Mark in the Middle(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Mark in the Middle
https://www.theverge.com/21444203/facebook-leaked-audio-zuckerberg-trump-pandemic-blm
585 コメント
It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia
One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and we don't need any analysis of what specifically the discourse was to make our determination, which is why your comment abstracts over any value it could be. Full disclosure, I don't fully understand this worldview because it seems to enforce a particular discourse on Mark Zuckerberg, which seems a bit contradictory to me although I assume there must be some way philosophically to resolve this objection.
The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system. Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis, and we don't need any analysis of what Zuckerberg "disagrees with" to decide if it's right to limit. Obviously the people who will advocate for removing a discourse are people who don't like it, but that's separate from analysis of whether the discourse itself is a force against democracy.
These ideas are at cross purposes, and success of the one is often at the expense of the other. For this reason we seem reluctant to just lay out the underlying value systems the way I did here, which is unfortunate, because I think the fundamental disagreement is really important to discuss.
One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and we don't need any analysis of what specifically the discourse was to make our determination, which is why your comment abstracts over any value it could be. Full disclosure, I don't fully understand this worldview because it seems to enforce a particular discourse on Mark Zuckerberg, which seems a bit contradictory to me although I assume there must be some way philosophically to resolve this objection.
The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system. Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis, and we don't need any analysis of what Zuckerberg "disagrees with" to decide if it's right to limit. Obviously the people who will advocate for removing a discourse are people who don't like it, but that's separate from analysis of whether the discourse itself is a force against democracy.
These ideas are at cross purposes, and success of the one is often at the expense of the other. For this reason we seem reluctant to just lay out the underlying value systems the way I did here, which is unfortunate, because I think the fundamental disagreement is really important to discuss.
While the "should all discourse be free vs. should it all be regulated" axis exists and people can be in different places on that scale (and almost all people are somewhere in between the extremes), there's also an orthogonal question, namely, who should be the party that makes and/or enforces the regulations.
Personally, I am very much in favour of regulating some forms of speech (regulating doesn't necessarily have to mean prohibiting btw), but I am very wary if big, quasi-monopolistic private companies are being tasked to do so, because their incentive structure now will lead them to over-restrict in order to avoid potential legal issues. If it's just a newspaper comment section, that's fine because there is enough competition, but for things like Twitter/FB/YouTube, I find it problematic, and this is why I find some of the more recent laws in the EU to be somewhat dangerous; we're basically asking unelected, unsupervised people from Facebook et al. to intransparently enforce laws.
Personally, I am very much in favour of regulating some forms of speech (regulating doesn't necessarily have to mean prohibiting btw), but I am very wary if big, quasi-monopolistic private companies are being tasked to do so, because their incentive structure now will lead them to over-restrict in order to avoid potential legal issues. If it's just a newspaper comment section, that's fine because there is enough competition, but for things like Twitter/FB/YouTube, I find it problematic, and this is why I find some of the more recent laws in the EU to be somewhat dangerous; we're basically asking unelected, unsupervised people from Facebook et al. to intransparently enforce laws.
You're doing a poor job of explaining the first worldview. Which is okay, you've acknowledged that you have trouble understanding it.
This worldview has been called the "liberal consensus". What it holds is that the power to determine a discourse is inherently against freedom is corrupting, and by allowing an authority to determine that, it will inevitably be used as a weapon.
Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin.
Look, both of those things might be false, but surely we can agree that if so they are false in a different way.
There were many experiments with official truth in the 20th century. The general consensus was that they were unpleasant to live under and did a poor job of actually separating truth from falsehood. Many of us don't care to repeat those experiments, the effect size was large.
If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.
This worldview has been called the "liberal consensus". What it holds is that the power to determine a discourse is inherently against freedom is corrupting, and by allowing an authority to determine that, it will inevitably be used as a weapon.
Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin.
Look, both of those things might be false, but surely we can agree that if so they are false in a different way.
There were many experiments with official truth in the 20th century. The general consensus was that they were unpleasant to live under and did a poor job of actually separating truth from falsehood. Many of us don't care to repeat those experiments, the effect size was large.
If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.
I think there's a non-splippery-slope way to position the worldview you're describing that might be more palatable to the values of a worldview based on limiting discourse based on content.
I believe the hardcore freedom of speech view has a few important underlying assumptions:
1) More information is better, and shining a light on something is better than trying to selectively hide it, because eventually the real truth comes out through persistent discourse. This is only really possible with the maximum amount of information, and especially all viewpoints laid out on the table with the least amount of obstruction.
2) People are broadly able to parse out untruths, or irrelevant positioning, or anything that is of low quality, and they will not be persuaded by it. This isn't true of everyone, but it is true of enough people; that's an inherent assumption of democracy. We live (or want to live) in a free market of ideas, where ideas can compete, and the market (what people are persuaded by) will be broadly rational and land on the best position in aggregate, even if some people are persuaded by bad or malicious arguments.
3) Limiting the visibility of any information detracts from the overall quality of discourse because it robs people of the ability to improve their thinking. It negates the possibility of refutation, because the untruth is hidden. Giving people all information, including misleading information, in the long-run leads to a population that can have better discourse and evaluation of all the information thrown their way.
---
I think the above puts the ideas in the best possible light. However, I disagree with enough of these assumptions that I can't take this worldview myself. My main counter to these ideas is that, similar to (pure) free market proponents, it takes on a very idealistic view of rationality that doesn't match real behavior. In practice, people have to take shortcuts to understand things—it's inherent in human conciseness—and those shortcuts can be exploited. I don't believe this is something we can grow past on a large societal scale, because it's embedded in how we think. To improve the quality of discourse, we have to explicitly protect against these biases. There are a whole host of difficulties there, too, but I think they are more surmountable than all the downsides of allowing deliberate manipulation and misinformation to spread broadly.
I believe the hardcore freedom of speech view has a few important underlying assumptions:
1) More information is better, and shining a light on something is better than trying to selectively hide it, because eventually the real truth comes out through persistent discourse. This is only really possible with the maximum amount of information, and especially all viewpoints laid out on the table with the least amount of obstruction.
2) People are broadly able to parse out untruths, or irrelevant positioning, or anything that is of low quality, and they will not be persuaded by it. This isn't true of everyone, but it is true of enough people; that's an inherent assumption of democracy. We live (or want to live) in a free market of ideas, where ideas can compete, and the market (what people are persuaded by) will be broadly rational and land on the best position in aggregate, even if some people are persuaded by bad or malicious arguments.
3) Limiting the visibility of any information detracts from the overall quality of discourse because it robs people of the ability to improve their thinking. It negates the possibility of refutation, because the untruth is hidden. Giving people all information, including misleading information, in the long-run leads to a population that can have better discourse and evaluation of all the information thrown their way.
---
I think the above puts the ideas in the best possible light. However, I disagree with enough of these assumptions that I can't take this worldview myself. My main counter to these ideas is that, similar to (pure) free market proponents, it takes on a very idealistic view of rationality that doesn't match real behavior. In practice, people have to take shortcuts to understand things—it's inherent in human conciseness—and those shortcuts can be exploited. I don't believe this is something we can grow past on a large societal scale, because it's embedded in how we think. To improve the quality of discourse, we have to explicitly protect against these biases. There are a whole host of difficulties there, too, but I think they are more surmountable than all the downsides of allowing deliberate manipulation and misinformation to spread broadly.
> I think there's a non-splippery-slope way to position the worldview (...)
I wouldn't discount the "slippery-slope way", because a slippery slope is not a fallacy when the slope is, in fact, slippery (and demonstrably so).
> My main counter to these ideas is that, similar to (pure) free market proponents, it takes on a very idealistic view of rationality that doesn't match real behavior.
That cuts both ways, though. Some vocal proponents of the "there's bad speech" view weaponize the Paradox of Tolerance argument, way past the point it's rationally applicable, and use it to beat people into submission. It's a very big problem in well-known online communities (including Facebook, Reddit and HN). For now, the effects are mostly limited to being called an -ist or -obe if you don't agree with maximally extremist view on some issues, and every now and then someone loses a job due to a Twitter mob. But I wouldn't want to live in a country ruled by the same principles.
Note that the side effect of extreme policing of wrongthing isn't just that the bad people get underground instead of being "disinfected by light". It's also extremely polarizing, because those on the fence now have to pick a side or get accused of being inssuficiently rightthinking - and some of those will adopt the wrongthink, at the very least because the wrongthinkers are nice to them. The historical equivalent of that is running your country by calling everyone not conspicuously patriotic enough a traitor and executing them; at some point you'll find that a chunk of your population actually defects to the enemy just to save their lives.
The way I see it, I'm all for maximizing accuracy and precision of beliefs and opinions, which correlates with rooting out disinformation. As for wrongthink - I believe the Paradox of Tolerance is recursive. That is, if in the process of rooting out the intolerant you start causing collateral damage among the innocent, you become the intolerant that should be rooted out.
I wouldn't discount the "slippery-slope way", because a slippery slope is not a fallacy when the slope is, in fact, slippery (and demonstrably so).
> My main counter to these ideas is that, similar to (pure) free market proponents, it takes on a very idealistic view of rationality that doesn't match real behavior.
That cuts both ways, though. Some vocal proponents of the "there's bad speech" view weaponize the Paradox of Tolerance argument, way past the point it's rationally applicable, and use it to beat people into submission. It's a very big problem in well-known online communities (including Facebook, Reddit and HN). For now, the effects are mostly limited to being called an -ist or -obe if you don't agree with maximally extremist view on some issues, and every now and then someone loses a job due to a Twitter mob. But I wouldn't want to live in a country ruled by the same principles.
Note that the side effect of extreme policing of wrongthing isn't just that the bad people get underground instead of being "disinfected by light". It's also extremely polarizing, because those on the fence now have to pick a side or get accused of being inssuficiently rightthinking - and some of those will adopt the wrongthink, at the very least because the wrongthinkers are nice to them. The historical equivalent of that is running your country by calling everyone not conspicuously patriotic enough a traitor and executing them; at some point you'll find that a chunk of your population actually defects to the enemy just to save their lives.
The way I see it, I'm all for maximizing accuracy and precision of beliefs and opinions, which correlates with rooting out disinformation. As for wrongthink - I believe the Paradox of Tolerance is recursive. That is, if in the process of rooting out the intolerant you start causing collateral damage among the innocent, you become the intolerant that should be rooted out.
Some vocal proponents of the "there's bad speech" view weaponize the Paradox of Tolerance argument, way past the point it's rationally applicable, and use it to beat people into submission.
Indeed. Here's the original Popper's statement of paradox of tolerance:
Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
If anything, it is rather the censors that are "who are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive", and recent "peaceful protests" are exactly an "answer to arguments by the use of their fists or pistols".
Indeed. Here's the original Popper's statement of paradox of tolerance:
Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
If anything, it is rather the censors that are "who are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive", and recent "peaceful protests" are exactly an "answer to arguments by the use of their fists or pistols".
It seems to me that you're still ignoring the tail risk of authoritarian control of the concept of truth, namely, gulags.
It's a justified fear, since it's happened repeatedly in living memory, and is happening still: you're welcome to go hand out pamphlets about the June Fourth Incident on Tiananmen Square if you don't believe me.
If you want to discount that risk, ignoring it or glossing it as some sort of slippery slope argument, that's your business. I won't, and we find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate for that reason.
To be clear, I don't think it's a slippery slope, because I don't think it's an accidental or avoidable consequence of allowing authoritarian control of the terms of discourse. I think it's the expected outcome, and that people who think that end state can be avoided are being used by people who crave that power over others.
It's a justified fear, since it's happened repeatedly in living memory, and is happening still: you're welcome to go hand out pamphlets about the June Fourth Incident on Tiananmen Square if you don't believe me.
If you want to discount that risk, ignoring it or glossing it as some sort of slippery slope argument, that's your business. I won't, and we find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate for that reason.
To be clear, I don't think it's a slippery slope, because I don't think it's an accidental or avoidable consequence of allowing authoritarian control of the terms of discourse. I think it's the expected outcome, and that people who think that end state can be avoided are being used by people who crave that power over others.
Well, we’re talking about Facebook, so I’m not worried about gulags. At least from Facebook itself. From the people who get their information on Facebook, though, maybe I should be.
I’m positing that in the long run it will be easier and less detrimental to society to establish some kind of editorial guidelines around misinformation and hold platforms accountable to them than it will be to educate enough people quickly enough to vet misinformation for themselves, especially as misinformation becomes increasingly hard to spot. I say this knowing fully that defining what misinformation is will be extremely hard, and you’re putting a lot of power in the hands of whatever person or group does that. Every decision is a trade off where you choose what benefits you think are best and what problems you think you can solve best and trying to balance them. I think we can better solve the problem of effectively limiting power abuse than we can of limiting the broad abuse of inherent human biases.
Edit: I should also note, I agree with a handful of the assumptions I listed above, specifically that democracies are built on the idea that people can broadly reach the right answer together. I still believe that. But I also believe in clearing out the brush and debris in the way so the crowd can actually use that superpower well.
I’m positing that in the long run it will be easier and less detrimental to society to establish some kind of editorial guidelines around misinformation and hold platforms accountable to them than it will be to educate enough people quickly enough to vet misinformation for themselves, especially as misinformation becomes increasingly hard to spot. I say this knowing fully that defining what misinformation is will be extremely hard, and you’re putting a lot of power in the hands of whatever person or group does that. Every decision is a trade off where you choose what benefits you think are best and what problems you think you can solve best and trying to balance them. I think we can better solve the problem of effectively limiting power abuse than we can of limiting the broad abuse of inherent human biases.
Edit: I should also note, I agree with a handful of the assumptions I listed above, specifically that democracies are built on the idea that people can broadly reach the right answer together. I still believe that. But I also believe in clearing out the brush and debris in the way so the crowd can actually use that superpower well.
I think I'm generally on your side of the debate, but are we really talking about authoritarian control of public discourse here? I thought we were talking about Facebook, a private corporation, deciding whether they want to allow their platform to be used to spread false and potentially harmful information.
Facebook is powerful, but it's not an authoritarian state. I'm not sure I see much danger in Facebook weighing in on different kinds of falsehood (i.e., your insight that things can be false in different way). It seems more akin to a journal having standards for what it publishes, or HackerNews hiding or removing egregiously bad comments, than it does to the Chinese government jailing dissidents.
Facebook is powerful, but it's not an authoritarian state. I'm not sure I see much danger in Facebook weighing in on different kinds of falsehood (i.e., your insight that things can be false in different way). It seems more akin to a journal having standards for what it publishes, or HackerNews hiding or removing egregiously bad comments, than it does to the Chinese government jailing dissidents.
I see so much space between a journal and the CCP that Facebook is more like neither than like either.
The main historical analogy to Facebook which seems relevant is the phone company. Either Facebook is so large and influential that misinformation on Facebook can threaten our political process, or it isn't, and clearly it's the former.
When Ma Bell was the only game in town, they weren't allowed to deny use of the network to the Communist Party, because that was clearly a violation of the concept of free speech.
I don't think the difference between a natural monopoly and a state monopoly has much relevance here, what does matter is that if you ban, say, a political party, from Facebook, it absolutely cripples their ability to participate in the democratic process. That's too much power for me to simply shrug and say "their house, their rules".
It's a bad situation, and we should get out of it. And yes, Facebook itself isn't the Ministry of Truth, and doesn't have jackbooted security waiting in the wings.
But I firmly believe that the parties who are pushing for control over social media discourse absolutely want that end state, they are driven by power, and the only way to fight that outcome is to resist it early and often. Denying a victory here will spare expensive battles down the line.
The main historical analogy to Facebook which seems relevant is the phone company. Either Facebook is so large and influential that misinformation on Facebook can threaten our political process, or it isn't, and clearly it's the former.
When Ma Bell was the only game in town, they weren't allowed to deny use of the network to the Communist Party, because that was clearly a violation of the concept of free speech.
I don't think the difference between a natural monopoly and a state monopoly has much relevance here, what does matter is that if you ban, say, a political party, from Facebook, it absolutely cripples their ability to participate in the democratic process. That's too much power for me to simply shrug and say "their house, their rules".
It's a bad situation, and we should get out of it. And yes, Facebook itself isn't the Ministry of Truth, and doesn't have jackbooted security waiting in the wings.
But I firmly believe that the parties who are pushing for control over social media discourse absolutely want that end state, they are driven by power, and the only way to fight that outcome is to resist it early and often. Denying a victory here will spare expensive battles down the line.
As we are discovering there is a similar tail risk to allowing people lie. Facebook goes a step further and targets the people especially susceptible to specific less of the same type of lie. TBH my problem with Facebook is that it is a bullshit funnel into an echo chamber. If they removed those algos and showed people a varying mix of opinions and positions the problem would largely go away.
Agreed. I stopped using Facebook when they stopped providing a chronological timeline of all my friend's posts. That was actually a useful service, but I guess it didn't drive as much "engagement".
Aren't you ignoring the fact that actual authoritarians are using the lack of moderation in FB to spread misinformation and incite populism and take control? This has occurred in India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and I would argue currently occurring in the US.
I also used to be a free speech absolutist, but I'm not anymore since I realized that it doesn't actually result in the kind of educated discourse and debate where truth prevails (as libertarians seem to think it does) - it results in 8chan and QAnon. Human beings aren't rational, and are rife with cognitive biases towards bigotry and cruelty that can easily be hijacked by populists.
I also used to be a free speech absolutist, but I'm not anymore since I realized that it doesn't actually result in the kind of educated discourse and debate where truth prevails (as libertarians seem to think it does) - it results in 8chan and QAnon. Human beings aren't rational, and are rife with cognitive biases towards bigotry and cruelty that can easily be hijacked by populists.
The hardcore freedom of speech view ignores the societal transaction costs that come from dealing with lies by people who don't give a f... about truth, but only about power.
I don’t agree that the “hardcore freedom of speech” view requires or implies the assumptions you spell out.
They could all be false (eg more information is not better, people are frequently unable to parse out untruths and limiting information actually improves discourse quality) and still it is vastly more harmful to allow private institutions to wield the power of defining acceptable discourse than to permit all discourse.
The key issue is what the endowment of discourse-approval power grants to that institution. The issue is not whether discourse is true, productive or high-quality.
A bunch of nuts spouting off conspiracy theories on Facebook is low quality, likely to mislead people, and does not add useful information.
But allowing private entities to have the power to make policing decisions about it is a dramatically greater evil.
They could all be false (eg more information is not better, people are frequently unable to parse out untruths and limiting information actually improves discourse quality) and still it is vastly more harmful to allow private institutions to wield the power of defining acceptable discourse than to permit all discourse.
The key issue is what the endowment of discourse-approval power grants to that institution. The issue is not whether discourse is true, productive or high-quality.
A bunch of nuts spouting off conspiracy theories on Facebook is low quality, likely to mislead people, and does not add useful information.
But allowing private entities to have the power to make policing decisions about it is a dramatically greater evil.
> they are false in a different way.
In what different way? Has not both been scientifically refuted by reputable scientists? Just because one sounded more plausible doesn't mean it's not false.
To me, both needn't be banned, because I believe and agree with your premise, but I don't agree there's a difference.
In what different way? Has not both been scientifically refuted by reputable scientists? Just because one sounded more plausible doesn't mean it's not false.
To me, both needn't be banned, because I believe and agree with your premise, but I don't agree there's a difference.
A bit off topic but interesting nonetheless, I'll take a crack at it.
I see an important distinction between pseudoscientific crankery and just bad/refuted science. I've read some of the 5g corona stuff; it's batshit insane, like I'm fairly sure the primary sources on it have serious mental illnesses.
Any physicist with a mailing address can tell you all about cranks. Refuting cranks is not a part of their job, if they do that, they won't have time for anything else.
I don't think the gain-of-function paper has been comprehensively refuted, yet. It's certainly been dismissed, dissed, and evidence is strongly pointing in the direction of it being refuted.
But it was written by a credentialed virologist, and more importantly, it is in the process of being submitted through channels.
Will it survive peer review and be published? Probably not, and that's what peer review is for. As far as I'm able to determine, it's just a bad paper, but it's real science, not a parody of science.
Banning such people sends the wrong message. We rationally should update our priors in the direction of a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
I'm no virologist, but I've spend enough time in genetics labs to be able to follow along with their conversations. What I can't do, is tell the difference between a shadowy ChiCom conspiracy to suppress the truth, and overzealous enforcement of a vague mandate to ban disinformation about the novel coronavirus.
I mean. I know some people who work for Twitter; it's the latter, you'll never go broke presuming institutional dysfunction as the cause of any malaise on the birdsite.
And yeah, I don't think the 5g whackjobs should be banned either, but for a different reason: they'll just go find another forum where people like me won't be around to tell them how full of shit they are. The only think worse than a weird cult of people who believe schizo stuff is a weird isolated cult of people who believe schizo stuff.
I see an important distinction between pseudoscientific crankery and just bad/refuted science. I've read some of the 5g corona stuff; it's batshit insane, like I'm fairly sure the primary sources on it have serious mental illnesses.
Any physicist with a mailing address can tell you all about cranks. Refuting cranks is not a part of their job, if they do that, they won't have time for anything else.
I don't think the gain-of-function paper has been comprehensively refuted, yet. It's certainly been dismissed, dissed, and evidence is strongly pointing in the direction of it being refuted.
But it was written by a credentialed virologist, and more importantly, it is in the process of being submitted through channels.
Will it survive peer review and be published? Probably not, and that's what peer review is for. As far as I'm able to determine, it's just a bad paper, but it's real science, not a parody of science.
Banning such people sends the wrong message. We rationally should update our priors in the direction of a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
I'm no virologist, but I've spend enough time in genetics labs to be able to follow along with their conversations. What I can't do, is tell the difference between a shadowy ChiCom conspiracy to suppress the truth, and overzealous enforcement of a vague mandate to ban disinformation about the novel coronavirus.
I mean. I know some people who work for Twitter; it's the latter, you'll never go broke presuming institutional dysfunction as the cause of any malaise on the birdsite.
And yeah, I don't think the 5g whackjobs should be banned either, but for a different reason: they'll just go find another forum where people like me won't be around to tell them how full of shit they are. The only think worse than a weird cult of people who believe schizo stuff is a weird isolated cult of people who believe schizo stuff.
You probably know that plate tectonics was considered "pseudoscientific crankery", do you?
I don't think that's a completely accurate summary of the debate, although I'm sure the fixists threw that accusation in a heated moment or two.
But, yes, it took decades to be broadly accepted, and we're lucky that Wegener wasn't "canceled" in the meantime.
We should always leave a little margin for the possibility that we're wrong. When it comes to 5g causing COVID, I don't think we'll need it...
But, yes, it took decades to be broadly accepted, and we're lucky that Wegener wasn't "canceled" in the meantime.
We should always leave a little margin for the possibility that we're wrong. When it comes to 5g causing COVID, I don't think we'll need it...
Determining how discourse occurs, its rules and the dividing line correct and incorrect speech is built in to the democratic process, not some holy "rules of the game" handed down by God. Your misguided understanding of "liberal consensus" is actually a fundamentally authoritarian position, a doctrinal decree about what can and cannot be discussed.
The irony of course is that the "experiments with official truth in the 20th century" in the US were often defended on the grounds of protecting "liberal consensus" from opposing viewpoints. See the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals statement of principles, the trade group responsible for the Hollywood Blacklist:
"We believe in, and like, the American way of life: the liberty and freedom which generations before us have fought to create and preserve; the freedom to speak, to think, to live, to worship, to work, and to govern ourselves as individuals, as free men; the right to succeed or fail as free men, according to the measure of our ability and our strength.
Believing in these things, we find ourselves in sharp revolt against a rising tide of communism, fascism, and kindred beliefs, that seek by subversive means to undermine and change this way of life; groups that have forfeited their right to exist in this country of ours, because they seek to achieve their change by means other than the vested procedure of the ballot and to deny the right of the majority opinion of the people to rule."
