, "I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, 'We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.'"
This email was sent in March. It seems pretty clear that Stamos' hopes for a major shift in Facebook's behavior have not come to pass.
Considering Facebook is opening an office on China, Stamos' hopes are essentially being steamrolled by a tank.
I can't read this article, that side has a bad privacy policy that requires you to accept personalisation and tracking :-/ you can turn off third party tracking but not first party tracking.
You don't, actually. Enable firefox reader mode and read the article without clicking agree.
This works for a lot of these sites.
This works for a lot of these sites.
I know there are workarounds ;-) But the real issue is that the site has bad practises and doesn't give you an option to opt out nicely. It's basically saying "eat our crap or leave".
Imagine every newspaper requiring you to sniff a turd and give a copy of your passport before you are allowed to read it... (I know, comparing buzzfeednews.com with a classical newspaper is somewhat wrong, but it's just a bad analogy)
Imagine every newspaper requiring you to sniff a turd and give a copy of your passport before you are allowed to read it... (I know, comparing buzzfeednews.com with a classical newspaper is somewhat wrong, but it's just a bad analogy)
I see it more like this:
* Me: Hey guard, I want to read this newspaper * Guard: I won't let you unless you sniff this turd. * Me: I rephrase my question innst ye olde English: Canst thou let reade thine newspaper. * Guard: I have no idea what you're talking about. Here is a newspaper, have fun.
You are allowed make life complicated for me, but I violated no law or contract by rephrasing the question in an unexpected way. The options are: eat our crap, leave, or surprise us.
BTW, This principle works very well for telesales, religious door-to-door people, and service desks. Do something unexpected and they do anything to get rid of you.
* Me: Hey guard, I want to read this newspaper * Guard: I won't let you unless you sniff this turd. * Me: I rephrase my question innst ye olde English: Canst thou let reade thine newspaper. * Guard: I have no idea what you're talking about. Here is a newspaper, have fun.
You are allowed make life complicated for me, but I violated no law or contract by rephrasing the question in an unexpected way. The options are: eat our crap, leave, or surprise us.
BTW, This principle works very well for telesales, religious door-to-door people, and service desks. Do something unexpected and they do anything to get rid of you.
https://outline.com/aWVaE6 Here you go. Does this help?
Yes! That looks like an excellent tool, thank you.
Of course employees within Facebook should push back but do they have the ability? The fact that notes like these only get published when someone is already out the door throw into question the idea that employees have any power here. Corporations are just mini-governments and are prone to punishing workers who question their ethical position.
We pushed back all the time! It was nearly useless though, as our objections would either be dismissed with platitudes by the execs or ignored by the team actually working on the feature (and therefore caring more about their PSC review than the right thing)
I'd say that proves my point. The people actually programming the feature or responsible for the thing never push back because the PSC review is more important. A limp-wristed "push back" that never materializes at the most crucial moment - when you are asked to do something unethical - isn't really push back at all.
What push back have you offered for "something unethical"?
It is easy to be armchair activist who doesn't have to actually put their neck on the line.
On HN a lot of people talk about how people should just resign instead of implementing something "immoral", but never take into account that people have debt and lives to live and while you might lose sleep over a piece of code you wrote at least you won't go hungry or die of exposure in ultimately futile effort at stopping the feature, since the company will always find someone who needs money badly enough to complete the job.
It is easy to be armchair activist who doesn't have to actually put their neck on the line.
On HN a lot of people talk about how people should just resign instead of implementing something "immoral", but never take into account that people have debt and lives to live and while you might lose sleep over a piece of code you wrote at least you won't go hungry or die of exposure in ultimately futile effort at stopping the feature, since the company will always find someone who needs money badly enough to complete the job.
I haven't. Like I said in my original comment I don't believe employees actually have the power to push back here. The corporation is too powerful. I'm not armchair activisting.
I read that at Facebook anyone can build any feature. Is that true? Was that true in the past?
> question their ethical position
Or in Facebook's case, lack thereof.
Or in Facebook's case, lack thereof.
Wow. A high ranking officer putting blame on everyone... That's a shitty company culture for you. It also aligns well with the business that facebook represents. Even if he was the good guy in this story this doesn't shed any more positive light on facebook.
sounds like game of thrones reference
We need to reemphasize moral, environmental and humanitarian issues in our society. We are at a point again when the only thing that matters is money. Yes companies always support "green initiatives" and other causes... but at the end of the day this support is only there to help them turn a profit.
We as consumers (and co-riders on this planet) need to put our foot down and say "this stops here." Trump pushing for cost benefit analysis of saving endangered species, Facebook invading privacy regardless of what is necessary to push ads, companies pushing internet to developing countries in hopes of getting the market for themselves under the guise of "helping" these communities.
I don't have the answer, I just know if we want to grow as a society we need to learn that looking only for monetary profit is hopelessly shortsighted.
We as consumers (and co-riders on this planet) need to put our foot down and say "this stops here." Trump pushing for cost benefit analysis of saving endangered species, Facebook invading privacy regardless of what is necessary to push ads, companies pushing internet to developing countries in hopes of getting the market for themselves under the guise of "helping" these communities.
I don't have the answer, I just know if we want to grow as a society we need to learn that looking only for monetary profit is hopelessly shortsighted.
I miss businesses who didn't get involved in politics. Now it seems like everyone is pushing for them to do so and I'm sick and tired of everyone begging for their particular group to be pandered to.
Even those who used to avoid it like the plague, like CloudFlare and Namecheap have caved to these sorts of political pressures in the past year.
Even those who used to avoid it like the plague, like CloudFlare and Namecheap have caved to these sorts of political pressures in the past year.
Politics is unavoidable. All businesses and people interact with power structures in some way. Pretending that they don't isn't neutrality, but rather a passive endorsement of the way things are. Big, entrenched, successful companies often have the luxury of assuming this stance because they like the way things are.
As for Facebook in particular, their goal from the beginning has been to insert themselves into everyone's conversations. It's particularly absurd to think that they can avoid politics.
As for Facebook in particular, their goal from the beginning has been to insert themselves into everyone's conversations. It's particularly absurd to think that they can avoid politics.
[deleted]
This is a good example of a case where the original article headline is not a good HN headline.