The irony of course is that the "experiments with official truth in the 20th century" in the US were often defended on the grounds of protecting "liberal consensus" from opposing viewpoints. See the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals statement of principles, the trade group responsible for the Hollywood Blacklist:
"We believe in, and like, the American way of life: the liberty and freedom which generations before us have fought to create and preserve; the freedom to speak, to think, to live, to worship, to work, and to govern ourselves as individuals, as free men; the right to succeed or fail as free men, according to the measure of our ability and our strength.
Believing in these things, we find ourselves in sharp revolt against a rising tide of communism, fascism, and kindred beliefs, that seek by subversive means to undermine and change this way of life; groups that have forfeited their right to exist in this country of ours, because they seek to achieve their change by means other than the vested procedure of the ballot and to deny the right of the majority opinion of the people to rule."
So, without knowing anything about me, would you guess I'm pro-blacklist, or anti-blacklist?
The Devil can indeed cite Scripture for his purposes.
The Devil can indeed cite Scripture for his purposes.
> The Devil can indeed cite Scripture for his purposes.
My point exactly. Aphorisms such as "Liberal consensus" don't exist in a vacuum, and are often used as an excuse for intervention rather than a protection against intervention.
> So, without knowing anything about me, would you guess I'm pro-blacklist, or anti-blacklist?
Do you think the Trump administration should outlaw certain subjects from being taught, such as Critical Theory? You surely would agree that the stranglehold certain departments have on academic discourse makes free speech impossible, correct?
My point exactly. Aphorisms such as "Liberal consensus" don't exist in a vacuum, and are often used as an excuse for intervention rather than a protection against intervention.
> So, without knowing anything about me, would you guess I'm pro-blacklist, or anti-blacklist?
Do you think the Trump administration should outlaw certain subjects from being taught, such as Critical Theory? You surely would agree that the stranglehold certain departments have on academic discourse makes free speech impossible, correct?
I freely concede that I'm doing a poor job of defending it, because it isn't my view to defend. The part of it that I don't understand is limited to how it is self-consistent, which is not something I see addressed in your reply, although I could be mistaken.
But I think we are still saying talking points instead of getting to the core. I understand and I share the concern about an important voice being silenced. But I think the mechanism of that silence in the current environment is probably related to loudness of noise rather than quietness of signal. Obviously, it may be different at different situations and times in history. But I think if our goal is to hear quiet voices we ought to consider both sources of the issue pretty seriously. A philosophy that only considers the problem of transmitting and ignores the problem of receiving through a noisefloor seems an incomplete troubleshooting procedure to me.
Whereas you perceive a threat about the slide into censorship, I perceive a threat about the slide into unrest and violence. In reality, it seems likely we will get both: one of them first and the other following as a reaction. So I think our interests would really be best served by hammering out a workable compromise so as to hang together rather than separately.
I agree that we ought to return to the "liberal discourse", but we may perceive its makeup differently. Limitations on discourse have always been part and parcel of the institution. Some limitations have been very harmful. Others, like 'you can't threaten not to leave when you lose an election', have been very helpful. Liberal discourse is presently threatened because we have abandoned that sort of polite limitation, and it is by reintroducing it that we can recover the institution.
> If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.
This is a bit of a strawman. I do empathize with the skepticism of authority in our present climate. However, you rely on some method to determine whether a person is doing censorship in the same way I rely on a method to determine if a person is doing misinformation. I expect it is a similar method, which is to say, imperfectly, based on values present in our historical age, individual biases, and so on. Which is the "same sort of stuff" that democracy otherwise uses to make any of its decisions.
I expect this dispute arises because, in your worldview, limiting the discourse is very exceptional, and doing it properly should require an exceptional method. Whereas from my perspective, laws, elections, jail, and wars are very serious, and we have processes to decide those.
But I think we are still saying talking points instead of getting to the core. I understand and I share the concern about an important voice being silenced. But I think the mechanism of that silence in the current environment is probably related to loudness of noise rather than quietness of signal. Obviously, it may be different at different situations and times in history. But I think if our goal is to hear quiet voices we ought to consider both sources of the issue pretty seriously. A philosophy that only considers the problem of transmitting and ignores the problem of receiving through a noisefloor seems an incomplete troubleshooting procedure to me.
Whereas you perceive a threat about the slide into censorship, I perceive a threat about the slide into unrest and violence. In reality, it seems likely we will get both: one of them first and the other following as a reaction. So I think our interests would really be best served by hammering out a workable compromise so as to hang together rather than separately.
I agree that we ought to return to the "liberal discourse", but we may perceive its makeup differently. Limitations on discourse have always been part and parcel of the institution. Some limitations have been very harmful. Others, like 'you can't threaten not to leave when you lose an election', have been very helpful. Liberal discourse is presently threatened because we have abandoned that sort of polite limitation, and it is by reintroducing it that we can recover the institution.
> If we had an oracle of truth, then censorship of falsehood would be easy and practical. We also wouldn't need democracy at all, we could just ask the oracle of truth what to do, and do it. But we don't have any such creature.
This is a bit of a strawman. I do empathize with the skepticism of authority in our present climate. However, you rely on some method to determine whether a person is doing censorship in the same way I rely on a method to determine if a person is doing misinformation. I expect it is a similar method, which is to say, imperfectly, based on values present in our historical age, individual biases, and so on. Which is the "same sort of stuff" that democracy otherwise uses to make any of its decisions.
I expect this dispute arises because, in your worldview, limiting the discourse is very exceptional, and doing it properly should require an exceptional method. Whereas from my perspective, laws, elections, jail, and wars are very serious, and we have processes to decide those.
A good reply.
> Whereas you perceive a threat about the slide into censorship, I perceive a threat about the slide into unrest and violence.
I certainly only addressed the former, but I'm also concerned about the latter.
It seems to me that cooler heads are more likely to prevail, if hotheads remain on the same platform as those cooler heads. Not going to go full horseshoe theory here, but part of what makes the far left and far right "far" is their willingness to engage in violent rhetoric and follow it up with action.
Garden-variety guns and beef conservatives are more likely to speak the language of actual white supremacists, but they aren't going to go onto Stormfront to do it.
Extremists are angry people, with a story about oppression: either the shadow globalist cabal is trying to replace them, or the evil capitalists are trying to grind them under their boot. So it's a bad idea to actually go in and oppress them. They will absolutely find a forum to air their grievances and plot revenge, and moderates will no longer be a part of the conversation.
> Whereas you perceive a threat about the slide into censorship, I perceive a threat about the slide into unrest and violence.
I certainly only addressed the former, but I'm also concerned about the latter.
It seems to me that cooler heads are more likely to prevail, if hotheads remain on the same platform as those cooler heads. Not going to go full horseshoe theory here, but part of what makes the far left and far right "far" is their willingness to engage in violent rhetoric and follow it up with action.
Garden-variety guns and beef conservatives are more likely to speak the language of actual white supremacists, but they aren't going to go onto Stormfront to do it.
Extremists are angry people, with a story about oppression: either the shadow globalist cabal is trying to replace them, or the evil capitalists are trying to grind them under their boot. So it's a bad idea to actually go in and oppress them. They will absolutely find a forum to air their grievances and plot revenge, and moderates will no longer be a part of the conversation.
>Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go from suspending accounts which promote the theory that COVID-19 is caused by 5G towers, to suspending the account of a virologist who issued a preprint suggesting that gain-of-function mutations in SARS2 point to a laboratory origin.
Why do you believe that only the the second viewpoint will suffer from this slippery slope? We also seen similar examples in the first worldview. A conversation can quickly go from being against illegal immigrants, to being against all immigrants, to being against a specific race of immigrants, to genocide of that race. We have already seen this laissez-faire approach from Facebook help contribute to genocide in Myanmar.
Why do you believe that only the the second viewpoint will suffer from this slippery slope? We also seen similar examples in the first worldview. A conversation can quickly go from being against illegal immigrants, to being against all immigrants, to being against a specific race of immigrants, to genocide of that race. We have already seen this laissez-faire approach from Facebook help contribute to genocide in Myanmar.
In fairness, Facebook's culpability in the Myanmar incident is because they launched in a language when they didn't have any moderators or AI who could understand the language. Further, much of the info was spread via memes - while extracting text from images is pretty good now, it wasn't always this way.
They were repeatedly warned by local groups, international NGOs and the US State Department that the speech was inciting violence. They refused to do anything and it escalated into a pogrom.
Not defending FB here - it looks like they have acknowledged their faults in this issue specifically.
That said, this argument structure sounds a lot like "US leadership was warned about the attacks on Pearl Harbor". It looks like FB under reacted to these warnings, probably because they didn't realize how bad the outcome would be. How can info/escalations be presented so as to break out of the noise? (I'm assuming here that FB also has been warned of a lot of really bad things that never came to pass, which isn't something we can know - but it's an interesting thought experiment.)
What is the expectation in terms of separate the signal from the noise? How can the critical factors be identified ahead of time? Was it foreseeable that the targeted hate speech would turn into violence? What level of reaction is appropriate, given the uncertainty of hate speech -> violence?
Apologies for the brain dump - not expecting answers to all of them. And not defending FB here. I just think these types of questions are very interesting (plus I just read Superforecasters, which examines similar decision making w/r/t the decision to kill bin Laden).
That said, this argument structure sounds a lot like "US leadership was warned about the attacks on Pearl Harbor". It looks like FB under reacted to these warnings, probably because they didn't realize how bad the outcome would be. How can info/escalations be presented so as to break out of the noise? (I'm assuming here that FB also has been warned of a lot of really bad things that never came to pass, which isn't something we can know - but it's an interesting thought experiment.)
What is the expectation in terms of separate the signal from the noise? How can the critical factors be identified ahead of time? Was it foreseeable that the targeted hate speech would turn into violence? What level of reaction is appropriate, given the uncertainty of hate speech -> violence?
Apologies for the brain dump - not expecting answers to all of them. And not defending FB here. I just think these types of questions are very interesting (plus I just read Superforecasters, which examines similar decision making w/r/t the decision to kill bin Laden).
I think you're mischaracterizing the classical liberal consensus. That was best represented by John Stuart Mill, and his main point was not that censorshop will be used as a weapon -- it's simply that censorship infringes on liberty, and that the best cure for bad speech is more speech.
And the idea that the "general consensus" is against all forms of censorship is quite false. In America it is, but in Europe and other countries censorship of hate speech (e.g. racism, Nazism, etc.) is quite accepted as part of the general consensus.
And even in the US, "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" isn't protected either. And arguably, spreading blatant viral lies on social media close to an election is akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, since the national consequences could be so dire.
There are many intelligent arguments to be made that censorship of speech that is either a) primarily hate-directed rather than information-directed, or b) outrageously false but capable of swinging an election, could be outlawed, and neither of these would be incompatible with modern-day political liberalism, which is more commonly called "social democracy" to distinguish it from the classical liberalism that Mill did so much to defend.
And the idea that this would somehow depend on an "oracle of truth" is nonsense. Courts judge things like libel and defamation cases all the time. Sure, there are gray cases that could go either way, but drawing lines in gray areas is what courts have done ever since they existed in the first place. Holding Facebook moderators ultimately responsible to judges, for example, isn't inherently difficult to do if we wanted to.
And the idea that the "general consensus" is against all forms of censorship is quite false. In America it is, but in Europe and other countries censorship of hate speech (e.g. racism, Nazism, etc.) is quite accepted as part of the general consensus.
And even in the US, "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" isn't protected either. And arguably, spreading blatant viral lies on social media close to an election is akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, since the national consequences could be so dire.
There are many intelligent arguments to be made that censorship of speech that is either a) primarily hate-directed rather than information-directed, or b) outrageously false but capable of swinging an election, could be outlawed, and neither of these would be incompatible with modern-day political liberalism, which is more commonly called "social democracy" to distinguish it from the classical liberalism that Mill did so much to defend.
And the idea that this would somehow depend on an "oracle of truth" is nonsense. Courts judge things like libel and defamation cases all the time. Sure, there are gray cases that could go either way, but drawing lines in gray areas is what courts have done ever since they existed in the first place. Holding Facebook moderators ultimately responsible to judges, for example, isn't inherently difficult to do if we wanted to.
> And even in the US, "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" isn't protected either.
Well, if you believe tangential dicta that was grounded in no preexisting law offered in a since-overturned case allowing the repression of core political speech, sure...
But best not use that example.
Well, if you believe tangential dicta that was grounded in no preexisting law offered in a since-overturned case allowing the repression of core political speech, sure...
But best not use that example.
It's a widely understood example that is perfectly fine to use, since the underlying concept is immediately understandable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
If you're feeling pedantic, perhaps you can replace the phrase with "yelling things to incite an imminent lawless action" (to crib from Wikipedia's summarization of Brandenburg) any time anyone ever says it. Does that work for you? Because the underlying point remains: that there are limits to free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
If you're feeling pedantic, perhaps you can replace the phrase with "yelling things to incite an imminent lawless action" (to crib from Wikipedia's summarization of Brandenburg) any time anyone ever says it. Does that work for you? Because the underlying point remains: that there are limits to free speech.
> It's a widely understood example that is perfectly fine to use
It is a misquote (leaving out "falsely", a modifier which is key to the meaning of the original quote) of a statement the original of which is inaccurate as a description of the prior state of the law when the case it was in was decided, or the state of the law once the case was decided (being dicta, it itself had no binding effect), or the current state of the law, from a decision now widely recognized as anathema to the central protection of the First Amendment.
It is, almost literally, the worst example that you could use.
It is a misquote (leaving out "falsely", a modifier which is key to the meaning of the original quote) of a statement the original of which is inaccurate as a description of the prior state of the law when the case it was in was decided, or the state of the law once the case was decided (being dicta, it itself had no binding effect), or the current state of the law, from a decision now widely recognized as anathema to the central protection of the First Amendment.
It is, almost literally, the worst example that you could use.
> It is, almost literally, the worst example that you could use.
But it's the one everybody knows. Society has chosen it as the common term for the concept by now. Its original source or accuracy is entirely irrelevant -- in the same way it would be missing the point to complain that "black holes" aren't technically black.
After all, we're not having a discussion between lawyers about the intracacies of US free speech law. It's just a phrase for referring to the general concept of rights not being absolute.
But it's the one everybody knows. Society has chosen it as the common term for the concept by now. Its original source or accuracy is entirely irrelevant -- in the same way it would be missing the point to complain that "black holes" aren't technically black.
After all, we're not having a discussion between lawyers about the intracacies of US free speech law. It's just a phrase for referring to the general concept of rights not being absolute.
The ACLU was founded to protect the rights of Communists after World War I to say what they want. The ACLU fought to defend the free speech of KKK members and Nazis. The phrase "I disagree with you but I defend to the death your right to say it" is unique to America and was actually something fought for until recently when even the ACLU caved.
>spreading blatant viral lies on social media
You even admit this is arguable. You're assuming people are morons who need big brother to help them out - you don't really believe in democratic principles if this is your stance. The enforcement of punishing such lies is inconsistent as well. One needs only to look at the blatant left wing bias of Twitter and Facebook, where conservatives are banned for expressing opinions whereas lies told by media outlets (with small corrections added days later) are left up and not punished at all.
>spreading blatant viral lies on social media
You even admit this is arguable. You're assuming people are morons who need big brother to help them out - you don't really believe in democratic principles if this is your stance. The enforcement of punishing such lies is inconsistent as well. One needs only to look at the blatant left wing bias of Twitter and Facebook, where conservatives are banned for expressing opinions whereas lies told by media outlets (with small corrections added days later) are left up and not punished at all.
Your point of view is intrinsically liberal, and the latter point of view plays the victim and assumes people can't evolve to gain the intelligence needed to not fall for misinformation. You intrinsically think there are people who can't make decisions for themselves. Sounds like control
The absolute "freedom is simple, and restrictions are all bad" position is nonsense. Ignoring that there are people who would use their freedom to infringe on others is naive and childish.
If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.
If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.
>If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.
But isn't the basis behind MAD and the whole premise behind the continued existence of the world since nuclear weapons became a widespread thing, that, we're all safer having nukes instead of ridding the world of them, because if nobody had nukes, then someone would make one and use one?
I mean, i'm on the 'remove all nuclear weapons from existence' team myself but...
But isn't the basis behind MAD and the whole premise behind the continued existence of the world since nuclear weapons became a widespread thing, that, we're all safer having nukes instead of ridding the world of them, because if nobody had nukes, then someone would make one and use one?
I mean, i'm on the 'remove all nuclear weapons from existence' team myself but...
> If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.
I wonder how the math breaks down on whether you're safer having fun at the gun range, or on the road driving to it.
> The absolute "freedom is simple, and restrictions are all bad" position is nonsense.
I think this statement is needlessly antagonistic. Restricting the freedom of individuals who are acting in good faith and with sufficient personal responsibility seems wrong to me. This harms everyone who ever had to get a license just to serve drinks and wipe tables, as a common case.
> Ignoring that there are people who would use their freedom to infringe on others is naive and childish.
I don't believe anyone here has said that we should ignore bad actors. If someone has bad ideas, people should be free to refute them. If someone engages in behavior that harms others the legal system can intervene.
Censorship is a stupid mechanism for improving society. If you can use it against those you disagree with, what happens if they end up in power and use it against you? Rigging the rules is short-term thinking.
I wonder how the math breaks down on whether you're safer having fun at the gun range, or on the road driving to it.
> The absolute "freedom is simple, and restrictions are all bad" position is nonsense.
I think this statement is needlessly antagonistic. Restricting the freedom of individuals who are acting in good faith and with sufficient personal responsibility seems wrong to me. This harms everyone who ever had to get a license just to serve drinks and wipe tables, as a common case.
> Ignoring that there are people who would use their freedom to infringe on others is naive and childish.
I don't believe anyone here has said that we should ignore bad actors. If someone has bad ideas, people should be free to refute them. If someone engages in behavior that harms others the legal system can intervene.
Censorship is a stupid mechanism for improving society. If you can use it against those you disagree with, what happens if they end up in power and use it against you? Rigging the rules is short-term thinking.
>If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer
If everyone who is responsible has a gun, we are all safer.
If everyone who is responsible has a gun, we are all safer.
[deleted]
> The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. ... Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis.
You will mostly find this worldview on the political left of the spectrum, and more often than not you will find the discourse they find to be “against freedom” to be the one held by their political opponent.
And when they promote their view in the form of a policy, they are effectively trying to outlaw people having opinions differing from theirs.
Rather current examples: identity politics and diversity policies. If you simply disagree with the basis of their argument, that disagreement is considered “hateful” in itself and your speech must be banned, no matter how civil.
How can one have free discourse, when the one righteous part has decided that only they are allowed to speak? There’s no freedom here. Not even close.
You will mostly find this worldview on the political left of the spectrum, and more often than not you will find the discourse they find to be “against freedom” to be the one held by their political opponent.
And when they promote their view in the form of a policy, they are effectively trying to outlaw people having opinions differing from theirs.
Rather current examples: identity politics and diversity policies. If you simply disagree with the basis of their argument, that disagreement is considered “hateful” in itself and your speech must be banned, no matter how civil.
How can one have free discourse, when the one righteous part has decided that only they are allowed to speak? There’s no freedom here. Not even close.
>For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system.
So, what's different now vs when there was paid political campaigns and advertising on TV, radio, magazines etc.?
Partisan political ads have never been a source of reliable information as long as i've been alive.
I'm curious as to what elections you've participated in within your lifetime that wasn't full of campaigns full of misinformation or hell even an election where the candidate that won kept their word on everything they said.
My problem with this all is it feels just engineered and over reactionary.
Misinformation has existed as long as i've been alive in pretty easily accessible forms. There's always been tabloids next to checkout stands, there's always been bullshit news, ads pretending to be factual and mountains of garbage info heaped onto people and the same people that believed it then believe it now.
None of this is new and the only thing the internet changed about it all is now we can hear about whatever nonsense Joe Blow believes in.
I have a problem with it all because what people call 'misinformation' isn't always such, it's 'disagreeable information'.
Many of the things i've seen labelled as information.over the years, not your examples in particular, but in general, aren't even things with an objective correctness to them.
The whole second viewpoint relies on the idea that there is a morally superior group of people out there who know the correct ideas and everyone would just be better off if we just listen to them as any other ideas are just misinformation against the 'correct ideas'.
Again, this reminds me very much of the way things were when the church ran things. Just replace God and his commandments with the correct world view and beliefs.
This is very much the idea behind wrongthink and thoughtcrimes in 1984. That holding a non conforming belief makes one guilty and requires them to be punished by those that believe 'the correct thing'.
In the end, it all comes down to the idea that one group of people has the moral authority to decide what's right for everyone and should be allowed to crush any dissenting opinion.
And this, yes, I have a huge problem with. It's no different than what any other oppressive dictators have done to crush dissent.
So, what's different now vs when there was paid political campaigns and advertising on TV, radio, magazines etc.?
Partisan political ads have never been a source of reliable information as long as i've been alive.
I'm curious as to what elections you've participated in within your lifetime that wasn't full of campaigns full of misinformation or hell even an election where the candidate that won kept their word on everything they said.
My problem with this all is it feels just engineered and over reactionary.
Misinformation has existed as long as i've been alive in pretty easily accessible forms. There's always been tabloids next to checkout stands, there's always been bullshit news, ads pretending to be factual and mountains of garbage info heaped onto people and the same people that believed it then believe it now.
None of this is new and the only thing the internet changed about it all is now we can hear about whatever nonsense Joe Blow believes in.
I have a problem with it all because what people call 'misinformation' isn't always such, it's 'disagreeable information'.
Many of the things i've seen labelled as information.over the years, not your examples in particular, but in general, aren't even things with an objective correctness to them.
The whole second viewpoint relies on the idea that there is a morally superior group of people out there who know the correct ideas and everyone would just be better off if we just listen to them as any other ideas are just misinformation against the 'correct ideas'.
Again, this reminds me very much of the way things were when the church ran things. Just replace God and his commandments with the correct world view and beliefs.
This is very much the idea behind wrongthink and thoughtcrimes in 1984. That holding a non conforming belief makes one guilty and requires them to be punished by those that believe 'the correct thing'.
In the end, it all comes down to the idea that one group of people has the moral authority to decide what's right for everyone and should be allowed to crush any dissenting opinion.
And this, yes, I have a huge problem with. It's no different than what any other oppressive dictators have done to crush dissent.
Paid ads (including political ones) on TV are not allowed to make false statements. Networks have had that policy for a long time.
It's Facebook that is undermining that norm -- even though they have the same standard for ads from non-politicians.
There's a GOP pac head that is running for something just to dodge Facebook's policy about lying.
It's Facebook that is undermining that norm -- even though they have the same standard for ads from non-politicians.
There's a GOP pac head that is running for something just to dodge Facebook's policy about lying.
Are you being serious? I don't have and can't stand live tv anymore, but as little as 10 years back TV was rife with lying political ads.
It seems like making Facebook a government regulated public utility is the only way to square this circle. Because otherwise we either unjustly infringe on Mark Zuckerberg's use of his private property (Facebook); or Mark Zuckerberg is the de-facto arbiter of global public opinion for a broad swath of the population.
it's so refreshing reading your comment, I believe the same, looks like some people enjoy a hidden satisfaction doing that, on my opinion is the sensation of power to decide what's right or not (basically playing God)
and as we know power corrupts people.
I don't think it's "people these days;" I think it was the norm that has been disrupted by modern technology.
Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint.
Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time to plead their case?
The world of decentralized bidirectional near-lightspeed mass-communication, where there is often not a gatekeeper, is relatively new.
It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society. I would say there have been a lot of positive consequences. Negative consequences are also stacking up quickly.
Network broadcast television operates under standards and practices, where certain things are not allowed for broadcast. That includes the news---even news stories are subject to S&P constraint.
Does network broadcast television "police political opinion" if it doesn't give a pedophile a half-hour of air time to plead their case?
The world of decentralized bidirectional near-lightspeed mass-communication, where there is often not a gatekeeper, is relatively new.
It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society. I would say there have been a lot of positive consequences. Negative consequences are also stacking up quickly.
The problem is that facebook has partially replaced both broadcast television and private conversations people would have in person or on the phone.
Historically, nobody would batt and eye about a network policing the opinions represented in its programing. However, there would be uproar if a phone company controlled what was said in a call.
Facebook fills so many roles that a single solution does not exist.
Historically, nobody would batt and eye about a network policing the opinions represented in its programing. However, there would be uproar if a phone company controlled what was said in a call.
Facebook fills so many roles that a single solution does not exist.
Solutions exist, more likely Facebook is not interested in them, as it may affect their bottom line.
[deleted]
Very nuanced analysis! Fantastic.
In the past, the effects of freedom of speech were bounded by the cost of communication. Very few people could afford a soapbox with which to reach the world, so only certain messages were broadcast widely. Now everyone can send (and even amplify) messages quickly and easily.
Previously celebrities, politicians, the media, and advertisers had a wide channel. Now interest groups, state actors, echo chambers, and individuals with access to technology such as GPT-3 can do the same.
There's a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. We're now testing how humans respond to this deluge. It's fascinating (and somewhat worrying) to watch unfold.
My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want.
In the past, the effects of freedom of speech were bounded by the cost of communication. Very few people could afford a soapbox with which to reach the world, so only certain messages were broadcast widely. Now everyone can send (and even amplify) messages quickly and easily.
Previously celebrities, politicians, the media, and advertisers had a wide channel. Now interest groups, state actors, echo chambers, and individuals with access to technology such as GPT-3 can do the same.
There's a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. We're now testing how humans respond to this deluge. It's fascinating (and somewhat worrying) to watch unfold.
My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want.
I think it's worth noting that the wave of fascism that swept the world during the early 20th century coincided with radio and television being widely deployed.
This may be correlation that does not imply causation. But demagogues had, for the first time, a way to reach into people's homes directly with their messages all the time, if they had access to microphones, video cameras, and broadcast towers. And it was a mechanism that excluded the ability of any antithesis messages to reach people on those same channels (once the government had control of the channels). Mussolini and his ilk certainly knew how to take advantage of these tools.
This may be correlation that does not imply causation. But demagogues had, for the first time, a way to reach into people's homes directly with their messages all the time, if they had access to microphones, video cameras, and broadcast towers. And it was a mechanism that excluded the ability of any antithesis messages to reach people on those same channels (once the government had control of the channels). Mussolini and his ilk certainly knew how to take advantage of these tools.
Going further back, the Protestant Reformation was enabled by the spread of the printing press. In its wake, the 30 Years War. Upon utter exhaustion of the parties involved, the Peace of Westphalia set the stage for the modern nation states.
And an often passed over part of the Protestant Reformation is that it was fueled by rabid anti-Semitism and scapegoating. Martin Luther wrote a 65,000 word treatise called “On the Jews and their Lies” that’s widely considered to have been the basis for Nazi ideology:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemiti...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemiti...
I don't know why this is down voted, the link describes his later antisemitism in detail. Rabid is an apt descriptor.
> "I think it's worth noting that the wave of fascism that swept the world during the early 20th century coincided with radio and television being widely deployed."
Surely you mean both fascism and socialism?
Surely you mean both fascism and socialism?
That also correlates, agreed.
>My biggest fear is that state actors will inject information designed to polarize us, and that we'll respond exactly as they want.
Are you being facetious with this? This has been a long documented behavior of Russia. The future you fear is already here.
Are you being facetious with this? This has been a long documented behavior of Russia. The future you fear is already here.
Long-documented behavior of the US to other countries as well.
Most modern states with the necessary capabilities spread disinformation to other countries for their own political gain or the political gain of their allies, Russia is far from the only one.
Fair, but Russia is the most direct example of the specific fears mentioned in spreading disinformation with the goal of polarization as opposed to a different specific goal. When the US spreads propaganda in a foreign country, it is usually to get the people to align with US values as opposed to a goal of destabilization.
That’s deeply false. The US has engineered and provided support for coups around the world. Does that not count as destabilization?
>The US has engineered and provided support for coups around the world
With the goal of allies gaining power. That is fundamentally different than Russian's initial goal of simply knocking the US out of their superpower role by causing polarization, internal strife, loss of faith in institutions, and just general chaos. I think people associate Russian disinformation as purely a right wing phenomenon because that is where they have had more success, but there is plenty of Russian disinformation targeted at and supporting the left wing too.
With the goal of allies gaining power. That is fundamentally different than Russian's initial goal of simply knocking the US out of their superpower role by causing polarization, internal strife, loss of faith in institutions, and just general chaos. I think people associate Russian disinformation as purely a right wing phenomenon because that is where they have had more success, but there is plenty of Russian disinformation targeted at and supporting the left wing too.
> With the goal of allies gaining power. That is fundamentally different than Russian's initial goal of simply knocking the US out of their superpower role
Why do you think Russia is trying to knock the US out of its superpower of its superpower role? They’re not doing it just to be petty.
Why do you think Russia is trying to knock the US out of its superpower of its superpower role? They’re not doing it just to be petty.
Who said they were doing it to be petty? They are doing it because we have a hostile relationship, not because they want to eventually be allies.
There is a fundamental difference between let's interfere with this country to install a friendly government and let's interfere with this country so it rips itself apart.
There is a fundamental difference between let's interfere with this country to install a friendly government and let's interfere with this country so it rips itself apart.
I think there can be a difference in goals, but history strongly suggests no country has mastered the difference in outcomes, so regardless of which goal, attempts to do either should be held to the highest suspicion and probably censured by the international community.
America learned a bloody and horrible lesson trying to install a friendly government in Afghanistan after Russia diminished their influence in the region.
America learned a bloody and horrible lesson trying to install a friendly government in Afghanistan after Russia diminished their influence in the region.
Can you please explain the difference you’re talking about from the standpoint of a working class citizen of Iran in 1953 or of Chile in 1973?
The people of Iran and Chile were collateral damage of the US. Our government did not care one way or another about them.
The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm.
It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches and noting that the fears that initially sparked this tangent match up nearly perfectly with Russia's goals and actions.
The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm.
It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches and noting that the fears that initially sparked this tangent match up nearly perfectly with Russia's goals and actions.
I think the issue of political polarization is multifaceted, and social media and decentralized technological mediums are part of the cause.
Another one that may be worth mentioning is the elimination of the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. This doctrine used to hold news companies with a broadcast license to a certain standard which is now gone - effectively allowing them to report on things with whatever amount of slant and bias they choose.
> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
So effectively, we have echo chambers on TV and social media fed by algorithms and analytics, wherein people can participate to confirm their biases and preconceptions without having them challenged.
Another one that may be worth mentioning is the elimination of the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. This doctrine used to hold news companies with a broadcast license to a certain standard which is now gone - effectively allowing them to report on things with whatever amount of slant and bias they choose.
> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
So effectively, we have echo chambers on TV and social media fed by algorithms and analytics, wherein people can participate to confirm their biases and preconceptions without having them challenged.
> It's still an open question whether it's a net positive for society
Was TV a net positive for society? It's anybody's guess.
Was TV a net positive for society? It's anybody's guess.
Their entire existence is predicated on policing opinions for the highest bidder, or in a way that benefits the highest bidder. Should ethics and morality not be integrated into that model?
This is a strawman argument. No one cares about other people having and sharing different opinions. However the argument for moderating content on Facebook is centered around misinformation, and incitement of violence. There has now been multiple instances where right-wing populists have posted fake information on Facebook with political consequences. In Myanmar this incited in genocide[1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
This is a disingenuous argument that neglects to include the fact that 'misinformation' and 'violence' are stretched beyond the pale by ideologues in order to justify why something they disagree with politically should be removed on these platforms.
People certainly do falsely assert that things are more harmful than they are to justify taking them down. But it's not disingenuous to point out that there are many cases where disinformation really is deeply harmful (as in it results in death or bodily harm to many, many people).
people have been murdered because of misinformation on facebook: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
That's pretty unambiguous to me.
That's pretty unambiguous to me.
I still don't get it and I can't get away from 'printing press' analogies.
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" resulted in countless deaths but who owns that responsibly besides whoever wrote it, read it, and acted on the information within? You could blame it's publishers but that seems pretty off-track.
Also every company I've ever worked at has angry, self-righteous employees who disagree with upper management. We all think we're smarter than everyone else and most of us aren't afraid to share it.
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" resulted in countless deaths but who owns that responsibly besides whoever wrote it, read it, and acted on the information within? You could blame it's publishers but that seems pretty off-track.
Also every company I've ever worked at has angry, self-righteous employees who disagree with upper management. We all think we're smarter than everyone else and most of us aren't afraid to share it.
There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was republished by Henry Ford as part of a series of anti-semitic articles. The decision to publish them was immoral and is evidence of Ford's racism. I'm sure employers at the Economist would be angry if it started to run articles that would be a better fit for the National Enquirer.
Facebook is kind of different, it argues that it's a platform not a publisher. They do have some ground to argue for looser guidelines. But their business model targeting engagement incentivises them to promote divisive and false information. I'd be much more comfortable with Facebook if they didn't promote extreme and dangerous content. What those standards should be is a thorny issue, but better moderation would be an improvement.
Facebook is kind of different, it argues that it's a platform not a publisher. They do have some ground to argue for looser guidelines. But their business model targeting engagement incentivises them to promote divisive and false information. I'd be much more comfortable with Facebook if they didn't promote extreme and dangerous content. What those standards should be is a thorny issue, but better moderation would be an improvement.
> There should be standards, even if they aren't defined by law
I don't necessarily disagree and I'm sure there were plenty of reputable publishers who wouldn't touch the protocols.
But should the agency who did published it have been hauled up before a congressional investigating committee?
I don't necessarily disagree and I'm sure there were plenty of reputable publishers who wouldn't touch the protocols.
But should the agency who did published it have been hauled up before a congressional investigating committee?
I wouldn't expect much from a congressional hearing. Especially since it would start out extremely political. But Facebook should be questioned over things like how they handle things like health conspiracy theories and blatantly fake political conspiracies.
Hypothesize a machine that allows you to change people's emotions directly, one that has seen mass adoption. Sure, people opt-in to using it, but once plugged in, it works as advertised: send the right commands to it, and people's emotions shift.
You could do a lot of good with one of those! The ultimate anti-anxiety treatment, the ultimate in letting people become the cooler heads they need to be for good ideas to prevail in tense situations.
You could also hack into it with almost no effort and turn a whole city into a bad knock-off of Resident Evil; hit the neurons that rabies hits, get people tearing and biting at each other.
Should people be allowed to install it?
I think it's possible that books were a great idea and a machine like the one I described (without proper constraints to put control in the hands of the owner) would be a terrible idea. There's probably some technology along the line between these where we say "Whoa, wait. What this could achieve is grand, but the way it gets there is, uh-oh."
The more powerful a technology is, the more obligation it implies upon the people holding control over its implementation and execution to consider moral and philosophical concerns of its use.
You could do a lot of good with one of those! The ultimate anti-anxiety treatment, the ultimate in letting people become the cooler heads they need to be for good ideas to prevail in tense situations.
You could also hack into it with almost no effort and turn a whole city into a bad knock-off of Resident Evil; hit the neurons that rabies hits, get people tearing and biting at each other.
Should people be allowed to install it?
I think it's possible that books were a great idea and a machine like the one I described (without proper constraints to put control in the hands of the owner) would be a terrible idea. There's probably some technology along the line between these where we say "Whoa, wait. What this could achieve is grand, but the way it gets there is, uh-oh."
The more powerful a technology is, the more obligation it implies upon the people holding control over its implementation and execution to consider moral and philosophical concerns of its use.
> Hypothesize a machine that allows you to change people's emotions directly, one that has seen mass adoption.
There absolutely are such machines and we call them computers.
> Should people be allowed to install it?
Communication is the powerful 'technology' that changes people's emotions directly. The mode of communication is a side-note. Tear down FB and none of this goes away - not because something rises from FB's ashes but because communication is a central facet of humanity.
There absolutely are such machines and we call them computers.
> Should people be allowed to install it?
Communication is the powerful 'technology' that changes people's emotions directly. The mode of communication is a side-note. Tear down FB and none of this goes away - not because something rises from FB's ashes but because communication is a central facet of humanity.
Computers and face-to-face communication aren't quite there. I'm hypothesizing a machine that hits the emotional center with no intermediary. We don't have any technology in the real world that can do that yet (good art can approximate it, and good advertising can be very manipulative, but neither squirt neurotransmitters directly into your cerebral cortex of fire electrical impulses straight into your amygdala). This would be a technology that allowed you to set people's emotional states explicitly and willfully, without any intermediary of, for example, the personal experiences they're bringing to the table.
That is a much more interesting question than I originally thought!
You can plug into a happy room surrounded by your family and friends and it will be as though you are all together instead of thousands of miles apart. You can spend time with the children you miss, the grandchildren you hardly know, and it all comes for free.
You know that there will be commercials, of course, but that doesn't worry you too much. So what if every so often a handsome man comes in and tells you how delicious Coca Cola is? You've been around commercials before, you don't expect this time it will be much different.
But there are darker agencies at work. They suss out facts about your life, your joys, your fears, and they prey on them.
If you are a left-leaning person in a blue state they fill you with horror stories of religious fanatics who are determined to create a theocracy.
If you are a right-leaning person in a red state, they tell you of radicals who want to take away everything you've worked for and destroy everything you believe in.
It fits so neatly into what you already suspect that you never question it. Each new story becomes more and more outrageous, but you are a boiling frog at this point, you'll believe anything about 'the other side' no matter how outlandish.
So now you are a tool, a soldier, a person who can be manipulated in any way to support any cause as long as you believe that you are standing up to 'them'.
If it's not a PKD story, it should have been.
Should it be 'allowed'? I'll have to think on it.
You can plug into a happy room surrounded by your family and friends and it will be as though you are all together instead of thousands of miles apart. You can spend time with the children you miss, the grandchildren you hardly know, and it all comes for free.
You know that there will be commercials, of course, but that doesn't worry you too much. So what if every so often a handsome man comes in and tells you how delicious Coca Cola is? You've been around commercials before, you don't expect this time it will be much different.
But there are darker agencies at work. They suss out facts about your life, your joys, your fears, and they prey on them.
If you are a left-leaning person in a blue state they fill you with horror stories of religious fanatics who are determined to create a theocracy.
If you are a right-leaning person in a red state, they tell you of radicals who want to take away everything you've worked for and destroy everything you believe in.
It fits so neatly into what you already suspect that you never question it. Each new story becomes more and more outrageous, but you are a boiling frog at this point, you'll believe anything about 'the other side' no matter how outlandish.
So now you are a tool, a soldier, a person who can be manipulated in any way to support any cause as long as you believe that you are standing up to 'them'.
If it's not a PKD story, it should have been.
Should it be 'allowed'? I'll have to think on it.
As long as Facebook picks and chooses what content it displays on my feed, it is not at all inconsistent for it to pick and choose what content it will not display on my feed.
Facebook isn't a dumb pipe. If it feels like it can fiddle with my feed to maximize its profit, its perfectly reasonable for its employees to demand that it does so in an ethical way.
Your argument would work if it were a dumb pipe (Like my phone line is.)
Facebook isn't a dumb pipe. If it feels like it can fiddle with my feed to maximize its profit, its perfectly reasonable for its employees to demand that it does so in an ethical way.
Your argument would work if it were a dumb pipe (Like my phone line is.)
Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.
Sure, but then it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind Section 230.
For the 500 millionth time Section 230 does not say "censorship makes you a publisher". It says the exact opposite. An information service cannot be held liable for:
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
Translation: they can "censor" or moderate or remove spam to their heart's content, even beyond what's legally required.
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
Translation: they can "censor" or moderate or remove spam to their heart's content, even beyond what's legally required.
Then Section 230 needs to be revoked fully.
Be careful what you wish for.
Without the safe harbor, activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on religious or parenting forums or support groups for cancer, grief, PTSD, or addiction. Practically any Internet message board would become unusable.
Without the safe harbor, activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on religious or parenting forums or support groups for cancer, grief, PTSD, or addiction. Practically any Internet message board would become unusable.
You completely missed the point of GP's comment. They never said Facebook can't do whatever they want. Just that Facebook employees shouldn't feel like they get a say in it.
edit: btw I'm not saying it is GP's opinion that Facebook can do whatever they want. I have no idea what GP thinks about that. I'm only saying their argument wasn't specifically about that.
edit: btw I'm not saying it is GP's opinion that Facebook can do whatever they want. I have no idea what GP thinks about that. I'm only saying their argument wasn't specifically about that.
Why shouldn't employees get a say in the actions of their employers?
Management definitely gets a say in the actions of the company. So why not other employees, too?
In my conversations, such employees don't believe they have the right, they believe their political positions are objectively morally superior and hold an 'ends justifies the means' opinion on influence.
supercanuck(1)
Very true. Their positions are so righteous and so moral that the 46%-ish population of the US are deplorables, evil, far right, racists, xenophobia, being violent by being silent, or white supremacists.
What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any improper editorial decisions that they make in the same way that a newspaper would be via civil suit.
> if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform.
This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for:
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish.
BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.
This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for:
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish.
BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.
They're already acting as editors thanks to the algorithmic feed. Thus people are trying to hold them accountable for any improper editorial decisions.
The simple solution would be to stop recommending posts - either from within our social circle, or from people and organizations we aren't affiliated with.
At that point, whatever damage is being done won't be undone, but facebook can genuinely say it is not maintinaing editorial control.
But, they won't do that, because their business model is based on editorial control. There's no way around their culpability.
At that point, whatever damage is being done won't be undone, but facebook can genuinely say it is not maintinaing editorial control.
But, they won't do that, because their business model is based on editorial control. There's no way around their culpability.
What do you mean by "improper editorial decisions?"
It's their platform, they can remove or restrict what people post in any way they want. If you don't like it you don't have to use it.
Every platform "polices" content. If they didn't every site would be 80%+ spam and full of porn and hate.
It's their platform, they can remove or restrict what people post in any way they want. If you don't like it you don't have to use it.
Every platform "polices" content. If they didn't every site would be 80%+ spam and full of porn and hate.
[deleted]
Some opinions are toxic due to their memetic power, their ability to rapidly spread amongst a population whilst evading critical reflection.
We're a global species. Technology made us become larger than the sum of our parts. It is our moral duty to police those opinions that are so polarizing, or so devoid of empathy, that they do harm.
"Policing" can be milder than all out censorship. Personalized feed algorithms can push us into filter bubbles, there's no reason why they can't police toxic views by injecting counter arguments or labeling (not censoring) rampant misinformation as such
We're a global species. Technology made us become larger than the sum of our parts. It is our moral duty to police those opinions that are so polarizing, or so devoid of empathy, that they do harm.
"Policing" can be milder than all out censorship. Personalized feed algorithms can push us into filter bubbles, there's no reason why they can't police toxic views by injecting counter arguments or labeling (not censoring) rampant misinformation as such
You're actually advocating for censorship on a global scale. We've truly regressed.
Uh no. Changing the algorithms to not push you into filter bubbles isn’t censorship.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Downvoters: please explain why censorship would be identical to moving feeds away from filter bubbles.
Downvoters: please explain why censorship would be identical to moving feeds away from filter bubbles.
[deleted]
> our moral duty
Yes, but NOT by censorship, but with counterfactuals! And certainly not by a gigantic megacorporation like Facebook.
They are not the arbiters of speech and quite frankly it's too much to ask of them. And imo, anyone who is happy to be an arbiter of speech is somebody you should be very, very afraid of.
Yes, but NOT by censorship, but with counterfactuals! And certainly not by a gigantic megacorporation like Facebook.
They are not the arbiters of speech and quite frankly it's too much to ask of them. And imo, anyone who is happy to be an arbiter of speech is somebody you should be very, very afraid of.
I think the question isn't about "can or can't" but about "should or shouldn't."
In my opinion, 24-year-old Stanford grads getting paid upwards of six figures directly out of college should not have any say in what people are or are not privy to seeing, hearing, or reading.
You mention it is "our" moral duty - who is the "our" here?
In my opinion, 24-year-old Stanford grads getting paid upwards of six figures directly out of college should not have any say in what people are or are not privy to seeing, hearing, or reading.
You mention it is "our" moral duty - who is the "our" here?
They are already deciding what appears on your feed via their recommendation algorithms. The question is if the algorithm they currently use could be "better" and what that would mean. Tweaking it to expose fewer people to ideas of white supremacy should be a no-brainer, but because there isn't a single person to point at who is "responsible" we argue in circles.
> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway.
Not only that, but they seem to be responsible for policing political opinions in the US alone.
Also, I never told them what citizenship I have in the process of creating my account. Why do I get so many US election reminders on Facebook but not election reminders for the 97 other democracies in the world?
Not only that, but they seem to be responsible for policing political opinions in the US alone.
Also, I never told them what citizenship I have in the process of creating my account. Why do I get so many US election reminders on Facebook but not election reminders for the 97 other democracies in the world?
> people in general these days
Wait till you read some 19th century US history, you're in for a treat
Wait till you read some 19th century US history, you're in for a treat
> Actually, just people in general these days
This is how people almost always behaved. In the Middle Ages the term "heresy" was used, today only slogans have changed, the social mechanisms are the same. Of course there is a group of opportunists, but there is also a large group that really believes their ideology (it used to be some religion) will do good.
This is how people almost always behaved. In the Middle Ages the term "heresy" was used, today only slogans have changed, the social mechanisms are the same. Of course there is a group of opportunists, but there is also a large group that really believes their ideology (it used to be some religion) will do good.
Because it's their platform not "ours", if you decided to start Twatbook for instance you could decide what was acceptable to post on your platform.
It's worth considering:
1) A distinction between 'opinions' 'facts' and 'hate speech'.
and 2) Media is an existential power, almost like a wing of government. If you control the media, you can control a nation. Which is why authoritarian states take a very active role.
FB and others already do have policies against very aggressive speech, for example, if you start calling people the 'N-word' - you'll get banned.
But where 1 and 2 collide is on the issue of factuality.
Take the pandemic: it would be quite easy for 'big name politicians' and others to outright lie about the nature of COVID. These lies perpetuate into behaviours and outcomes which are very bad for everyone.
I'm not sure if the statement 'COVID doesn't kill anyone' is much of an opinion, more or less statement of fact. (Edit: which is wrong of course, I hope that is obvious)
When you take this information and push it into the political arena, where facts are harder to discern ... it becomes a problem.
This ultimately is the crux of the issue.
We have no choice but to 'call out bad information' or it will hurt us severely. We did this traditionally by forcing some kind of consent and responsibility with the major news outlets - they were 'free' but responsibly managed.
Press owners, are kind of 'part of the elite' - they have a kind of status of responsibility.
Once there's no control, you have 'Democracy by TikTok' and it's not good.
It's an issue we have to deal with.
1) A distinction between 'opinions' 'facts' and 'hate speech'.
and 2) Media is an existential power, almost like a wing of government. If you control the media, you can control a nation. Which is why authoritarian states take a very active role.
FB and others already do have policies against very aggressive speech, for example, if you start calling people the 'N-word' - you'll get banned.
But where 1 and 2 collide is on the issue of factuality.
Take the pandemic: it would be quite easy for 'big name politicians' and others to outright lie about the nature of COVID. These lies perpetuate into behaviours and outcomes which are very bad for everyone.
I'm not sure if the statement 'COVID doesn't kill anyone' is much of an opinion, more or less statement of fact. (Edit: which is wrong of course, I hope that is obvious)
When you take this information and push it into the political arena, where facts are harder to discern ... it becomes a problem.
This ultimately is the crux of the issue.
We have no choice but to 'call out bad information' or it will hurt us severely. We did this traditionally by forcing some kind of consent and responsibility with the major news outlets - they were 'free' but responsibly managed.
Press owners, are kind of 'part of the elite' - they have a kind of status of responsibility.
Once there's no control, you have 'Democracy by TikTok' and it's not good.
It's an issue we have to deal with.
> I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway.
There's tons of software engineers, product designers, etc. on an ideological bent. If companies like Facebook and Netflix hire these types of people, even if they think they're on the same side, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees begin making collective demands.
> I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others?
Intellectual types tend towards seeing every issue in life as an engineering problem that can be solved with code or mathematics, so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them and appeals to their ego sense that their intelligence gives them. It's just more apparent than ever because our environment rewards the ego in ways we didn't see even 5 years ago. We haven't even reached peak ego yet.
There's tons of software engineers, product designers, etc. on an ideological bent. If companies like Facebook and Netflix hire these types of people, even if they think they're on the same side, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees begin making collective demands.
> I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others?
Intellectual types tend towards seeing every issue in life as an engineering problem that can be solved with code or mathematics, so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them and appeals to their ego sense that their intelligence gives them. It's just more apparent than ever because our environment rewards the ego in ways we didn't see even 5 years ago. We haven't even reached peak ego yet.
>so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them
This is another concept that confuses me 'dangerous ideas'. How is that different than what the church did with things like witchcraft and paganism, those were 'dangerous ideas'.
What makes an idea dangerous?
If there's dangerous ideas are there safe ideas?
What makes an idea safe?
Can you give me and example of a safe idea vs a dangerous idea?
Who decides which ideas are safe and which ones are dangerous?
Is this a static thing? Like once an idea is declared either safe or dangerous, do they stay that way or can a safe idea become a dangerous idea or vice versa?
That's not even beginning to get into the definition of 'dangerous'.
It seems like a pretty vague and arbitrary term to me. Say for example, if I decided to go free climbing, I'd be in a lot of danger. I have no experience, for me that would be a dangerous thing to do. But, for my Buddy who's been climbing most of their life, it's not so dangerous.
So can one build up skills that let them deal with these dangerous ideas effectively, such as with other dangerous things or is the danger of ideas just beyond anyone to deal with?
Is there some kind of elite group of people who can handle these dangerous ideas that us normal folks can't?
I hope you see where i'm going with all this.
This is another concept that confuses me 'dangerous ideas'. How is that different than what the church did with things like witchcraft and paganism, those were 'dangerous ideas'.
What makes an idea dangerous?
If there's dangerous ideas are there safe ideas?
What makes an idea safe?
Can you give me and example of a safe idea vs a dangerous idea?
Who decides which ideas are safe and which ones are dangerous?
Is this a static thing? Like once an idea is declared either safe or dangerous, do they stay that way or can a safe idea become a dangerous idea or vice versa?
That's not even beginning to get into the definition of 'dangerous'.
It seems like a pretty vague and arbitrary term to me. Say for example, if I decided to go free climbing, I'd be in a lot of danger. I have no experience, for me that would be a dangerous thing to do. But, for my Buddy who's been climbing most of their life, it's not so dangerous.
So can one build up skills that let them deal with these dangerous ideas effectively, such as with other dangerous things or is the danger of ideas just beyond anyone to deal with?
Is there some kind of elite group of people who can handle these dangerous ideas that us normal folks can't?
I hope you see where i'm going with all this.
You start out "what is with people these days" and then you end up "oh hey people have been doing this forever, with heresy and religion and so on" so... no, I don't see where you're going with this.
Are you surprised that arguments about which messages get amplified and which do not happen? That they happened historically and that they happen now? That Facebook (and other pieces of modern technology) have reinvigorated this discussion because they change the economics and effort and reach of people's actions?
One difference today is that we're having much more of this with just words in the private space and fewer legal or governmental ramifications... you could've gotten in a lot of official, thrown-in-jail-or-killed trouble for having the wrong ideas in the past!
Could you stop speaking in "what even is a dangerous idea" questions and put forth your own arguments? What do you picture your ideal world looking like, in terms of person A thinking one thing, person B thinking another, and person A's actions after person B starts trying to convince persons C, D, E... to take up certain positions... Let's use one of the "obvious" historical examples of a dangerous idea: "people like this are evil and we must kill them."
Are you surprised that arguments about which messages get amplified and which do not happen? That they happened historically and that they happen now? That Facebook (and other pieces of modern technology) have reinvigorated this discussion because they change the economics and effort and reach of people's actions?
One difference today is that we're having much more of this with just words in the private space and fewer legal or governmental ramifications... you could've gotten in a lot of official, thrown-in-jail-or-killed trouble for having the wrong ideas in the past!
Could you stop speaking in "what even is a dangerous idea" questions and put forth your own arguments? What do you picture your ideal world looking like, in terms of person A thinking one thing, person B thinking another, and person A's actions after person B starts trying to convince persons C, D, E... to take up certain positions... Let's use one of the "obvious" historical examples of a dangerous idea: "people like this are evil and we must kill them."
I'm gonna respond to this comment, but this is also to bleach drinking commenter and Nazi commenter. What all of you describe are actions. Each of these arguments are the same argument, someone did something bad because ideas, therefore the ideas that led to those actions are dangerous.
Each of these arguments presumes that if somehow, you'd managed to control the ideas of these people, then just maybe those terrible things wouldn't have happened.
The kinds of people that let ideas sway them into terrible actions aren't going to suddenly not find an excuse to do terrible things, they'll just look for another idea that justifies it.
You can't police ideas based on the worries of bad things happening because ideas exist.
People do shitty things and justify it with whatever excuses they want, trying to remove an idea is a pointless gesture and in the end impedes on the freedom of all because, something bad might happen if the wrong person hears the wrong idea.
And again comes down to:
'There's a moral authority that knows best and the rest of humanity is too irrational to be left to their own devices, therefore the moral authority must control the beliefs and ideas of the rest'
Each of these arguments presumes that if somehow, you'd managed to control the ideas of these people, then just maybe those terrible things wouldn't have happened.
The kinds of people that let ideas sway them into terrible actions aren't going to suddenly not find an excuse to do terrible things, they'll just look for another idea that justifies it.
You can't police ideas based on the worries of bad things happening because ideas exist.
People do shitty things and justify it with whatever excuses they want, trying to remove an idea is a pointless gesture and in the end impedes on the freedom of all because, something bad might happen if the wrong person hears the wrong idea.
And again comes down to:
'There's a moral authority that knows best and the rest of humanity is too irrational to be left to their own devices, therefore the moral authority must control the beliefs and ideas of the rest'
> What makes an idea dangerous?
People are drinking bleach because they read on Facebook it will cure COVID-19 or their child's autism. Should Facebook delete those posts? Add an official warning disclaimer (counter-information)? Depend on other users to reply with counter-information in comments?
People are drinking bleach because they read on Facebook it will cure COVID-19 or their child's autism. Should Facebook delete those posts? Add an official warning disclaimer (counter-information)? Depend on other users to reply with counter-information in comments?
I don't have the time to get into the nuts and bolts of an argument, but just from a personal emotional opinion, fascism is a dangerous idea because it led to the genocide of my people, anti-semitism in general has led to even more genocide of my people over millenia and continues to be a significant lingering threat to myself and family. Id consider these dangerous ideas, but I'm not sure id they should be outright banned, but maybe not treated equally to less dangerous ideas like excersize and drinking water. I do think that can be handled at the social level without laws, and I think that a company has the right to decide amongst itself, how it wants to place itself in society.
Certain ideas that its morally right to eliminate some people who happened to be born a certain way seems to me to fall into that category of dangerous ideas, primary because it offers no appeal, no rectification, you cant convert/repent your way out of death.
Certain ideas that its morally right to eliminate some people who happened to be born a certain way seems to me to fall into that category of dangerous ideas, primary because it offers no appeal, no rectification, you cant convert/repent your way out of death.
Right doesn't just magically exist, every right has to be fight for. These facebook employees are fighting for the right to censor thing their disagree with.
Sure, some people may disagree. If you disagree then you have to to fight it back.
Sure, some people may disagree. If you disagree then you have to to fight it back.
This, rather incorrectly, presumes that the default mode of Facebook is "non-censorship," i.e. something resembling fairness in terms of what gets popular and what doesn't.
This is a huge farce, of course, it's all completely unfair pay to play and black-box algorithms.
Now, I could be wrong about this -- but it would be incumbent UPON THEM to prove that, by opening up and showing us how they do things. Barring that, I very much welcome insiders in Facebook applying pressure.
This is a huge farce, of course, it's all completely unfair pay to play and black-box algorithms.
Now, I could be wrong about this -- but it would be incumbent UPON THEM to prove that, by opening up and showing us how they do things. Barring that, I very much welcome insiders in Facebook applying pressure.
This is the way I see it. Ever since Facebook started "optimizing" the timeline order they have been showing you a distorted picture of the world. Honestly it would probably be enough to default everyone back to a world where nobody gets preferential treatment on your feed and everything is chronological.
I don't get it either. I think Zuckerberg is doing the right thing by refusing to cave. I also agree with you that he already gave up far too much by agreeing to "fact check" content in the first place.
> Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others...
Only a small number of people, who we used to call liberals, ever believed this.
Isiah Berlin:
> It may be that the ideal of freedom to choose ends without claiming eternal validity for them, and the pluralism of values connected with this, is only the late fruit of our declining capitalist civilisation: an ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognised, and one which posterity will regard with curiosity, even sympathy, but little comprehension. This may be so; but no sceptical conclusions seem to me to follow. Principles are not less sacred because their duration cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, the very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. ‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’ To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity.
I hope we swing back the other way but it's worrying that so many people no longer see the value in pluralism of thought.
> Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others...
Only a small number of people, who we used to call liberals, ever believed this.
Isiah Berlin:
> It may be that the ideal of freedom to choose ends without claiming eternal validity for them, and the pluralism of values connected with this, is only the late fruit of our declining capitalist civilisation: an ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognised, and one which posterity will regard with curiosity, even sympathy, but little comprehension. This may be so; but no sceptical conclusions seem to me to follow. Principles are not less sacred because their duration cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, the very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. ‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’ To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity.
I hope we swing back the other way but it's worrying that so many people no longer see the value in pluralism of thought.
> What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others?
This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit?
> believe it's their right to enforce their views
IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl".
Like, Manifest Destiny was literally this backed up with guns. Jim Crow was this backed up by laws. McCarthyism was this by congressional committee.
What's novel here isn't enforcing views on others.
This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit?
> believe it's their right to enforce their views
IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl".
Like, Manifest Destiny was literally this backed up with guns. Jim Crow was this backed up by laws. McCarthyism was this by congressional committee.
What's novel here isn't enforcing views on others.
> "goes for masks as well as ideas"
Since physical actions don't equal thoughts/opinions, well, clearly no.
> "since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am""
Except they flipped right around and started telling other people in the center and right who they are, at full volume. Hard to blame people for not taking them seriously.
Since physical actions don't equal thoughts/opinions, well, clearly no.
> "since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am""
Except they flipped right around and started telling other people in the center and right who they are, at full volume. Hard to blame people for not taking them seriously.
> physical
As a friend says, "genocide is not an opinion". IMO it's clear one should police speech advocating for it; between here and there is a gray zone.
IMO that gray zone looks awfully similar (although def not to the same severity on the far side) to the one between here and "I have COVID and will not wear a mask."
> flip
Aye. Appearances (and recent events) aside, the "right" does not have monopoly on hypocrisy.
As a friend says, "genocide is not an opinion". IMO it's clear one should police speech advocating for it; between here and there is a gray zone.
IMO that gray zone looks awfully similar (although def not to the same severity on the far side) to the one between here and "I have COVID and will not wear a mask."
> flip
Aye. Appearances (and recent events) aside, the "right" does not have monopoly on hypocrisy.
Do you not believe in content moderation? When someone posts spam, or a virus, should it not be removed? If it should be, what about propaganda? What about dangerous disinformation?
> In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period.
Of course they have the right to. Any website can make whatever rules they want about what's allowed. HN has rules too.
Of course they have the right to. Any website can make whatever rules they want about what's allowed. HN has rules too.
Just joined FB and I can tell you that the company is a microcosm of what's happening in the larger U.S. right now but amplified by a very vocal majority that is hell bent on having Zuckerberg clamp down on every single item/topic they don't agree with. Other than that the company is awesome :-)
Yes, it's the new fad in US IT. Privileged workers making more than 100K a year demand they have a say in what their employer can or cannot publish. Same thing happened at Kickstarter, and is happening at Spotify regarding Joe Rogan's podcast. Employees demand having a say in the editorial policies of these websites and the power to interfere with contracts. I guess they tried that at Amazon too, but Bezos didn't fold and fired a few of them. I am all for collective bargaining and unions, but this has absolutely nothing to do with working conditions. These employees just want to use these platforms as their own propaganda outlets (and yes, it is a slippery slope).
I think it's very much agreed upon that we shouldn't market cigarettes/liquor/drugs to children since they're vulnerable. Apparently, we have a country full of adults who are unable to tell fact from fiction - shouldn't we protect them as well?
I don't like being so hell-bent on ideologies either, but if I understand it correctly, a company has every right to be politically biased and therefore can moderate the hell out of its users' content? To be fair, of course, such moderation is really editorialization, right? If so, the companies should get less protection from Section 230, and people should be able to sue the companies left and right as well.
edit: s/censor/moderate
edit: s/censor/moderate
What's worse is that a lot of these people are terribly hypocritical and I don't think they realize it.
Censorship bad for this issue. Censorship good for what I don't agree with.
Discrimination bad in this case. Discrimination good for the sake of diversity!
Racism bad. But wait, positive racism is totally different and good!
Diversity is what we want! Except when it results in things I disagree with.
Censorship bad for this issue. Censorship good for what I don't agree with.
Discrimination bad in this case. Discrimination good for the sake of diversity!
Racism bad. But wait, positive racism is totally different and good!
Diversity is what we want! Except when it results in things I disagree with.
I think Facebook has created this problem for itself in a lot of ways. They're dependent on a two generations of people who are trending populist (in either a liberal or conservative direction), and thus they're going to feel more empowered to organize in the workplace to effect political change.
Facebook has also lobbied super hard to maintain their status as the private regulators of two extremely large social media platforms and a social messaging platform, representing a substantial percentage of the US and global population.
Facebook has also insisted that it is a public square and platform for free speech, but Groups, algorithmic content, and an extremely successful paid advertising model have made that claim specious at best. In the public square, everyone gets to shout equally - sure some will have a slightly larger crowd, but it will be difficult to monopolize the attention of the entire square. Facebook's model necessarily advantages some speech over others, and can be influenced by money both directly and indirectly.
I agree everyone should have the right to their opinion, and no one should be able to enforce their opinion on another at the barrel end of a gun. Facebook has created a position where they (1) have the right, as a private company to censor their users; (2) as a "public square" (if you subscribe to that) they have a moral obligation not to censor their users; (3) a business model that benefits from promoting some speech over another; and (4) employees who can see the effect of this model, and disagree with it morally, socially, etc., and have no other means of redress.
Facebook has also lobbied super hard to maintain their status as the private regulators of two extremely large social media platforms and a social messaging platform, representing a substantial percentage of the US and global population.
Facebook has also insisted that it is a public square and platform for free speech, but Groups, algorithmic content, and an extremely successful paid advertising model have made that claim specious at best. In the public square, everyone gets to shout equally - sure some will have a slightly larger crowd, but it will be difficult to monopolize the attention of the entire square. Facebook's model necessarily advantages some speech over others, and can be influenced by money both directly and indirectly.
I agree everyone should have the right to their opinion, and no one should be able to enforce their opinion on another at the barrel end of a gun. Facebook has created a position where they (1) have the right, as a private company to censor their users; (2) as a "public square" (if you subscribe to that) they have a moral obligation not to censor their users; (3) a business model that benefits from promoting some speech over another; and (4) employees who can see the effect of this model, and disagree with it morally, socially, etc., and have no other means of redress.
> why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period
Two things about this: 1. When FB Answers was a thing. I was very quickly banned from it, through various obscure mechanisms. All I was doing was gently being a contrarian on newsworth/fad topics. Partly contrarian because I was read up on a lot of scientific literature and other times, I just had different opinions than the 'popular' one. There is a culture of control there, full stop. Especially when your valid and potentially correct opinion goes against FB employee. I knew immediately than FB Answers wasn't going to succeed because they wouldn't allow a plurality of perspectives. 2. Let's be fully clear about this. This is entirely Zuck's decision. He runs a tight ship with clear guidelines. Zuck is playing politics right now, full stop. Saying one thing publicly and saying another privately. This 'leaked' memo isn't something that Zuck had no idea that it would be leaked. It's calculated. It's a public statement. How enforced will this leaked memo be? Will that be leaked? Doubtful. Zuck is trying to skirt responsibility with this 1st amendment problem. If FB really allowed dissent then Alex Jones and others would be allowed on the platform.*
*I do think the worst ideas need to be allowed on a platform. It allows the possibility to discussions. There are cults around various topics but...that doesn't mean that those with scientific understanding have perfect rhetoric about everything they say. Everyone needs to refine and it's best done with allowing everyone to the table.
Two things about this: 1. When FB Answers was a thing. I was very quickly banned from it, through various obscure mechanisms. All I was doing was gently being a contrarian on newsworth/fad topics. Partly contrarian because I was read up on a lot of scientific literature and other times, I just had different opinions than the 'popular' one. There is a culture of control there, full stop. Especially when your valid and potentially correct opinion goes against FB employee. I knew immediately than FB Answers wasn't going to succeed because they wouldn't allow a plurality of perspectives. 2. Let's be fully clear about this. This is entirely Zuck's decision. He runs a tight ship with clear guidelines. Zuck is playing politics right now, full stop. Saying one thing publicly and saying another privately. This 'leaked' memo isn't something that Zuck had no idea that it would be leaked. It's calculated. It's a public statement. How enforced will this leaked memo be? Will that be leaked? Doubtful. Zuck is trying to skirt responsibility with this 1st amendment problem. If FB really allowed dissent then Alex Jones and others would be allowed on the platform.*
*I do think the worst ideas need to be allowed on a platform. It allows the possibility to discussions. There are cults around various topics but...that doesn't mean that those with scientific understanding have perfect rhetoric about everything they say. Everyone needs to refine and it's best done with allowing everyone to the table.
> "The community we serve tends to be, on average, ideologically a little bit more conservative than our employee base."
If I had to pick one sentence of the article which sums up the entire issue it would be this one.
If I had to pick one sentence of the article which sums up the entire issue it would be this one.
Although a follow up would be the comforting level of maturity in Facebook's leadership, acknowledging that it isn't their role to bring politics into the workplace.
It is distressingly refreshing to see a company in the news for taking a stance like "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]". It really is remarkable that Zuckerberg is in a position to have to defend that. From company employees of all people.
It is distressingly refreshing to see a company in the news for taking a stance like "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]". It really is remarkable that Zuckerberg is in a position to have to defend that. From company employees of all people.
Yes and no. There are lines that can be crossed and defending a line-crosser is political.
This isn’t really a new line of thinking for Zuck, he has had to defend boards stacked with far more right members than typical in the valley for a long time. Peter Theil comes to mind along with their news chief from Bribart.
This isn’t really a new line of thinking for Zuck, he has had to defend boards stacked with far more right members than typical in the valley for a long time. Peter Theil comes to mind along with their news chief from Bribart.
Nothing remarkable in a company that makes lawnmowers.
Facebook is a company that uses its power to change what people think because so many view it as a source of truth. Doing it for money, or doing it for power, is essentially the same thing. If you are in position to manipulate the truth for benefits to you or your friends in high places you will, and he is.
If I worked at Facebook and felt the CEO was twisting truth for money, I'd leave, but the bribe to work there is so high.
If Zuckerberg truly was not a dictator wannabe, he'd give up voting control of the company, but of course he won't.
Facebook is a company that uses its power to change what people think because so many view it as a source of truth. Doing it for money, or doing it for power, is essentially the same thing. If you are in position to manipulate the truth for benefits to you or your friends in high places you will, and he is.
If I worked at Facebook and felt the CEO was twisting truth for money, I'd leave, but the bribe to work there is so high.
If Zuckerberg truly was not a dictator wannabe, he'd give up voting control of the company, but of course he won't.
> Facebook is a company that uses its power to change what people think
I don't think that's a helpful way to look at it. Facebook is a platform that other people use to change what people think, and that's dangerous enough. Without any ill intent whatsoever from Facebook itself, that still creates serious issues with unintentional bias (e.g. via algorithms trained with poor data sets) and manipulation. Those are the problems we most need to address, because the number and power of people trying to manipulate Facebook from outside totally dwarfs the ability of anyone inside - including Mark - to do so even if they all wanted to. Framing it as "Facebook and all of its employees are evil" doesn't solve anything, and wouldn't even if it was true.
I don't think that's a helpful way to look at it. Facebook is a platform that other people use to change what people think, and that's dangerous enough. Without any ill intent whatsoever from Facebook itself, that still creates serious issues with unintentional bias (e.g. via algorithms trained with poor data sets) and manipulation. Those are the problems we most need to address, because the number and power of people trying to manipulate Facebook from outside totally dwarfs the ability of anyone inside - including Mark - to do so even if they all wanted to. Framing it as "Facebook and all of its employees are evil" doesn't solve anything, and wouldn't even if it was true.
Except that Facebook's algorithms (like YouTube's, and I'm sure others as well) push people towards groups and sources with "high engagement", which often tend to be conspiracy theories and hate groups.
It's not that their algorithms are trained with poor data sets; it's that they're trained with good data sets, and those data sets show that this right-wing, radicalizing content has huge engagement numbers. Thus, since engagement and time-on-site are surely key KPIs for Facebook, promoting those groups exactly fits with Facebook's stated business goals.
Facebook needs to be political, because they're destroying society and democracy for profit; in the early days they could have been forgiven for not realizing this, but in the last five years I think it's become incredibly obvious that it's happening, and Zuck is doing everything he can to shirk the responsibility of not screwing everything up for everyone.
It's not that their algorithms are trained with poor data sets; it's that they're trained with good data sets, and those data sets show that this right-wing, radicalizing content has huge engagement numbers. Thus, since engagement and time-on-site are surely key KPIs for Facebook, promoting those groups exactly fits with Facebook's stated business goals.
Facebook needs to be political, because they're destroying society and democracy for profit; in the early days they could have been forgiven for not realizing this, but in the last five years I think it's become incredibly obvious that it's happening, and Zuck is doing everything he can to shirk the responsibility of not screwing everything up for everyone.
While other people post content, what content is nudged higher up your feed aor further down the list is definitely in Facebook’s control. They are driving public opinion based on what is promoted or demoted. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Zuck personally decides which posts are promoted, esp. when they come from important people. It’s too much power to just give up to others, and Facebook has never had noble intentions.
This cannot be under-emphasized.
Facebook isn't a neutral medium. There's an algorithm that determines priority for data hitting every user's feed.
Facebook isn't a neutral medium. There's an algorithm that determines priority for data hitting every user's feed.
> I don't think that's a helpful way to look at it. Facebook is a platform that other people use to change what people think, and that's dangerous enough.
I'm not sure there is a distinction. Intent doesn't matter. If your system is used by other people do X, then you are building a system that does X. The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does [1]. You can't just wipe your hands and say "hey it's just a platform, it's really other people doing this stuff!" Knowing what their system does, they wake up every day and with intent say "We are going to continue with this system".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
I'm not sure there is a distinction. Intent doesn't matter. If your system is used by other people do X, then you are building a system that does X. The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does [1]. You can't just wipe your hands and say "hey it's just a platform, it's really other people doing this stuff!" Knowing what their system does, they wake up every day and with intent say "We are going to continue with this system".
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
I'm not washing my hands of anything. I'm not denying there is a problem. I'm trying to identify the nature of the problem, because that's important to finding solutions.
> Knowing what their system does, they wake up every day and with intent say "We are going to continue with this system".
No. They don't. Please don't pretend to read others' minds. There are a lot of people at Facebook who are trying to improve these things, but it's a very complex problem and a very complex system. There's lots of disagreement about what the solutions are, or even which direction represents improvement. And mindless bashing just doesn't help. If your only answer is that Facebook should die, then you might as well just be going "bla bla bla" because that doesn't move the needle at all.
> Knowing what their system does, they wake up every day and with intent say "We are going to continue with this system".
No. They don't. Please don't pretend to read others' minds. There are a lot of people at Facebook who are trying to improve these things, but it's a very complex problem and a very complex system. There's lots of disagreement about what the solutions are, or even which direction represents improvement. And mindless bashing just doesn't help. If your only answer is that Facebook should die, then you might as well just be going "bla bla bla" because that doesn't move the needle at all.
You might notice I'm not bashing and haven't made a moral "should or shouldnt" argument. I'm simply saying that complex system is what it does, regardless of the intent of the people building it. You can't disentangle Facebook the platform from what its users use it for. It's all one system that does X. If Facebook the company is trying to change that X to something better, they should be supported.
Are you arguing that Facebook should be a website where people don't try to change each other's minds about things? It is absurd that on a website devoted exclusively to commenting on links there are people seriously arguing that people changing each other's minds via debate and links is dangerous.
No, I'm not saying should or shouldn't. I am narrowly pushing back on OP that what Facebook is cannot be disentangled from what its end users do. If we agree Facebook's users collectively do X, then we must agree that the purpose of Facebook The System is to do X. I'll let other people discuss whether that X is good or bad.
You're "narrowly pushing back" on a point I never made. I never made any claims about purpose.
[deleted]
Doesn't Mark Zuckerberg have the final say on what Facebook algorithms show people?
Not really. Even the people who train the models and code the algorithms don't have a lot of control over how they respond to ever-changing inputs - and that's kind of the real problem IMO. There was a recent thing on Twitter, where someone discovered that it would consistently generate thumbnails focused on white faces when both white and black faces were present. At a gross level this is clearly because of inadequacies in how that algorithm worked, but literally nobody could say exactly what was wrong or how to fix it (especially without introducing new kinds of bias). Facebook has the same kind of problem, at approximately 10x Twitter's scale.
It's a machine that nobody knows how it works now, and therefore nobody knows how to fix it. Mark can influence it in very vague and general kind of ways, I suppose, but there is no fine control and often these gross adjustments bring their own unintended consequences.
It's a machine that nobody knows how it works now, and therefore nobody knows how to fix it. Mark can influence it in very vague and general kind of ways, I suppose, but there is no fine control and often these gross adjustments bring their own unintended consequences.
If we don't understand how something works and it seems to be causing negative effects perhaps we shouldn't be using said algorithms in the largest social network.
It causes positive effects in the form of higher profits for the company.
I'm not actually going to disagree with that. It's a perfectly valid point of view. However, I will also add this thought, which I also expressed internally.
Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a lesson Google learned with SEO long ago. Passivity is not the same as neutrality, and insisting on one often makes the other impossible.
That's not meant as a refutation of your point, but perhaps it's worth some time to think about how a "no algorithm" version of Facebook would actually play out. Here's your starting point: Twitter but 10x as large.
Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality. This is a lesson Google learned with SEO long ago. Passivity is not the same as neutrality, and insisting on one often makes the other impossible.
That's not meant as a refutation of your point, but perhaps it's worth some time to think about how a "no algorithm" version of Facebook would actually play out. Here's your starting point: Twitter but 10x as large.
> Neutrality doesn't just happen. No matter how neutral a system it is at one point in time, people will continue gaming it and it will cease to be neutral. There must be continuous active response to maintain that neutrality.
This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality.
All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - which we can't. If Facebook is going to be an arbiter of that, they need to be responsible for the content because they choose what content is shown and when - if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility.
Facebook wants to make all the money and not scare off customers - a clear conflict of interest.
This is a scary thought - an algorithm that "decides" what neutral is, and pushes all its users towards its predetermined neutrality.
All of this talk is nonsense if we can't define neutral - which we can't. If Facebook is going to be an arbiter of that, they need to be responsible for the content because they choose what content is shown and when - if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility.
Facebook wants to make all the money and not scare off customers - a clear conflict of interest.
> if it was just a timeline feed, they would bear no responsibility.
Did that work for Twitter? They've hardly been immune from criticism either, despite being ~1/10 the size of Facebook and being favored by the ruling party in the US. Chronological timelines aren't silver bullets. They're only chronological among that which is shared and there are still huge differences in how much content gets shared/like/retweeted/whatever. Those are the differences that people will exploit, leaving things only "neutral" in a narrow technical sense that has nothing to do with effect. It's naive in the extreme to think they actually solve the problem.
Did that work for Twitter? They've hardly been immune from criticism either, despite being ~1/10 the size of Facebook and being favored by the ruling party in the US. Chronological timelines aren't silver bullets. They're only chronological among that which is shared and there are still huge differences in how much content gets shared/like/retweeted/whatever. Those are the differences that people will exploit, leaving things only "neutral" in a narrow technical sense that has nothing to do with effect. It's naive in the extreme to think they actually solve the problem.
I think you are quite misunderstanding the point.
My point isn't that a chronological timeline fixes the problem of social media. My point is that if you are going to decide what is shown, you are making a choice, and should be responsible for that choice. It is no longer just the user's post - because you control its avenue, you are responsible for it and how it spreads, and becomes "your" speech, in this case, the algorithm's, and its company's.
My point isn't that a chronological timeline fixes the problem of social media. My point is that if you are going to decide what is shown, you are making a choice, and should be responsible for that choice. It is no longer just the user's post - because you control its avenue, you are responsible for it and how it spreads, and becomes "your" speech, in this case, the algorithm's, and its company's.
So you're suggesting that Facebook should try to absolve itself of responsibility, but not actually solve the problem? No offense, but that seems exactly opposite to where you started. We're done.
Wow!
That's really an argument someone is prepared to make.
One role a CEO can play is to direct a company to act in particular ways.
The responsibility for anything Facebook does or doesn't do absolutely lands squarely on the companies leadership.
Saying something like: 'welp, it's too complicated to understand, but fuck me look at all this money and power...
Isn't going to convince me.
That's really an argument someone is prepared to make.
One role a CEO can play is to direct a company to act in particular ways.
The responsibility for anything Facebook does or doesn't do absolutely lands squarely on the companies leadership.
Saying something like: 'welp, it's too complicated to understand, but fuck me look at all this money and power...
Isn't going to convince me.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that Facebook should give up. Everyone there should make every effort to improve. My point in bringing up complexity is that it's going to take a lot more than Mark waving his hand and magically making everything better. This isn't some video game where one player hits a button and thousands of minions instantly rearrange themselves and all of their actions are resolved in milliseconds. Anyone who knows anything about complex systems - especially those involving people - knows that's not how they are.
In reality, no matter what leadership says or does, actual change will still require continuous effort from literally thousands of engineers, data scientists, and others. It will take time, as all such things do. Petulantly demanding that things happen faster than they can happen isn't going to make it so.
In reality, no matter what leadership says or does, actual change will still require continuous effort from literally thousands of engineers, data scientists, and others. It will take time, as all such things do. Petulantly demanding that things happen faster than they can happen isn't going to make it so.
I've seen a fair bit of criticism of Zuckerberg, but all of the criticisms would probably be more true if there was a CEO appointed by a profit maximizing board instead.
Well that's due to the entryist take over of the republican party by far right - this is no long the party of Lincoln Esinhower or even Nixon.
What sensible business leaders should have down was to put a stop to this - and freeze out the ultra hard line rightist's as they are poisoning the well for them.
A bit like how in the 50's when the communists wanted to take over some large UK unions moderate Unions work with MI5
What sensible business leaders should have down was to put a stop to this - and freeze out the ultra hard line rightist's as they are poisoning the well for them.
A bit like how in the 50's when the communists wanted to take over some large UK unions moderate Unions work with MI5
I don't view this as laudable. The debate that's occurring is a principled one and remaining stoically indifferent isn't virtuous, it's contemptible.
>acknowledging that it isn't their role to bring politics into the workplace.
This is very hard for me to square with Facebook. It's like working at the NY Times and saying "no politics in the work place." Almost any decision FB makes is by definition political. The top 10 most interacted pages on Facebook are political. COVID-19, in the US, is political.
It doesn't strike me as mature, it's deceitful. It's very easy to claim things are non-political when the outcomes do not affect you at all.
This is very hard for me to square with Facebook. It's like working at the NY Times and saying "no politics in the work place." Almost any decision FB makes is by definition political. The top 10 most interacted pages on Facebook are political. COVID-19, in the US, is political.
It doesn't strike me as mature, it's deceitful. It's very easy to claim things are non-political when the outcomes do not affect you at all.
> Almost any decision FB makes is by definition political. The top 10 most interacted pages on Facebook are political. COVID-19, in the US, is political.
While this makes sense and I agree with you, I still think that some dev ops employee shouldn't be forced to engage in political debate because their company is politically involved. While the company may be, there are many positions that can be politically agnostic to the company. Provisioning servers or working on internal work flows shouldn't require my political engagement.
While this makes sense and I agree with you, I still think that some dev ops employee shouldn't be forced to engage in political debate because their company is politically involved. While the company may be, there are many positions that can be politically agnostic to the company. Provisioning servers or working on internal work flows shouldn't require my political engagement.
> Provisioning servers or working on internal work flows shouldn't require my political engagement
I think GP's point, which I agree with, is that your proverbial devops person already is acting politically by racking those servers in service (ha) to a political entity (a corporation which affects the lives and tendencies of the body politic). There's no way for most folks to opt out of actions having political consequences, due to the interconnected nature of the world we live in.
I think GP's point, which I agree with, is that your proverbial devops person already is acting politically by racking those servers in service (ha) to a political entity (a corporation which affects the lives and tendencies of the body politic). There's no way for most folks to opt out of actions having political consequences, due to the interconnected nature of the world we live in.
Nobody is forcing Joe Blow devops to work at Facebook and get very well compensated. Sometimes you need to face the morals of what you are doing
The notion that a medium can be above politics is, itself, a political opinion.
The antithesis is "The medium is the message."
The antithesis is "The medium is the message."
Whenever someone says "don't bring politics into X" it's a cop-out. Doubly so for anything related to Facebook. Politics is how we solve all problems between competing interests as a society. You can't operate a business in this country (or any) which is divorced from politics. It's absurd for Zuck to suggest that his business should be immune to political forces.
Yep.
Also it can be (not saying that's the case here) used as a way to exclude undesirable politics while keeping desirable politics in place.
For example the "don't bring politics into sports" that was bandied about during the kneeling controversy in the NFL a few years ago. The National Anthem is political. All of the "support the troops" events during games (paid for by the taxpayers!) is political.
Also it can be (not saying that's the case here) used as a way to exclude undesirable politics while keeping desirable politics in place.
For example the "don't bring politics into sports" that was bandied about during the kneeling controversy in the NFL a few years ago. The National Anthem is political. All of the "support the troops" events during games (paid for by the taxpayers!) is political.
Not sure why you've been downvoted.
NFL may not be in as good of a position to distort the political environment as Facebook just due to the obvious differences between what they do, so maybe not seen as as much of a "threat" to the political order. But the NFL absolutely hides behind the same "no politics here!" curtain that Zuck is attempting to pull down. Nobody is really buying it from either company. Anyone who has watched an NFL game has seen the stuff you mentioned and more. It's absurd to say sports are not political .. of course they are! It's one of the few common grounds Americans have to stand together on, it is broadly politicized as a result.
Edit: grammar fixes
NFL may not be in as good of a position to distort the political environment as Facebook just due to the obvious differences between what they do, so maybe not seen as as much of a "threat" to the political order. But the NFL absolutely hides behind the same "no politics here!" curtain that Zuck is attempting to pull down. Nobody is really buying it from either company. Anyone who has watched an NFL game has seen the stuff you mentioned and more. It's absurd to say sports are not political .. of course they are! It's one of the few common grounds Americans have to stand together on, it is broadly politicized as a result.
Edit: grammar fixes
Politics is how we solve all problems between competing interests as a society.
I've been trying to find ways of asking the question of "what do you mean 'political'" and if someone were to ask for my 'elevator pitch', I'd find myself in agreement with your definition above, but something tells me there will be clashes against this definition, because it is either too limiting to be effectively weaponized as a thought-terminating rebuke, or too expansive to allow for a firm encapsulation and therefore jettisoning of targeted forms of 'unpleasing and disturbing information'[1] (take this statement as far as a pleasant and idle thought will allow, I am not accusing one side of this while condoning it from another, it's not even about who or whom, it's just a man thinking through his keyboard.)
Star Trek introduces a black female lead "Star Trek is getting political". (I fear I may have opened pandora's box with that one)
Colin Kaepernick kneels in protest of police violence "Keep politics out of sports".
Pop_Culture_Icon_number42 argues for an improvement in how society conducts itself in terms of previously_under_addressed_social_scenario_27 "This pop star is getting too political".
To me, politics is inherently and by the function of what we allow, just as you said: an embracing of the necessity to solve problems where there are competing interests. To take issue with that, and rebuke a point of order as "getting political" is, perhaps-and at least in my mind-an unwitting show of the rebuker's hand.
But at the same time, I think about shit way too much.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-b...
I've been trying to find ways of asking the question of "what do you mean 'political'" and if someone were to ask for my 'elevator pitch', I'd find myself in agreement with your definition above, but something tells me there will be clashes against this definition, because it is either too limiting to be effectively weaponized as a thought-terminating rebuke, or too expansive to allow for a firm encapsulation and therefore jettisoning of targeted forms of 'unpleasing and disturbing information'[1] (take this statement as far as a pleasant and idle thought will allow, I am not accusing one side of this while condoning it from another, it's not even about who or whom, it's just a man thinking through his keyboard.)
Star Trek introduces a black female lead "Star Trek is getting political". (I fear I may have opened pandora's box with that one)
Colin Kaepernick kneels in protest of police violence "Keep politics out of sports".
Pop_Culture_Icon_number42 argues for an improvement in how society conducts itself in terms of previously_under_addressed_social_scenario_27 "This pop star is getting too political".
To me, politics is inherently and by the function of what we allow, just as you said: an embracing of the necessity to solve problems where there are competing interests. To take issue with that, and rebuke a point of order as "getting political" is, perhaps-and at least in my mind-an unwitting show of the rebuker's hand.
But at the same time, I think about shit way too much.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39004-we-have-currently-a-b...
"a bit more" lol
See this link if you're wondering what "a bit more" looks like: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
See this link if you're wondering what "a bit more" looks like: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
That’s interesting, thank you.
Last 24hrs top-performing pages in the US, for anyone who can't click the link.
1. Dan Bongino
2. Dan Bongino
3. Breitbart
4. Fox News
5. Robert Reich
6. NPR
7. Ben Shapiro
8. Dan Bongino
9. Mark Levin
10. Bernie Sanders
This is curated by https://twitter.com/kevinroose
I had to look up most of those names but if you're wondering, looking back a couple weeks it's usually 9/10 or 10/10 right-wing talk hosts/sources.
It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think.
1. Dan Bongino
2. Dan Bongino
3. Breitbart
4. Fox News
5. Robert Reich
6. NPR
7. Ben Shapiro
8. Dan Bongino
9. Mark Levin
10. Bernie Sanders
This is curated by https://twitter.com/kevinroose
I had to look up most of those names but if you're wondering, looking back a couple weeks it's usually 9/10 or 10/10 right-wing talk hosts/sources.
It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think.
>It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think.
Given that the common narrative around Facebook is that it, along with all other social media, is engaged in a leftist conspiracy to purge all conservative and right-wing speech from the internet, I'd say it would be.
Given that the common narrative around Facebook is that it, along with all other social media, is engaged in a leftist conspiracy to purge all conservative and right-wing speech from the internet, I'd say it would be.
> It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think.
I mean, mouthpiece can't possibly be the right term. Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared? If you don't want them moderating it away, and they aren't themselves recommending it, their role is pretty minor. The idea of Facebook is that when you post things some people you know see it. How do you show people what they want and avoid results similar to this?
I mean, mouthpiece can't possibly be the right term. Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared? If you don't want them moderating it away, and they aren't themselves recommending it, their role is pretty minor. The idea of Facebook is that when you post things some people you know see it. How do you show people what they want and avoid results similar to this?
mouth piece is a stretch. "Popular site for people who lean right of the aisle of the American congress" however is more apt for what Facebook is.
The problem isn't Fox News though (they are bad enough), its that fake news stories (generally right leaning) are easily crafted and shared at a significant pace on Facebook that is seemingly having a deep impact on the American electorate and government.
The problem isn't Fox News though (they are bad enough), its that fake news stories (generally right leaning) are easily crafted and shared at a significant pace on Facebook that is seemingly having a deep impact on the American electorate and government.
Would you be willing to provide me 3 links to right leaning fake news stories published today? The original links please. I no longer have a Facebook account.
I also do not have a Facebook account.
Then why do you believe right leaning fakes news stories are shared any more often than left leaning fake news stories on Facebook?
[deleted]
> Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared?
I mean...yeah
I mean...yeah
Fox news maybe not, but plenty of those links are to even crazier places. Facebook should absolutely be deplatforming breitbart.
No, but they could try to stop their algorithm from recommending groups promoting disinformation, conspiracy theories, hate speech, and racial violence.
They could also take efforts to fact-check political ads, or prohibit them entirely as others have done.
The reality is that Facebook is afraid of a reckoning. They're pretty sure that they're going to be under investigation, and likely regulated or broken up, if the democrats win. If the republicans win, they get to continue to be the incredibly profitable right-wing disinformation distribution hub they have been for a while. This gives them little incentive to clean up their act, since that might leave them vulnerable to the consequences of their actions (or inactions).
It's not just about letting people post lies and disinformation from Fox News, it's about Facebook actively herding whoever they can into groups that radicalize people in order to increase their engagement by driving them down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
They could also take efforts to fact-check political ads, or prohibit them entirely as others have done.
The reality is that Facebook is afraid of a reckoning. They're pretty sure that they're going to be under investigation, and likely regulated or broken up, if the democrats win. If the republicans win, they get to continue to be the incredibly profitable right-wing disinformation distribution hub they have been for a while. This gives them little incentive to clean up their act, since that might leave them vulnerable to the consequences of their actions (or inactions).
It's not just about letting people post lies and disinformation from Fox News, it's about Facebook actively herding whoever they can into groups that radicalize people in order to increase their engagement by driving them down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
Very interesting, thanks!
Only one I didn't recognize is Bongino.
I would be very curious in the age demographics of FB users. My understanding is that initially the user base was young and now it's older, specifically boomer age range. I could be completely wrong, I've never had an account and am just going off the people I know personally and what I've noticed being online.
Only one I didn't recognize is Bongino.
I would be very curious in the age demographics of FB users. My understanding is that initially the user base was young and now it's older, specifically boomer age range. I could be completely wrong, I've never had an account and am just going off the people I know personally and what I've noticed being online.
Interesting to know that if there was a facebook.com/r/all/, I wouldn't even recognize who the top posts were made by. Guess I'm just really disconnected.
Could it be that left-wing pageviews are divided among more sources so none of them individually get this much traffic?
I think the answer is that the US population is much less "lefty" that people in that milieu would like to believe.
I think you are wrong. Almost all Americans want police reform for example.
'Want police reform' and, 'want leftist-espoused police reform' are two very different things.
Just because the majority of a population support a given policy abstract doesn't mean that the gamut of their potential demands doesn't span the entirety of the political spectrum.
Just because the majority of a population support a given policy abstract doesn't mean that the gamut of their potential demands doesn't span the entirety of the political spectrum.
I don't really get your point. People need to vote and all of this pedantry will go away.
My point is that police reform isn't exclusively a Lefty issue. It's the domain of every political interest group suspicious of the state's use of power.
> 'Want police reform' and, 'want leftist-espoused police reform' are two very different things.
Not really. The reform that most Americans want is premised on the belief that racism and violence against African Americans are systemic issues in policing which need drastic measures to solve at best, or a complete dismantling of the system at worst.
The right either refuses to accept that such problems exist, dismissing them as fabrications by the left, or justifies them on the basis that African Americans are endemically violent and lawless, and deserve the brutal treatment and suspicion they receive.
The only 'reforms' the right wants are to give the police more guns and for them to not be held back against certain "problem" demographics by "political correctness," but the reform most Americans want is entirely leftist in its assumptions and goals.
Not really. The reform that most Americans want is premised on the belief that racism and violence against African Americans are systemic issues in policing which need drastic measures to solve at best, or a complete dismantling of the system at worst.
The right either refuses to accept that such problems exist, dismissing them as fabrications by the left, or justifies them on the basis that African Americans are endemically violent and lawless, and deserve the brutal treatment and suspicion they receive.
The only 'reforms' the right wants are to give the police more guns and for them to not be held back against certain "problem" demographics by "political correctness," but the reform most Americans want is entirely leftist in its assumptions and goals.
You've clearly not heard a conservative or a libertarian rail about no-knocks, mandatory minimum sentencing, drug laws, or civil asset forfeiture.
Large elements of the right often refuse to accept systemic racism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own critiques against policing that make the abstract statement 'I support police reform' valid for them.
Outside the left and the far right, although moderate liberals acknowledge the existence of systemic biases in policing, I've heard proposals ranging from 'remove qualified immunity', to 'more training', to 'expand social services', but typically with the caveat that 'my poufs Dept is fine', or 'I don't want social workers to replace any of the police, I just want them in addition to the police'. There's usually a big fat asterisk alongside the suggestion that requires a positive sum outcome where nothing really changes in their lives, but everything is abstractly better.
Large elements of the right often refuse to accept systemic racism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own critiques against policing that make the abstract statement 'I support police reform' valid for them.
Outside the left and the far right, although moderate liberals acknowledge the existence of systemic biases in policing, I've heard proposals ranging from 'remove qualified immunity', to 'more training', to 'expand social services', but typically with the caveat that 'my poufs Dept is fine', or 'I don't want social workers to replace any of the police, I just want them in addition to the police'. There's usually a big fat asterisk alongside the suggestion that requires a positive sum outcome where nothing really changes in their lives, but everything is abstractly better.
"Police reform" means very different things to different people. To some, it means replacing cops with social workers, to others, it means giving them enough manpower and training budgets to be more efficient. Both are reforms, but very different ones.
[deleted]
That's plausible, also from personal experience with family I do think conservative media tends to be more addictive, so an average conservative will consume more news than an average liberal.
[deleted]
I would go even further in this argument - it's the small, altough very loud minority of FB (or other IT company) employees, living in their Twitter feeds and causing outrage totally disproportional to their group size. The "missing snacks" example in the article illustrates it beautifully. I would argue that it actually concerns more employees than content policy issues.
The irony is just delicious. It's just like the problem that very small minority of folks on FB have been given a megaphone to spread lies and hate.
All FB has to do is tone down the engagement algorithms. Put up a bunch of invisible walls.
All FB has to do is tone down the engagement algorithms. Put up a bunch of invisible walls.
10 years ago the concern was filter bubbles. Now we want invisible walls?
Yep, increase friction. Instagram is a good example.. You have to post a photo and you can't retweet.
I think we would just be trading one set of problems for another, people are already physically self sorting so it's not clear to me that enhancing digital echo chambers would make things better.
What do you mean by physically self sorting? I’m taking about turning down the dials to decrease virality, discovery and engagement. If you want to change people’s behavior you need to increase friction.
That we are increasingly self sorting into politically isolated bubbles (based on where we choose to live / work) so we are less likely to encounter diverse opinions in real life [1]. Definitely agree that virality/discovery/engagement need to be carefully balanced, but I don't think that they are inherently good or bad. Virality/discovery/engagement can absolutely lead to the spread of misinformation, but it also is clearly a big driver for awareness of social causes like police brutality / BLM.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-Ameri...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-Ameri...
The twitter link in the comment at the top of this post reports that the top 10 daily FB posts are almost all right wing. I am pretty sure this is being driven by a minority of users (and a lot of bots). In fact we know the whole system can be gamed. In that sense the whole network is polluted and suffering the tragedy of the commons.
That is a cop out from Facebook and any social media company if there was any. The algorithmic feed that drives more engagement drives their user base to be more extreme.
It is also hypocritical of Facebook employees who were quiet when worse atrocities were happening in other parts of the world where their platform is "the only source of truth" (read Myanmar / Philippines).
It is also hypocritical of Facebook employees who were quiet when worse atrocities were happening in other parts of the world where their platform is "the only source of truth" (read Myanmar / Philippines).
> The algorithmic feed that drives more engagement drives their user base to be more extreme.
Just to clarify: more extreme is not necessary more right or conservative.
Just to clarify: more extreme is not necessary more right or conservative.
Yes. And a platform whose userbase is already conservative will become more extreme in that direction.
Who are these people they "serve"? Surely you don't imply that Facebook is a user driven website? One look at how they handle UI changes tells you that any claims to "serve" the users is extremely hollow.
UX / look and feel is one of those things where a company cannot win; ANY change, especially redesigns, will cause friction with their customers.
Ask people what they want with the UI and you get either small pet peeves (but none of them statistically significant), but generally a "leave it as is" answer. Even though the current version may not tick all the boxes from the company's point of view - things like engagement, advertising opportunities, etc.
Ask people what they want with the UI and you get either small pet peeves (but none of them statistically significant), but generally a "leave it as is" answer. Even though the current version may not tick all the boxes from the company's point of view - things like engagement, advertising opportunities, etc.
> Even though the current version may not tick all the boxes from the company's point of view
Sure, clearly the company is not primarily serving the users. So the question is, who are these people that Mark is invoking?
Sure, clearly the company is not primarily serving the users. So the question is, who are these people that Mark is invoking?
The observation by itself is dead right.
When employees complain about far-right "conservatives" using FB to do X or Y they are right too and when I say: compared to most FB (vocal) employees' World views, +90% of the World's population are capitalist Hitler supporters, I think I'm right too.
When employees complain about far-right "conservatives" using FB to do X or Y they are right too and when I say: compared to most FB (vocal) employees' World views, +90% of the World's population are capitalist Hitler supporters, I think I'm right too.
Politics aside, many Facebook employees come across as rather childish, incapable of taking care of themselves. The big complaint is about lack of snacks! Zuck has to scold them by asking rhetorically whether they joined the company for the free food. And one employee asks if they can go live on an island by themselves, apparently like Lord of the Flies.
Of course one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result. The staff skews... young. As an outsider, I get the sense that Facebook is more like a college dorm than a workplace. No coincidence I guess that Facebook started in a college dorm.
Of course one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result. The staff skews... young. As an outsider, I get the sense that Facebook is more like a college dorm than a workplace. No coincidence I guess that Facebook started in a college dorm.
> The big complaint is about lack of snacks!
Free food, including meals. If Facebook is anything like Google, some single people were literally using that for every meal and snack 5/7 days per week. It's tasty, nutritious food, and you don't have to prepare it or do dishes. Sure, an adult should be able to take care of this on their own, but this is a major perk, not just a box of granola bars on a shelf. It might cost them $100 per week (~$5,000 per year) to match their food intake via cooking at home. Much more if they start ordering a lot of take-out. That's a fair chunk of compensation they're not getting anymore. This absence is not at the top of my list of pandemic or employer complaints but I can see how it might be near the top of someone else's.
Free food, including meals. If Facebook is anything like Google, some single people were literally using that for every meal and snack 5/7 days per week. It's tasty, nutritious food, and you don't have to prepare it or do dishes. Sure, an adult should be able to take care of this on their own, but this is a major perk, not just a box of granola bars on a shelf. It might cost them $100 per week (~$5,000 per year) to match their food intake via cooking at home. Much more if they start ordering a lot of take-out. That's a fair chunk of compensation they're not getting anymore. This absence is not at the top of my list of pandemic or employer complaints but I can see how it might be near the top of someone else's.
[deleted]
From what I've seen, I don't think $5K per year is a big chunk of a Facebook engineer's compensation. In any case, the bigger issue is that this situation exposes how utterly dependent these engineers are on their employer, not just for money but for basic life functionality. Only a tiny number of companies in the world offer this level of "service" to employees. What happens if and when they no longer work at Facebook? The company has seemingly turned its employees into helpless children, or at least never forced them to grow up after leaving college. If "continue to live like you're in the dorm" is a "perk", maybe it shouldn't be.
> I don't think $5K per year is a big chunk of a Facebook engineer's compensation
Whether it's <1% or >10% of their compensation, any cut should be acknowledged.
You could feed yourself well, delicious and healthy food, 2000 wholesome calories a day, for 5 days a week. 20 days a month where you effectively don't have to buy groceries or eat out.
Food is a part of the compensation package at FB and other companies where money sloshes around in giant buckets.
> What happens if and when they no longer work at Facebook?
They get paid less. Plenty of people have left companies like FB et al for smaller companies where you have to buy your own lunch and they're fine. Not sure why you're so excited to pull a "kids these days" here.
Whether it's <1% or >10% of their compensation, any cut should be acknowledged.
You could feed yourself well, delicious and healthy food, 2000 wholesome calories a day, for 5 days a week. 20 days a month where you effectively don't have to buy groceries or eat out.
Food is a part of the compensation package at FB and other companies where money sloshes around in giant buckets.
> What happens if and when they no longer work at Facebook?
They get paid less. Plenty of people have left companies like FB et al for smaller companies where you have to buy your own lunch and they're fine. Not sure why you're so excited to pull a "kids these days" here.
> Not sure why you're so excited to pull a "kids these days" here.
I wouldn't say it's kids these days. Facebook employees are not representative of the wider public.
The question that really made me shake my head wasn't the one about food but rather "Can we build a quarantined Facebook city? Like, buying an island and all of us working there?"
I wouldn't say it's kids these days. Facebook employees are not representative of the wider public.
The question that really made me shake my head wasn't the one about food but rather "Can we build a quarantined Facebook city? Like, buying an island and all of us working there?"
I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. I can cook for myself every day and there is plenty of inefficiency in that action. Its wasteful, the food isnt as good as a professional, I have to shop and waste gas, I have to pay retail pricing. Or I could use the shared resource thats done professionally and efficiently. We are engineers, are we not programmed to reduce complexity and waste. I dont think its fair yo assume they couldnt cook for themselves if they thought it was needed.
> I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation.
Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook?
What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family?
"A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food"
"with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package"
For those who prefer not eating meals at the office, how fair is it that this is considered a significant perk of Facebook employment? I'd say that whole thing could be considered kind of ageist. It's certainly highly unusual, compared to most other workplaces in the world.
You mentioned "inefficiency", but it seems that efficiency is ruling out relationships with people outside of work. ;-)
Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook?
What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family?
"A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food"
"with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package"
For those who prefer not eating meals at the office, how fair is it that this is considered a significant perk of Facebook employment? I'd say that whole thing could be considered kind of ageist. It's certainly highly unusual, compared to most other workplaces in the world.
You mentioned "inefficiency", but it seems that efficiency is ruling out relationships with people outside of work. ;-)
I wasn't worried about facebook, mostly just commenting that its unfair to assume these individuals who creat 400k+ in value to their companies a year aren't able to cook for themselves if they have to because they are young. I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives.
I dont really have an opinion about facebooks agism in their hiring.
I just think you are making an unfounded assumption.
I dont really have an opinion about facebooks agism in their hiring.
I just think you are making an unfounded assumption.
> I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives.
My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result."
It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect.
If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.
My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result."
It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect.
If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.
I dont know why you dragging me into a different conversation, I have not comment about who facebook hires, I don't really care.
They haven't been in the office since March iirc. If they were utterly dependent on this perk, they would literally be dead by now.
If you think they're spoiled for ever having this perk, using it, missing it, and/or complaining about its absence, I won't try to convince you otherwise. I agree it's something the vast majority of people never had, much less get to enjoy during the pandemic. I'm just adding some context which I thought you might be missing when describing it as "snacks".
Anyway, I'm going to shut up on the topic now, as it's not as important to me as content moderation. I don't work for Facebook and don't plan to (sorry, recruiter who emailed me yesterday), so their employee perks affect me only very loosely as they shape industry trends. In contrast, I think the content moderation has a surprisingly huge effect on everyone. Facebook is where a lot of people find the content that shapes their opinions. It may sway the US presidential election.
If you think they're spoiled for ever having this perk, using it, missing it, and/or complaining about its absence, I won't try to convince you otherwise. I agree it's something the vast majority of people never had, much less get to enjoy during the pandemic. I'm just adding some context which I thought you might be missing when describing it as "snacks".
Anyway, I'm going to shut up on the topic now, as it's not as important to me as content moderation. I don't work for Facebook and don't plan to (sorry, recruiter who emailed me yesterday), so their employee perks affect me only very loosely as they shape industry trends. In contrast, I think the content moderation has a surprisingly huge effect on everyone. Facebook is where a lot of people find the content that shapes their opinions. It may sway the US presidential election.
Never mind the fact that Facebook probably pays better than 80% of tech companies
Never mind the fact that tech salaries are already insane
Never mind the fact that there is a global pandemic and corresponding economic uncertainty
Never mind the fact that millions of people are out of work, can't afford to feed their families, and facing one of the biggest eviction crises of all time while being completely abandoned by the government
Never mind all that - where is my free food?
Never mind the fact that tech salaries are already insane
Never mind the fact that there is a global pandemic and corresponding economic uncertainty
Never mind the fact that millions of people are out of work, can't afford to feed their families, and facing one of the biggest eviction crises of all time while being completely abandoned by the government
Never mind all that - where is my free food?
What are you saying, exactly? People can't complain if others have it worse? It's hard for me to think of a more charitable interpretation of your comment, which seems to plainly chastise Facebook employees for voicing complaints during the existence of other big problems in the world.
People who can’t have a sense of perspective about temporarily not getting a free lunch shouldn’t be making decisions about what content is censored on Facebook.
They can complain about anything, it's just their complaints, in context, sound so trivial and entitled than it's hard to take them seriously. Oh the hardships! Oh the terrors! Now they only have a secure job in their own home while earning mid-six-figures! And also getting $1000 bonus! How can a human being be expected to survive on that?! Buying their own La Croix, like some kind of peasants!
The Towel Debacle for Microsoft wasn't about towels. I doubt this is about food.
We fight proxy wars all the time because we can't seem to bring ourselves to say what's really bothering us. All these other minor problems accumulate to make the unspeakable thing intolerable.
We fight proxy wars all the time because we can't seem to bring ourselves to say what's really bothering us. All these other minor problems accumulate to make the unspeakable thing intolerable.
> The big complaint is about lack of snacks!
I don't think there's anything unusual about talking about that in a company-wide Q&A. It's minor, but people will want to know how they should adjust their budgets and how long. This is a good platform for such a question since it's something that affects everyone in the office.
I don't think there's anything unusual about talking about that in a company-wide Q&A. It's minor, but people will want to know how they should adjust their budgets and how long. This is a good platform for such a question since it's something that affects everyone in the office.
> It's minor, but
"A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food"
"with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package"
https://www.levels.fyi/company/Facebook/salaries/Software-En...
Perhaps they don't know how much food costs, having never gone to the grocery store. ("How much does a gallon of milk cost" is the classic political gotcha question.) Or they don't know how to cook. Those are possibilities.
"A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food"
"with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package"
https://www.levels.fyi/company/Facebook/salaries/Software-En...
Perhaps they don't know how much food costs, having never gone to the grocery store. ("How much does a gallon of milk cost" is the classic political gotcha question.) Or they don't know how to cook. Those are possibilities.
Young urbanites don't cook. They don't drive, how do they get groceries. They probably have a single frying pan. For these people, free food at work might be a large portion of their daily caloric intake, outside of the beer/booze.
I don't know why this is downvoted.
Honestly, I bet a lot of employees were fine with living in apartments with minimal kitchens (most studios have the kitchen be a single long counter in a corridor of the apartment) since they would be getting their meals at the office anyways.
Honestly, I bet a lot of employees were fine with living in apartments with minimal kitchens (most studios have the kitchen be a single long counter in a corridor of the apartment) since they would be getting their meals at the office anyways.
Yep - When I started cooking more meals and larger portions because I'm home most of the time and wanted to gain weight, I noticed that my kitchen is really suboptimal for this. Prepping breakfast and or a quick supper does the job, anything a bit more elaborate becomes a hot mess due to space and appliances.
It was an oddly contemptuous take IMO. Like what's the beef with having a single frying pan? If you really don't cook anything at all, why do you have even one? Or there's no reason you couldn't cook 3 meals a day in a single frying pan if you wanted to, just a little more cleaning.
As a small-kitchen-haver, cooking is perfectly doable. What's tougher is making enough food for 6 people or a 4-dish meal.
As a small-kitchen-haver, cooking is perfectly doable. What's tougher is making enough food for 6 people or a 4-dish meal.
I completely agree. Not everyone knows, or even wants to cook 3 meals a day (me included). For people who have gotten free food through their work, it is a big deal.
Now they either have to make stuff themselves (which costs time) or source it from outside (which costs money).
Now they either have to make stuff themselves (which costs time) or source it from outside (which costs money).
I understand that this can be a point of dissatisfaction, but I think most people are reacting to the presumption that it is somehow the employers responsibility to address it.
For most of society, the answer is obvious: Figure it out, Snacks aren't in your contract.
For most of society, the answer is obvious: Figure it out, Snacks aren't in your contract.
In the US, we don't typically have employment contracts. Facebook was serving up 2+ meals per day. At (a modest estimate) $20/day, that works out to be about $5k per year. That's not an insignificant amount of cash to some people.
I guarantee that facebook employees have an employment contract they signed. This would cover assignment of intellectual property, moonlighting, and other topics. In the US, an employer can absolutely cut your salary by 5k/yr if it isn't in your contract.
But this is all beside the point, I'm not saying that 5k isn't insignificant to people, even FANG employees. I totally understand that. Im saying that facebook can take this away at the drop of a hat with no notice. It is weird to outsiders that the employees don't seem to understand this.
But this is all beside the point, I'm not saying that 5k isn't insignificant to people, even FANG employees. I totally understand that. Im saying that facebook can take this away at the drop of a hat with no notice. It is weird to outsiders that the employees don't seem to understand this.
There are often agreements made, but the employment is still at will. So there's no 'contract' for the employment itself, whereas other jurisdictions have actual contracts, and employer can't simply fire you or alter your pay outside the scope of the contract.
Everyone understands that the benefits are subject to change. If management changes them and you don't prefer the changes, you speak up.
Personally, I won't work somewhere that doesn't offer free coffee. If the coffee is canceled, I will start looking for another gig.
Everyone understands that the benefits are subject to change. If management changes them and you don't prefer the changes, you speak up.
Personally, I won't work somewhere that doesn't offer free coffee. If the coffee is canceled, I will start looking for another gig.
Would you leave a $600k job, like a E6 at FB, if it didn't offer free coffee
If I could find another job for the same money, yes.
But they no longer have to commute to work (which costs time, or which costs money). They could use that time or money to learn the joys of cooking tasty food, tasty food being one of the few things people of all walks and persuasions can agree is a joyful thing. But they perhaps instead choose to use their free time to play grindy addictive video games, or binge watch Netflix, or consume cannabis, or rage-read political newsfeeds, or get mired in political threads on HN. Why take up music or cooking or reading good books with good friends and why find joy and peace and purpose in life when you can instead wallow in a web-cesspool?
Yes, it does seem like a college dorm. Sometimes it's even intentional, as in the design of the MPK campus. A lot of the perks serve the same purpose as a college dorm: eliminate the need (or even desire) to go off campus, maximizing time-on-task for the organizational purpose. That's not entirely a bad thing, though it does grate a bit for older employees such as myself (for two more days) sometimes.
The "live on an island" thing is different. It sounds like a reference to the policies around WFH and changing locations, though I'd left the Q&A by that point so I can't be sure. That's actually a pretty complex topic, so I'd be a bit cautious about oversimplifying or taking out of context.
The "live on an island" thing is different. It sounds like a reference to the policies around WFH and changing locations, though I'd left the Q&A by that point so I can't be sure. That's actually a pretty complex topic, so I'd be a bit cautious about oversimplifying or taking out of context.
> It sounds like a reference to the policies around WFH and changing locations
Yes, but that was also behind the snack complaints.
According to the article, everyone got monetary bonuses, but it seems the problem wasn't the cost of the food, it was not having "hired help" to stock and cater the food for you.
Yes, but that was also behind the snack complaints.
According to the article, everyone got monetary bonuses, but it seems the problem wasn't the cost of the food, it was not having "hired help" to stock and cater the food for you.
Trust me, the vocal minority there are extremely sheltered, self centered and live in a weird unreality. The majority of employees who come from the real world aren't that bad but also tend to keep quiet.
I often think that people who spend too long at the top of maslow's hierarchy of needs just end up losing touch with reality.
I often think that people who spend too long at the top of maslow's hierarchy of needs just end up losing touch with reality.
I went on site for an interview with FB a few years ago. College atmosphere is exactly as I'd describe it. Free cafe for the kids, they were brewing beer in one corner of the office, they were keen to point out all the stuff they had available for just hanging out with the bros. If you want to work at FB, show up on a skate board, with beat headphones and a zip down hoodie. Don't show up looking like someone that works in an office.
If you want to talk about childish, should we talk about the sort of answer Zuckerberg gave. Atleast the guy there for the snacks was getting snacks until recently, I'm worried about the guys who think they joined facebook because:
>you’re here for some combination of reasons around the mission of the company, the impact that we can have in the world, trying to make sure that that’s as positive as possible
>you’re here for some combination of reasons around the mission of the company, the impact that we can have in the world, trying to make sure that that’s as positive as possible
> Atleast the guy there for the snacks was getting snacks until recently
IMO destroying civil society for snacks is a worse reason than destroying civil society intentionally. The pettiness of the tradeoff makes evil people look good by comparison.
IMO destroying civil society for snacks is a worse reason than destroying civil society intentionally. The pettiness of the tradeoff makes evil people look good by comparison.
To be honest I wish Zuckerberg would say "We're not censoring political posts, and if you don't like it, --> there's the door. Who's leaving first?"
Facebook engineers may love to beat their chests about social justice, but when push comes to shove, they are not about to walk away from those gold plated salaries & stock grants. Most of them could leave FB and get another job paying somewhere in the ballpark of $200k (if not much more) within weeks, or a couple months. But no, 200k is not enough, they need 250k + equity + food etc. etc..
So to social justice oriented facebook employees sticking around facebook: spare us the performative gnashing of teeth. You know what facebook is, either admit the $$$ make it worth holding your nose, or put your money where your mouth is & go get a different job.
Facebook engineers may love to beat their chests about social justice, but when push comes to shove, they are not about to walk away from those gold plated salaries & stock grants. Most of them could leave FB and get another job paying somewhere in the ballpark of $200k (if not much more) within weeks, or a couple months. But no, 200k is not enough, they need 250k + equity + food etc. etc..
So to social justice oriented facebook employees sticking around facebook: spare us the performative gnashing of teeth. You know what facebook is, either admit the $$$ make it worth holding your nose, or put your money where your mouth is & go get a different job.
Maybe I’m out of the loop a little bit I feel that the argument framed as political activism is a deflection.
Post 5g causes sickness or other theories... These aren’t political at all, they are just factually incorrect.
Framing them as political is a mistake and it seems to have worked so well, even here on HN.
Post 5g causes sickness or other theories... These aren’t political at all, they are just factually incorrect.
Framing them as political is a mistake and it seems to have worked so well, even here on HN.
Employees were mad specifically because he wouldn't take down the president's post threatening a violent crackdown on rioting & looting. Is it your perception that the main objection of employees was to explicitly counterfactual claims? That's not what I got from TFA
Also TFA makes clear that facebook takes down tons of posts, that's the biggest complaint they get from users, so it's not true that they are leaving everything up. Respectfully: did you read TFA?
Also TFA makes clear that facebook takes down tons of posts, that's the biggest complaint they get from users, so it's not true that they are leaving everything up. Respectfully: did you read TFA?
Using conspiracy theories, bunk science, and outright lies to influence the lower-awareness majority _is_ political action, and evidently it is currently one of the more effective strategies.
Some might. Google had an exodus of some dozen to two-dozen high-performing engineers in the past 2 years resulting from multiple controversial management decisions.
I don't expect FB to see an exodus more than sub-1% over topics like this, but the company can feel outsized impact if the sub-1% are 10x engineers... Or decide you can air any dirty internal laundry you want once they're no longer buying your silence and there's good dirt to share.
I don't expect FB to see an exodus more than sub-1% over topics like this, but the company can feel outsized impact if the sub-1% are 10x engineers... Or decide you can air any dirty internal laundry you want once they're no longer buying your silence and there's good dirt to share.
I doubt the people who take time out of their workdays for political activism are, by and large, the "10x engineers".
I can't imagine why. 10x engineers tend to either find a blend of their work / life balance or are so productive and organized that they have surplus time-in-day to burn.
I would love to work at a company these days that cares more about building interesting products instead of being constantly bombarded by social justice and political activism issues.
I wish he'd say this for a different reason: we'll find out whether you're correct or not very quickly.
In a way, I also wish I could be this cynical, because I wouldn't have to think about the complexities of human motivation, and that would be a lot easier. But I don't think money and status is all there is. Which is exactly why these outcries are happening: people are negotiating as best they can to maximize all the things that make them happy and keep them motivated, like working in a context that keeps them right with themselves, and good for them. Until Zuckerberg actually says what you're saying, there's a chance they can be successful, so I don't blame them for trying.
But you know, if he actually came out and said this, we'd find out pretty quickly if money is all there is.
In a way, I also wish I could be this cynical, because I wouldn't have to think about the complexities of human motivation, and that would be a lot easier. But I don't think money and status is all there is. Which is exactly why these outcries are happening: people are negotiating as best they can to maximize all the things that make them happy and keep them motivated, like working in a context that keeps them right with themselves, and good for them. Until Zuckerberg actually says what you're saying, there's a chance they can be successful, so I don't blame them for trying.
But you know, if he actually came out and said this, we'd find out pretty quickly if money is all there is.
Totally agree–eliminate the rhetorical hiding places ("I work here but I object strongly...) and let people either be honest about the fact that the money is worth the compromise (i.e. stop performing outrage) or actually be outraged enough to do something (walk out & get another job).
Personally I would not work at Facebook precisely because I object to the negative impact I think it has on society. I'm not condemning employees for objecting, I'm rolling my eyes at them objecting loudly but seemingly avoiding the personal sacrifice of actually refusing to contribute to facebook and foregoing the pecuniary benefits of those contributions.
I also personally make compromises. I cannot always work at my "dream job" that's "mission driven" etc., and I'm honest with myself about that. We all make compromises, we all draw our own line somewhere.
(also I know some FB workers who have left due objections to FB policy so it's definitely wrong to say "none of them do that")
Personally I would not work at Facebook precisely because I object to the negative impact I think it has on society. I'm not condemning employees for objecting, I'm rolling my eyes at them objecting loudly but seemingly avoiding the personal sacrifice of actually refusing to contribute to facebook and foregoing the pecuniary benefits of those contributions.
I also personally make compromises. I cannot always work at my "dream job" that's "mission driven" etc., and I'm honest with myself about that. We all make compromises, we all draw our own line somewhere.
(also I know some FB workers who have left due objections to FB policy so it's definitely wrong to say "none of them do that")
Honestly, if Zuck pushed out the SJW types, I'd love to work there for half my current salary. He's showing solid leadership right now and just needs to go slightly further.
I think this actually made Zuck's leadership look solid. Of course it's a little naive to say "we aren't political", but he's probably just doing that because it's the calculated thing to say. Almost every other company says things like that, except for a few ideological ones in Silicon Valley.
I don't know how anyone takes these employees at FB seriously. They are complaining about the lack of free snacks? Anyone complaining about a 'lack of free snacks' is someone you should certainly ignore.
I don't know how anyone takes these employees at FB seriously. They are complaining about the lack of free snacks? Anyone complaining about a 'lack of free snacks' is someone you should certainly ignore.
lol, this reminds me of a meeting the department I was in at the time (tech support) had with the head of operations years ago. When she opened the floor for serious questions/comments, the first thing some jackass brought up was his disappointment in the lack of free tea in the break room. The look on her face was priceless.
To take things one level higher, I wonder why they answered this question at all. Most likely it was done to add some levity to the meeting, but more cynically, I wonder if it was done to point out just how juvenile some of the concerns are.
doopy-loopy2(1)
Free snacks, and their quality, is a complex signal. They're some of the first things to go as cash tightens up, and they're a decent rubric as to how much leadership actively gives a fuck about employees. Or they're a garnish on a pile of shit.
It does definitely depend on the goals regarding company/employee relations: is this a job for which I'm paid money, or is it supposed to be more than that? If the former, how're the salaries - actually? If the latter, are they actually putting in effort to deserve it?
Like proper code indentation. Yeah, you can just fix it yourself pretty easily, but it signals things.
It does definitely depend on the goals regarding company/employee relations: is this a job for which I'm paid money, or is it supposed to be more than that? If the former, how're the salaries - actually? If the latter, are they actually putting in effort to deserve it?
Like proper code indentation. Yeah, you can just fix it yourself pretty easily, but it signals things.
If you read the article, they're complaining about the lack of free snacks because they're WORKING FROM HOME. To be honest, I suspect it's a joke question.
Ehh. I could see it either way. "I joke but also I'm serious".
Food is my second biggest expense (after ofc rent) - decent lunch is $15-$20 (more with delivery) in my area. For the summer I worked in MV, it was that for a mediocre lunch (nothing good nearby).
15 * 5 * 52 = $3,900. If the company covers it, it's pre-tax to me; if I cover it that's more like $7k out of my salary.
(Plus the time to wrangle colleagues and figure out where, transit time, etc)
Having food supplied? Actually of pretty substantial value, even if it's not on the level of, say, American health insurance.
(Plus, you know, I can buy a house if I don't spend $5 on coffee everyday!)
Food is my second biggest expense (after ofc rent) - decent lunch is $15-$20 (more with delivery) in my area. For the summer I worked in MV, it was that for a mediocre lunch (nothing good nearby).
15 * 5 * 52 = $3,900. If the company covers it, it's pre-tax to me; if I cover it that's more like $7k out of my salary.
(Plus the time to wrangle colleagues and figure out where, transit time, etc)
Having food supplied? Actually of pretty substantial value, even if it's not on the level of, say, American health insurance.
(Plus, you know, I can buy a house if I don't spend $5 on coffee everyday!)
If leadership actively cares about employees maybe they should eliminate free snacks altogether. Obesity kills about 300K Americans every year. The last thing that highly-paid tech workers with sedentary jobs need is more food.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032
Facebook (at HQ and some if not all satellite offices) provide multiple meals per day. When evaluating offers, I've priced similar perks at equivalent to an additional ~$10k of pre-tax income.
If I had priced a $10k perk into my salary and no longer got it, I'd be disappointed in Zuckerberg's dismissiveness here.
If I had priced a $10k perk into my salary and no longer got it, I'd be disappointed in Zuckerberg's dismissiveness here.
If you were still making an easy six figures during a global pandemic and the only cut was (temporarily) 10k in perks, complaining would not be the right move.
It's an unacknowledged cut. If your employer suddenly reduced your paycheck by N%, you'd probably want an explanation to go with it, pandemic or not.
Premise:
Diversity is good.
Diversity means diversity of ideas.
Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity.
Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant.
Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.
Diversity is good.
Diversity means diversity of ideas.
Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity.
Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant.
Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.
"Diversity is good."
No.
Diversity has benefits and costs - it is neither good nor bad.
People, or groups of people in a democracy, need to decide what level of diversity they would like to pursue.
Personally, as someone who can live anywhere, I've chosen (and continue to choose) a very diverse place (the United States - specifically California).
I like living with people who invent jazz music and snowboarding and the Internet and I am willing to pay costs like some decreased degree of social cohesion and trust.
Other people, or groups, might have a different cost/benefit analysis and that is not wrong - nor is it wrong to pursue those aims democratically.
No.
Diversity has benefits and costs - it is neither good nor bad.
People, or groups of people in a democracy, need to decide what level of diversity they would like to pursue.
Personally, as someone who can live anywhere, I've chosen (and continue to choose) a very diverse place (the United States - specifically California).
I like living with people who invent jazz music and snowboarding and the Internet and I am willing to pay costs like some decreased degree of social cohesion and trust.
Other people, or groups, might have a different cost/benefit analysis and that is not wrong - nor is it wrong to pursue those aims democratically.
The lynchpin is that every four years, a handful of the most disagreeable people rile up the rest to place one of two bets out of many, and if anyone doesn't bet the exact same way as their riler, they might as well be betting for the other riler, which is an intolerable act.
This is how the USA votes, and it's hard for people to separate what amounts to a behavior they must abide to 25% of their adult lives from the remaining time.
This is how we maintain our two parties: the GOP, and the people who don't have much else in common besides their dislike of the GOP.
This is how the USA votes, and it's hard for people to separate what amounts to a behavior they must abide to 25% of their adult lives from the remaining time.
This is how we maintain our two parties: the GOP, and the people who don't have much else in common besides their dislike of the GOP.
The orthodoxy of the downvotes has spoken louder than any comment, that I have voted, somehow, for the wrong riler.
We are become reddit.
We are become reddit.
> Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human
If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.
If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.
A lot of the developing world are still deeply homophobic. Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality?
Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.
Unable to see how they are the sum of their life's experiences we draw up the lines, dig in our heels and choose our side - and in doing so force the other group to take a side.
I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
Maybe people need to travel outside their comfort zones a little more...
Maybe a point of view is crafted through a life's worth of conditioning and experience. We seem comfortable accepting that fact when considering social conditioning over other issues, but when it comes to conservatism we draw the line - they are the evil others.
Unable to see how they are the sum of their life's experiences we draw up the lines, dig in our heels and choose our side - and in doing so force the other group to take a side.
I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
Maybe people need to travel outside their comfort zones a little more...
> Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality?
I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser.
> and in doing so force the other group to take a side.
No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc.
> have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
That sounds like the "economic anxiety" excuse for racism.
I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser.
> and in doing so force the other group to take a side.
No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc.
> have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
That sounds like the "economic anxiety" excuse for racism.
There is a problem with this view because all groups of people are essentially (statistically) the same and are in fact shaped by their environment. What I mean is, if you were born in their world, you would statistically share similar views to them right? Or are you saying that you are somehow naturally morally superior to them and would resist these bigoted view if you were born in their shoes? I don't think so... so given that we must accept that our views do largely come from our environment right? If so is it not our job to try and change/convince them that this views are wrong, i.e. enlighten them? What I mean is you don't have to accept their opinions as valid or equal, but people absolutely should engage with people that hold very different, even reprehensible viewpoints. Otherwise they and their environment will not change and the cycle continues...
From what I've seen over the last few years, this pretty much gets right to the heart of how this kind of push to shape discourse and control what's possible to say is justified: the people pushing for it really, truly believe that whatever moral beliefs are currently the norm amongst the (narrow, geographically, socially, religiously and racially unrepresentative) community of people campaigning for this are the one objectively correct moral framework and that anyone who deviates from it is a morally bankrupt monster who is treating others as subhuman.
What makes this particularly interesting is that those beliefs actually vary a lot more than the people pushing for this realize. There's actually this argument that they shouldn't have to spell out what the correct beliefs actually are to justify this since they're obvious to everyone, and any demand to be specific is just an attempt by wrongthinkers to pretend they don't know why they're supporting evil. This means any differences only get discovered when that specific situation comes up, and can just get pinned on the other side being evil monsters masquerading as decent people when an unreconciled divide does appear. Also, they change over time rapidly enough that the mandatory non-bigoted views from even a few years ago are beyond the pale in critical ways now.
What makes this particularly interesting is that those beliefs actually vary a lot more than the people pushing for this realize. There's actually this argument that they shouldn't have to spell out what the correct beliefs actually are to justify this since they're obvious to everyone, and any demand to be specific is just an attempt by wrongthinkers to pretend they don't know why they're supporting evil. This means any differences only get discovered when that specific situation comes up, and can just get pinned on the other side being evil monsters masquerading as decent people when an unreconciled divide does appear. Also, they change over time rapidly enough that the mandatory non-bigoted views from even a few years ago are beyond the pale in critical ways now.
> No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc.
Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? Do you believe that you are as smart as you are because of $somethingYouDid and not because of genetic and environmental lotteries?
Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? Do you believe that you are as smart as you are because of $somethingYouDid and not because of genetic and environmental lotteries?
> Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"?
I believe that I hold my current beliefs because I have considered my old beliefs and tried to work on improving them. As someone who grew up in 70s UK, I grew up seeing casual racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. on TV every day and, yeah, that definitely helped shape, if not specific opinions about the worth of people, then certainly a casual carelessness - it would be a rare week at school without a new racist joke, for example.
Thankfully I've seen since that I was wrong and have tried to be better (but I fully admit I have a long way to go.)
I believe that I hold my current beliefs because I have considered my old beliefs and tried to work on improving them. As someone who grew up in 70s UK, I grew up seeing casual racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. on TV every day and, yeah, that definitely helped shape, if not specific opinions about the worth of people, then certainly a casual carelessness - it would be a rare week at school without a new racist joke, for example.
Thankfully I've seen since that I was wrong and have tried to be better (but I fully admit I have a long way to go.)
> I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views.
Like what? What life experiences have shaped their views to make them terrifying to liberals? I'm genuinely curious because the people most likely to have actual lived experiences to support "views which would terrify liberals" are generally liberal and live in cities while those who have "views which would terrify liberals" don't generally have very many relevant lived experiences to speak of.
Like what? What life experiences have shaped their views to make them terrifying to liberals? I'm genuinely curious because the people most likely to have actual lived experiences to support "views which would terrify liberals" are generally liberal and live in cities while those who have "views which would terrify liberals" don't generally have very many relevant lived experiences to speak of.
Growing up in very religious environments - like all of the Middle East?
Growing up with a homophobic government and homophobic environment like Russia where it is the norm?
Growing up in countries where there is a very hated "other" tribe like in Israel?
Outside of the "developed" world a lot of non-liberal stances are very alive and practised. But should we condemn a vast fraction of these people who hold racist or homophobic views in environments where they are accepted or even encouraged?
Plenty of people have left those places and adopted more liberal stances. But this times time and acclimatisation. And education. So much education.
But when you write people off or morally judge them, you usually encourage them to dig in their heels because no one likes to be told their life and upbringing is wrong and a lie.
I have seen relatives' views on homophobia soften over the years but I know from experience flat out telling them they are wrong got nowhere. But they came from a time when everyone was supposed to have only one boyfriend/girlfriend into spouse for their whole life, and living was about making sure food was on your table that night. They had society force feed some ideal on them and never given the space to contemplate otherwise.
Growing up with a homophobic government and homophobic environment like Russia where it is the norm?
Growing up in countries where there is a very hated "other" tribe like in Israel?
Outside of the "developed" world a lot of non-liberal stances are very alive and practised. But should we condemn a vast fraction of these people who hold racist or homophobic views in environments where they are accepted or even encouraged?
Plenty of people have left those places and adopted more liberal stances. But this times time and acclimatisation. And education. So much education.
But when you write people off or morally judge them, you usually encourage them to dig in their heels because no one likes to be told their life and upbringing is wrong and a lie.
I have seen relatives' views on homophobia soften over the years but I know from experience flat out telling them they are wrong got nowhere. But they came from a time when everyone was supposed to have only one boyfriend/girlfriend into spouse for their whole life, and living was about making sure food was on your table that night. They had society force feed some ideal on them and never given the space to contemplate otherwise.
But I would also argue that it's also ok to choose not to associate with people who find you abhorrent. Would you genuinely expose your gay friend to your homophobic relatives and expect the gay friend to be happy and fine with being a target of bigotry/hate?
What’s interesting to me is how selectively this kind of understanding is applied. Why is it that we default to this reasoning to explain hate but not, say, crime. Where’s this level of nuance where we discuss riots? Why does it apply in one case but not the other? Why do we get blame upbringing and society in one scenario and then default to hard nosed personal responsibility in another?
I find your argument convincing. I just don’t understand why looking at the context of an individual’s upbringing is acceptable when explaining why aunt Becky is racist but isn’t when explaining why Mohammed is angry.
I find your argument convincing. I just don’t understand why looking at the context of an individual’s upbringing is acceptable when explaining why aunt Becky is racist but isn’t when explaining why Mohammed is angry.
pcbro141(2)
No, it's actually not, because people have different moral foundations, and many people value loyalty/authority/sanctity over care/fairness. It doesn't mean they don't care about care/fairness, it just means they don't make it their moral priority.
If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.
If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.
Hey hey. You're opposing loyalty, authority and sanctity to fairness. This is already a caricature of ideological positions different from yours.
Most people you violently disagree with have probably a different view of fairness than you do, and think that your opinions and goals are plainly unfair, as much as you think the same about them.
Most people you violently disagree with have probably a different view of fairness than you do, and think that your opinions and goals are plainly unfair, as much as you think the same about them.
You can't build a functioning society that embraces people who reject the humanity of its other members. Or rather, you can build a society that way, but the moment that opinion is accepted you are on the road to terrible persecution of that out-group, whoever they are.
A pluralistic society can handle many different viewpoints, but it cannot give them equal value or acceptance.
A pluralistic society can handle many different viewpoints, but it cannot give them equal value or acceptance.
Of course you can't, however many people have different definitions of "rejecting humanity" and you don't get to just define that however you want and then make anyone who doesn't agree with your definition the de facto outgroup.
If someone has "moral foundations" that cause them to think that, for example, a particular race of people is not worthy of life, I will refuse to engage with them in reasonable debate. There's no midpoint between nazis and non-nazis; the nazis are wrong and should be handled by force.
This may or may not be the case with ICE, the GOP, etc. but fundamentally there are some people who should not be engaged with in this way.
This may or may not be the case with ICE, the GOP, etc. but fundamentally there are some people who should not be engaged with in this way.
How many people in the GOP/ICE/etc do you actually think believe "particular race X is not worthy of life"?
Abortion is a great example here. One side thinks their opponents want total control over women's reproductive systems while the other side thinks their opponents are fine killing babies as long as they haven't actually made it through the birth canal yet.
Very few people think they aren't the good guys in their own narratives, and what's moral isn't an obvious choice in a lot of situations.
Very few people think they aren't the good guys in their own narratives, and what's moral isn't an obvious choice in a lot of situations.
I'm so baffled by this comment. It's saying that there's no path forward when refusing to engage with people/viewing people as subhuman, as an argument for the benefit of people who view others as subhuman! WTF?
then you just label anyone who disagrees with you as having those beliefs. and then you get to smugly consider them subhuman and ban them without having a single thing break your bubble
Sure - but they can still participate in society. Why shouldn't they?
A klansman like Robert Byrd turned his life around. This is after Al Gore's father and he filibustered the civil rights act. Byrd went on to mentor Hillary Clinton, and I assume Al Gore's father was an influence on his son - the Vice President of the United States and the first lady, who went on to become a Senator from New York and then almost became President of the United States. You have a candidate right now who has a murky past when it comes to school segregation - as highlighted by his own running mate!
The funny thing is - the Facebook employees fighting with Zuckerberg most likely support all of these people politically, yet the people who espouse similar views today are suddenly irredeemable?
This idea that you can cancel the morally bankrupt out of existence is rooted in some kind of blind weakness. If people don't want to engage with them, that's fine, sit down and let the rest of us clean up. I'm not afraid of engaging with white supremacists, they always lose anyway. Their ideas are weak, dumb and not at all compelling, and the more we let them speak, the weaker their allure will be. History has already proved this. Facebook isn't magic - their ideas are still trash.
A klansman like Robert Byrd turned his life around. This is after Al Gore's father and he filibustered the civil rights act. Byrd went on to mentor Hillary Clinton, and I assume Al Gore's father was an influence on his son - the Vice President of the United States and the first lady, who went on to become a Senator from New York and then almost became President of the United States. You have a candidate right now who has a murky past when it comes to school segregation - as highlighted by his own running mate!
The funny thing is - the Facebook employees fighting with Zuckerberg most likely support all of these people politically, yet the people who espouse similar views today are suddenly irredeemable?
This idea that you can cancel the morally bankrupt out of existence is rooted in some kind of blind weakness. If people don't want to engage with them, that's fine, sit down and let the rest of us clean up. I'm not afraid of engaging with white supremacists, they always lose anyway. Their ideas are weak, dumb and not at all compelling, and the more we let them speak, the weaker their allure will be. History has already proved this. Facebook isn't magic - their ideas are still trash.
> I'm not afraid of engaging with white supremacists, they always lose anyway.
The current state of the USA would disagree with you.
> the more we let them speak, the weaker their allure will be.
Except, somehow, they keep getting elected.
The current state of the USA would disagree with you.
> the more we let them speak, the weaker their allure will be.
Except, somehow, they keep getting elected.
Seems like the goal is to ensure a specific election outcome then, and the narrative about hate etc. is just a cover.
carabiner(1)
There’s no discussion to be had when you’re FOR equality and the other side is arguing against it. There’s equality and fairness. The rest is garbage. There’s no need to meet in between and compromise. If you compromise with shtty ideas you are gonna get sht on your shirt.
People will disagree about the definition of equality.
Good advice is to spend a reasonable amount of time on defining precisely what is meant by equality. You will likely find you are arguing past each other because your life experience has given you a different definition than someone else.
This is more true over internet communication, because most human-human communication is non-verbal, and text compresses this communication to oblivion.
Good advice is to spend a reasonable amount of time on defining precisely what is meant by equality. You will likely find you are arguing past each other because your life experience has given you a different definition than someone else.
This is more true over internet communication, because most human-human communication is non-verbal, and text compresses this communication to oblivion.
>There’s no discussion to be had when you’re FOR equality and the other side is arguing against it.
Kind of like how there's a subset of a certain political party that believes fetuses have the same right to life as infants.
Or how some people believe someone who comes from a statistically high crime demographic, has $120 in their checking account and face tattoos has the same right to own a gun as someone from a low crime demographic who can take a weekend class, pay $200 and ace an interview with the police chief?
My point is that it's not as simple as you are stating it is. Whichever side of an issue you are on the other side believes that they are right and you are wrong and that you are the oppressors. They have good logical reasons to reach this conclusion and if you peel back the logic you get to fundamentally incompatble differences of opinion.
Kind of like how there's a subset of a certain political party that believes fetuses have the same right to life as infants.
Or how some people believe someone who comes from a statistically high crime demographic, has $120 in their checking account and face tattoos has the same right to own a gun as someone from a low crime demographic who can take a weekend class, pay $200 and ace an interview with the police chief?
My point is that it's not as simple as you are stating it is. Whichever side of an issue you are on the other side believes that they are right and you are wrong and that you are the oppressors. They have good logical reasons to reach this conclusion and if you peel back the logic you get to fundamentally incompatble differences of opinion.
[flagged]
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You're breaking multiple site guidelines here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What is a "statistically high crime demographic"? Men? It's men, right? Statistically speaking the vast majority of violent crime is committed by men [0].
[0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
[0] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
>What is a "statistically high crime demographic"?
Young black men
This is drilled into the head of every cop before they leave the academy.
Young black men
This is drilled into the head of every cop before they leave the academy.
Interesting. According the FBI data in my previous reply, white men are far more likely to be driving drunk, statistically speaking. I guess we should teach cops to pull them over far more often than everyone else, right? That would be a similarly logical conclusion based on the statistics.
I think it's hilarious that you're downvoted so heavily for this when it's the exact same logic that's used against young black men.
If you look at these statics and think to yourself, "the fact that 87% of murders, 99% of forced rapes, and 77% of assaults are committed by men is terribly misleading because as a category it doesn't make sense to lump all men together when they're so different" then why the hell does "black men" make any more sense?
If you look at these statics and think to yourself, "the fact that 87% of murders, 99% of forced rapes, and 77% of assaults are committed by men is terribly misleading because as a category it doesn't make sense to lump all men together when they're so different" then why the hell does "black men" make any more sense?
Isn’t it weird you wouldn’t talk about politics in most settings especially among people you aren’t close to, but it’s ok to spam your 200 friends with political articles?
Whom are you referring to? I talk about politics with anyone who is interested in it. (Of course, it's also important not to talk about politics with anyone not interested in it, but that's another matter.)
What I find most surprising is that all that political spam on Facebook drives engagement so much. At this point I barely get on it and never interact with my timeline, because half of it is shitty ads and the rest repetitive politics, and my mental model of people has most of us being turned off by it. Apparently not, though I do wonder if Facebook is somehow oversampling on a particular kind of engagement.
Don't be surprised that your (and likeminded people's) experience may not be representative of the world or even the country's at large. Poll after poll shows that 40% of the USA still supports Donald Trump.
Remember the famous (mis)quote "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him"
Remember the famous (mis)quote "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him"
Is it socially acceptable to spam people with political articles? I don’t think so. I mute people who do too much of that.
"Facebook had given its employees $1,000 bonuses and said it would give them all top marks on their first-half performance evaluations, no matter how they had actually performed."
Giving everyone high performance evaluations isn't a perk. It's a disservice.
Giving everyone high performance evaluations isn't a perk. It's a disservice.
It simply means, they get their bonuses, nothing more.
Okay, it reads like everyone's review says "Exceeds", or whatever the top mark is. That's not fair to those that are actually "Exceeding".
It's tough question. I mostly agree with you, because I was the one who was exceeding during COVID.
But some people objectively could not because of stress and family distractions and living conditions (eg no separate office room).
Socialists (who drive most SV companies) consider that an unfair disadvantage (like being a woman, or being black, or being gay), thus that unfairness need to be compensated.
It is similar to a compensation for parenting: only parents get paid parenting days, while childless people don't get it, and it may be considered unfair.
But some people objectively could not because of stress and family distractions and living conditions (eg no separate office room).
Socialists (who drive most SV companies) consider that an unfair disadvantage (like being a woman, or being black, or being gay), thus that unfairness need to be compensated.
It is similar to a compensation for parenting: only parents get paid parenting days, while childless people don't get it, and it may be considered unfair.
I had some of those problems. I'd have no issue with my appraisal for that time period saying "met expectations" instead of "exceeded them". Even if it dinged my bonus.
The company being flexible and understanding with my time was enough for me.
The company being flexible and understanding with my time was enough for me.
The employees seem to only focus on the bad, but there is heck of a lot of good FB is doing. It’s. controversial place to work for, and they should understand it.
Verifiably false things should not be allowed. The assumption that everyone has the capacity (time, expertise,.. ) to tell apart truth from lies is a very big assumption. Even if it were true, it would not come for free for the individual.
No one would argue that in a restaurant it is on if half of the foods are spoiled because we could tell them apart from the good ones if we examined then closely. Why the same is not true for our brains?
No one would argue that in a restaurant it is on if half of the foods are spoiled because we could tell them apart from the good ones if we examined then closely. Why the same is not true for our brains?
I don't like this framing of liberals trying to censor conservatives. That's not the root of the problem. The problem is that Facebook is full of misleading or outright false content (both right and left leaning) and it is polarizing America at an unbelievable pace. You could censor literally everything remotely conservative or liberal and it still wouldn't fix anything. The uncensored side would just radicalize even faster and the censored side would find some other platform to radicalize on.
I don't know how you fix this, but something needs to be done because civil discourse is just about dead and our society is ripping at the seams.
Fascist countries won't have to deal with this problem because they are intentionally polarized and there is a "correct" side to be taken by the social media companies.
I don't know how you fix this, but something needs to be done because civil discourse is just about dead and our society is ripping at the seams.
Fascist countries won't have to deal with this problem because they are intentionally polarized and there is a "correct" side to be taken by the social media companies.
There's a reason the phrase "The center cannot hold" exists.
It's for times like this.
It's for times like this.
I think coverage of Facebook is often too US-heavy and it really misses the point by making it into a US partisan issue - this article mentions Trump but doesn't mention Ethiopia. Here's a Vice Article about how hate speech on Facebook is currently pushing Ethiopia toward a genocide just like it did in Myanmar a few years ago: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac...
I struggle with this issue. On the one hand, I think clear incitement to violence is a line that free speech shouldn't cross, so Facebook really should have deleted posts calling for some people to be burned more quickly.
On the other hand, the idea that Facebook is culpable here seems to take for granted a large chunk of Ethiopians who'll just do what they're told by Facebook posts, which seems to give very little credit to the Ethiopian people or the ability of their government to maintain order. In that sense, it feels prejudiced and patronizing, like arguing that Facebook needs to police its Ethiopian presence because Ethiopia can't police itself.
On the other hand, the idea that Facebook is culpable here seems to take for granted a large chunk of Ethiopians who'll just do what they're told by Facebook posts, which seems to give very little credit to the Ethiopian people or the ability of their government to maintain order. In that sense, it feels prejudiced and patronizing, like arguing that Facebook needs to police its Ethiopian presence because Ethiopia can't police itself.
IMO Facebook should be able to police its own platform, so if it has a large presence in Ethiopia then it needs to police that part of its platform (ideally using employees based in Ethiopia). If it feels it can't effectively police Ethiopian Facebook without amplifying hateful/violent messages then they shouldn't be operating there.
It makes sense to me that Facebook should attempt to follow the laws of the various countries in which it operates -- though obviously vague laws prohibiting "sedition" or "promoting unrest" make this hard.
But it seems quite difficult to navigate less codified cultural topics. For example, the problems in Ethiopia turn on old lines of ethnic division. It's tough for me to imagine that Facebook will somehow arrive at a way to manage a problem that's troubled Ethiopia for so long, even (especially?) if it uses local employees as moderators.
But it seems quite difficult to navigate less codified cultural topics. For example, the problems in Ethiopia turn on old lines of ethnic division. It's tough for me to imagine that Facebook will somehow arrive at a way to manage a problem that's troubled Ethiopia for so long, even (especially?) if it uses local employees as moderators.
I think the implication is more that Facebook massively under-moderates and is basically unable to moderate in vast parts of the world. I think you'd see equally disastrous results if they had barely any moderators who could speak English or knew American culture and current events.
> I think clear incitement to violence is a line that free speech shouldn't cross
but either way, according to most folks on this forum, Facebook doesn't have to allow free speech
but either way, according to most folks on this forum, Facebook doesn't have to allow free speech
Perhaps the real issue is just that - you give people far too much credit. We're essentially animals.
I mean look around you. You could say "no we can't tax sugar, cigarettes, and alcohol, because that gives the people too little credit to make good healthy choices!" And yet 42% of Americans are obese. Anti-science and anti-vax culture is very relevant. People believe Bill Gates wants to track their every move, and yet they walk around with phones and are signed into facebook trading their photoshopped memes from Russian troll farms.
We give ourselves way too much credit.
I mean look around you. You could say "no we can't tax sugar, cigarettes, and alcohol, because that gives the people too little credit to make good healthy choices!" And yet 42% of Americans are obese. Anti-science and anti-vax culture is very relevant. People believe Bill Gates wants to track their every move, and yet they walk around with phones and are signed into facebook trading their photoshopped memes from Russian troll farms.
We give ourselves way too much credit.
Yeah, they have been doing lot of shady things in other countries way before US criticism of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
Read the controversial section. Even that is missing a lot and the citations are removed.
Facebook has been used for genocide, mass cultural appropriation, raising anti-ism sentiment, etc by military, government and terrorists.
They don't employ enough moderators likely intentionally in many regions. African continent has less than a 100.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
Read the controversial section. Even that is missing a lot and the citations are removed.
Facebook has been used for genocide, mass cultural appropriation, raising anti-ism sentiment, etc by military, government and terrorists.
They don't employ enough moderators likely intentionally in many regions. African continent has less than a 100.
hm this is interesting how they incorporate audio snippets into blog quotations
> Mark Zuckerberg has faced criticism that Facebook is bad for democracy.
> Employees want him to take a harder line against the Trump Administration.
They employees want to support democracy by taking a stand against the democratic chosen president. I have a hard time coming up with words to describe my disbelief. Guess it's time for companies to enforce "absolutely no politics at work" rules. And you can add religion and sexuality to the blacklist as well. Guess old days "professionalism" was not without reason.
20 year old me would utterly despise current me. I find it funny.
> Employees want him to take a harder line against the Trump Administration.
They employees want to support democracy by taking a stand against the democratic chosen president. I have a hard time coming up with words to describe my disbelief. Guess it's time for companies to enforce "absolutely no politics at work" rules. And you can add religion and sexuality to the blacklist as well. Guess old days "professionalism" was not without reason.
20 year old me would utterly despise current me. I find it funny.
Talking about undemocratic ...
While the President himself may have been chosen democratically, there is a reasonable position one can hold that says his actions in office are not democratic. And THOSE are not democratically chosen. We don't have to vote as a group on every word or policy Trump wants to pass. We don't get to vote against him blocking access to relevant people required to finish a DoJ investigation.
So, if their objection was that Facebook should alter the results of the election, yes that would be crazy.
But thats not the perspective afaik. You're throwing out basically all the actual context just to post this fairly narrow and worthless sentence that misses what they are actually protesting.
How many lies or simply misleading information has come out of Trumps admin and by extension the news sites/commentators that are widely shared as fact on Facebook? It seems reasonable that people working on the platform aren't super stoked they are contributing to poor COVID responses and fake/deadly "cures" among the myriad of other pieces of misinformation spread across the platform which heavily leans towards Trump.
So...yeah I think you're appropriating what they are saying so you can say something entirely unrelated.
So, if their objection was that Facebook should alter the results of the election, yes that would be crazy.
But thats not the perspective afaik. You're throwing out basically all the actual context just to post this fairly narrow and worthless sentence that misses what they are actually protesting.
How many lies or simply misleading information has come out of Trumps admin and by extension the news sites/commentators that are widely shared as fact on Facebook? It seems reasonable that people working on the platform aren't super stoked they are contributing to poor COVID responses and fake/deadly "cures" among the myriad of other pieces of misinformation spread across the platform which heavily leans towards Trump.
So...yeah I think you're appropriating what they are saying so you can say something entirely unrelated.
> While the President himself may have been chosen democratically
The President was chosen lawfully, in an outcome which sits in the space where the lawful process produces results at odds with democratic norms.
The President was chosen lawfully, in an outcome which sits in the space where the lawful process produces results at odds with democratic norms.
If I had to guess it's because facebook has a larger portion of older conservative folks than other social media platforms?
If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources) which is probably because older conservatives don't use reddit?
It can't be healthy for entire social media platforms to be completely dominated by one party or the other.
If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources) which is probably because older conservatives don't use reddit?
It can't be healthy for entire social media platforms to be completely dominated by one party or the other.
With /r/politics you get HEAVILY downvoted if you voice anything conservative or even just defending someone conservative from unjust accusations.
So much so, that you can only post new comments every 10 minutes, while they keep on dogpiling you.
So much so, that you can only post new comments every 10 minutes, while they keep on dogpiling you.
It's hard when people want liberal things like sources or data to back up "facts"
Even then, they only ever want one side to provide sources and even if you do, they often outright ignore it/say its not valid.
You can see /r/conservative is more than a little active. Maybe the problem is that /r/politics moderators want reliable sources?
I mean, if you take a look, /r/conservative isn't exactly a bastion of lucid discussion. Case in point:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/iytx49/locati...
Implying that protesters are out there burning down houses (they aren't) and that the huge increase in size and number of forest fires lately isn't a result of climage change (it is).
The real problem isn't that liberals are over-represented on /r/politics, but that most people who identify as "conservative" on Reddit and elsewhere have gone so far-right or conspiracy-theory or troll-hard that conservative outlets lately tend to be mass-producing more propaganda, right-wing content, or misinformation. If you're an actual conservative who hasn't been sucked up into this psychopath right-wing bubble, it's difficult to actually find content that isn't pandering to those who have by posting deliberately misleading or outright false articles.
I feel bad for anyone who believes in legitimate conservatism, because their viewpoints and political party have been so completely co-opted by the fascist far-right and alt-right that there's not much else for them to do but vote dem or join the lunatic fringe.
I mean, if you take a look, /r/conservative isn't exactly a bastion of lucid discussion. Case in point:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/iytx49/locati...
Implying that protesters are out there burning down houses (they aren't) and that the huge increase in size and number of forest fires lately isn't a result of climage change (it is).
The real problem isn't that liberals are over-represented on /r/politics, but that most people who identify as "conservative" on Reddit and elsewhere have gone so far-right or conspiracy-theory or troll-hard that conservative outlets lately tend to be mass-producing more propaganda, right-wing content, or misinformation. If you're an actual conservative who hasn't been sucked up into this psychopath right-wing bubble, it's difficult to actually find content that isn't pandering to those who have by posting deliberately misleading or outright false articles.
I feel bad for anyone who believes in legitimate conservatism, because their viewpoints and political party have been so completely co-opted by the fascist far-right and alt-right that there's not much else for them to do but vote dem or join the lunatic fringe.
That thread looks like reasonable discussion of an alternative viewpoint but, much like the Facebook employees, you dismiss them because you presume the superiority of your own beliefs.
This is simply not true, if you try to explain the reasoning behind any "unwanted" policy or idea, you get downvoted. It doesn't matter if you advocate for it or not; you simply get shot down for making the enemy look less like a monster.
The "lunatic fringe" applies equally to the other end of the spectrum, by the way.
The "lunatic fringe" applies equally to the other end of the spectrum, by the way.
/r/politics used to be more balanced. Especially if you sorted by controversial. But reddit as a whole has become very unfriendly to conservative viewpoints and so it has driven the moderate conservatives either off the platform or into /r/conservative.
You can post the same comment on /r/politics and /r/conservative and one will be highly upvoted and one will be mercilessly downvoted.
But that is the system working as intended. The whole point of reddit is that each subreddit is a community of likeminded individuals. It was never really set up for debate of opposing viewpoints. One main way it differs from HN, which makes a huge difference, is that on HN you cannot downvote without some karma, and you can never downvote people who reply to you.
It would be cool if reddit added those as options for a subreddit moderator, actually.
You can post the same comment on /r/politics and /r/conservative and one will be highly upvoted and one will be mercilessly downvoted.
But that is the system working as intended. The whole point of reddit is that each subreddit is a community of likeminded individuals. It was never really set up for debate of opposing viewpoints. One main way it differs from HN, which makes a huge difference, is that on HN you cannot downvote without some karma, and you can never downvote people who reply to you.
It would be cool if reddit added those as options for a subreddit moderator, actually.
> If you look at /r/politics on reddit you see the opposite problem (over-representation - nearly 100% - liberal news sources)
Is this actually true? I get that there's usually one or two left-leaning sources on there, but more than half of the stories on /r/politics (the top 30 stories, as of 9/24 in my browser) are from centrist / conservative-leaning news sources.
The real problem seems to be that the overton window has shifted so far right that "liberal" in the US means "super-hyper-conservative, but a fraction less conservative than today's GOP talking points".
MSNBC, USA Today, Politico, Washington Post, Newsweek, NY Times and more are all on the front page of /r/politics right now, represent slightly more than half of the stories in the first 30 entries, and not a single one of those sources are remotely "liberal" in any way.
Is this actually true? I get that there's usually one or two left-leaning sources on there, but more than half of the stories on /r/politics (the top 30 stories, as of 9/24 in my browser) are from centrist / conservative-leaning news sources.
The real problem seems to be that the overton window has shifted so far right that "liberal" in the US means "super-hyper-conservative, but a fraction less conservative than today's GOP talking points".
MSNBC, USA Today, Politico, Washington Post, Newsweek, NY Times and more are all on the front page of /r/politics right now, represent slightly more than half of the stories in the first 30 entries, and not a single one of those sources are remotely "liberal" in any way.
Trying to redefine the political landscape according to your niche views is really pointless. Obviously the conversation is being conducted with the understanding that the US left/right/center are the reference points. There's no more point to this comment than there would be to a libertarian saying that Facebook shares are all from "statist" news sources.
> Obviously the conversation is being conducted with the understanding that the US left/right/center are the reference points.
Right. And by US reference points, /r/politics stories news sources are generally centrist or right-leaning. The comments and commenters may not be, but the stories and sources definitely are.
Even by US standards, MSNBC, USA Today, Politico, Washington Post, Newsweek, NY Times are all centrist or right-leaning news sources. And all of those have stories on the front page of /r/politics right now.
Right. And by US reference points, /r/politics stories news sources are generally centrist or right-leaning. The comments and commenters may not be, but the stories and sources definitely are.
Even by US standards, MSNBC, USA Today, Politico, Washington Post, Newsweek, NY Times are all centrist or right-leaning news sources. And all of those have stories on the front page of /r/politics right now.
> Even by US standards, MSNBC, USA Today, Politico, Washington Post, Newsweek, NY Times are all centrist or right-leaning news sources
No, I think you are just out-of-touch with US politics. Every single one of those is left-leaning by "US standards"[0].
[0] See p.5,9: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/...
No, I think you are just out-of-touch with US politics. Every single one of those is left-leaning by "US standards"[0].
[0] See p.5,9: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/...
Facebook is a global platform. Within the global comparison the us Overton window is positioned very much to the right. Merkels Conservative party is left of many Democrats.
Id say the Overton window has also moved to the right in the us over the last 20 years or so, openly racist and (not so) crypto-fascist attitudes weren’t so mainstream then - Facebook is probably not helping this development.
Id say the Overton window has also moved to the right in the us over the last 20 years or so, openly racist and (not so) crypto-fascist attitudes weren’t so mainstream then - Facebook is probably not helping this development.
Let me put is this way - of the top 30 stories as of right now (24 Sep 20) on /r/politics, regardless of source:
- 20 are anti-Trump articles
- 6 are pro-Biden articles
- 1 is anti-Police
- 1 is anti-Barrett
- 2 are misc. politics (covid, etc.)
Compare to the most popular articles shared on facebook mentioned by GP and you can see /r/politics is the polar opposite of facebook.
- 20 are anti-Trump articles
- 6 are pro-Biden articles
- 1 is anti-Police
- 1 is anti-Barrett
- 2 are misc. politics (covid, etc.)
Compare to the most popular articles shared on facebook mentioned by GP and you can see /r/politics is the polar opposite of facebook.
Anti-Trump isn't synonymous with left wing, nor is being pro-biden
Pro-human, Pro-democracy, Pro-equality. Not anti-Trump but I can see how it might appear like that. :)
> Pro-human, Pro-democracy, Pro-equality. Not anti-Trump
I can't reconcile the first three statements with the fourth.
I can't reconcile the first three statements with the fourth.
The most material difference between the two is that Reddit is based on user voting and Facebook is based on an opaque algorithm controlled by Facebook's executive board.
>Reddit is based on user voting
and heavy moderation
and heavy moderation
User voting makes sure one side wins and the other loses. Moderation decides which one.
Facebook's like system instead creates cliques of like-minded (heh) people.
Facebook's like system instead creates cliques of like-minded (heh) people.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24581099.
> "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]"
The set of people for whom this is true is shrinking by the day; remaining Republican requires an increasingly bizarre set of intellectual contortions. For example, you'd have to believe that appointing a Supreme Court justice right at the end of your term is completely unreasonable for Obama and perfectly reasonable for Trump.
The set of people for whom this is true is shrinking by the day; remaining Republican requires an increasingly bizarre set of intellectual contortions. For example, you'd have to believe that appointing a Supreme Court justice right at the end of your term is completely unreasonable for Obama and perfectly reasonable for Trump.
And every democrat thought the opposite and changed their tune too.
No one really has any strong beliefs about when the president gets to choose a supreme court justice, these beliefs just meld to fit whatever situation will get them a supreme court justice who will represent all the beliefs they do feel strongly about.
No one really has any strong beliefs about when the president gets to choose a supreme court justice, these beliefs just meld to fit whatever situation will get them a supreme court justice who will represent all the beliefs they do feel strongly about.
[deleted]
One year vs 45 days. Tell me that's not different. This is the Republican's own claim and precedent.
Historically this is pretty standard, I think 28 times there has been a vacancy in the SCOTUS in an election year. It has (almost?) always followed the pattern of:
- when same party, nominate and confirm
- when not same party, nominate no confirm
We all really need to expand our historical perspectives on many issues instead of being short sighted politically.
- when same party, nominate and confirm
- when not same party, nominate no confirm
We all really need to expand our historical perspectives on many issues instead of being short sighted politically.
I suspect this is very much one of the major problems facing the US populus today.
> Historically this is pretty standard, I think 28 times there has been a vacancy in the SCOTUS in an election year. It has (almost?) always followed the pattern of:
Do you have a citation?
NYTimes says that there have been only 16 [1], and for the 9 of them since the civil war, there has been no such unified-appoint/divided-no-appoint "tradition" [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/19/us/politics/s...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/09/24/mcconnells-...
Do you have a citation?
NYTimes says that there have been only 16 [1], and for the 9 of them since the civil war, there has been no such unified-appoint/divided-no-appoint "tradition" [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/19/us/politics/s...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/09/24/mcconnells-...
Supreme Court nominations: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtN...
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24577397.
The Republicans, being politicians, lied about their motives in 2015 by reflex. Nobody was ever fooled by what they said - what they believe, as evidenced by their actions, is the best option is for them to choose who is on the court. That doesn't require any intellectual contortions to understand or support for Republican voters.
It isn't like the Democrats would behave much differently. There is no way Trump would have gotten any Supreme Court appointments with a Democrat Senate had they got a controlling vote in 2018 and a vacancy arisen. Any candidate would have been declared a raping bigot and the investigations would stretch out until around 3 days after a Biden inauguration. Incidentally, that was probably the strategic plan behind the Kavenaugh business; if they'd delayed the process until after the November election there was a real chance he could have been entirely borked.
It is routine politics. Distasteful, naked self interest, low on scruples. But nothing special to the Republican party.
It isn't like the Democrats would behave much differently. There is no way Trump would have gotten any Supreme Court appointments with a Democrat Senate had they got a controlling vote in 2018 and a vacancy arisen. Any candidate would have been declared a raping bigot and the investigations would stretch out until around 3 days after a Biden inauguration. Incidentally, that was probably the strategic plan behind the Kavenaugh business; if they'd delayed the process until after the November election there was a real chance he could have been entirely borked.
It is routine politics. Distasteful, naked self interest, low on scruples. But nothing special to the Republican party.
Yes, the Democrats would absolutely not be so nakedly malevolent. Is this not overwhelmingly apparent?
What in the world are you talking about? The whole reason Democrats are going on and on about this election year appointment is because they wanted to fill Scalia's seat in 2016 and Republicans held all the chips and said "nah, we're gonna wait until after the election." Don't take my word for it, look at what Hillary Clinton said:
> The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.[0]
Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, but to claim the Democrats wouldn't do this if they had the position Republicans currently do is laughable. They threw a fit about this exact same scenario just four years ago, just with the arguments flipped! And they would quickly brush aside any criticism of hypocrisy by saying "hey we didn't say you had to leave a SC seat empty during an election year, you guys did!" and they'd still have some claim to being logically consistent in their beliefs. This is how politics work, yes even your beloved party isn't above it.
BTW, if you want to see some real fun, wait until the Democrats have all three branches. They're gonna pack the SC.
0: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488...
> The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.[0]
Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, but to claim the Democrats wouldn't do this if they had the position Republicans currently do is laughable. They threw a fit about this exact same scenario just four years ago, just with the arguments flipped! And they would quickly brush aside any criticism of hypocrisy by saying "hey we didn't say you had to leave a SC seat empty during an election year, you guys did!" and they'd still have some claim to being logically consistent in their beliefs. This is how politics work, yes even your beloved party isn't above it.
BTW, if you want to see some real fun, wait until the Democrats have all three branches. They're gonna pack the SC.
0: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488...
> Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything,
That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the court -- they should double the size of the bench. It's the only reasonable response to things so far. And that's not malevolence, that's equinimity.
That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the court -- they should double the size of the bench. It's the only reasonable response to things so far. And that's not malevolence, that's equinimity.
> they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now
The same Democrats who filibustered other federal judges for years under Bush and then removed the filibuster under Obama to prevent Republicans from doing the same?
On this topic (judges) in particular, the examples of partisan hypocrisy are obvious, for those familiar with the history.
The same Democrats who filibustered other federal judges for years under Bush and then removed the filibuster under Obama to prevent Republicans from doing the same?
On this topic (judges) in particular, the examples of partisan hypocrisy are obvious, for those familiar with the history.
> Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year,
Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible.
> and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now.
Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing.
And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most.
> they should double the size of the bench.
And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?
Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible.
> and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now.
Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing.
And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most.
> they should double the size of the bench.
And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?
The fallacy on display here is false equivalence. I agree that both parties bend facts and exploit logistical loopholes to serve their own interests. I agree that it's easy to find examples of hypocrisy in both parties. But Republicans do these things so much more frequently, and, especially now, so much more nakedly and freely, that it's actually a categorically different thing. It's totally disingenuous to say they both do it and therefore they're both the same.
You can go down that road forever though. There are plenty of intellectual contortions on the left. It's a question of choosing which ones are worse. I'm not a US citizen but if I were I'd be voting Republican because there's cynical opportunism, which is bad, and then there's open and hateful daily rhetoric against white men, which to me is worse. Pick your poison.
There is absolutely no meaningful equivalence on this axis between the American right and left. Your projection about white men is totally incoherent, laughable.
It can't be projection when it's so easy to find quotes or decisions that demonstrate it's the truth.
Hillary Clinton: "women are the primary victims of war" ... "the more we support women, the more we support democracy"
Joe Biden: next justice must be a black woman
Obama: "Men have been getting on my nerves lately. Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us. I’m absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see significant improvement across the board on just about everything … living standards and outcomes."
The American left is typified by absolutely overt and open sexism against men. They don't try to hide it, they revel in it. Literally the last Democrat President has said women are better than men, full stop. To claim that this belief is projection shows a deep level of denial about the truth - the American Left hates men, wants them gone from any kind of position of prosperity or power and talks about it all the time.
To me that's worse than opportunism. You can disagree, but you can't say it's not a coherent choice.
Hillary Clinton: "women are the primary victims of war" ... "the more we support women, the more we support democracy"
Joe Biden: next justice must be a black woman
Obama: "Men have been getting on my nerves lately. Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us. I’m absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see significant improvement across the board on just about everything … living standards and outcomes."
The American left is typified by absolutely overt and open sexism against men. They don't try to hide it, they revel in it. Literally the last Democrat President has said women are better than men, full stop. To claim that this belief is projection shows a deep level of denial about the truth - the American Left hates men, wants them gone from any kind of position of prosperity or power and talks about it all the time.
To me that's worse than opportunism. You can disagree, but you can't say it's not a coherent choice.
I don't know where to start here. If you think those quotes reflect a hatred of men, you're without context to such a degree that I don't think we can even begin to have a conversation about it.
I'm a white man and I don't have a problem with any of that. I think it's essentially all true. Can you square that?
I'm a white man and I don't have a problem with any of that. I think it's essentially all true. Can you square that?
That's the kind of non-answer that you posted before. Without context, blah blah blah. Fine, put them in a context that doesn't make them misandry. You can't because they are.
As for you being a white man and thinking it's true, Obama and Biden are men and also obviously think it's true - or calculate that it's politically beneficial to say it. It's still hating men: yes Dorothy, men can be misandrists. Plenty of irrational people in the world.
As for you being a white man and thinking it's true, Obama and Biden are men and also obviously think it's true - or calculate that it's politically beneficial to say it. It's still hating men: yes Dorothy, men can be misandrists. Plenty of irrational people in the world.
Another white man here that disagrees with your assessment. How can pointing out the lack of representation on the nation's highest court with a desire to fix (the Biden quote) ever be construed as "overt and open sexism"?
These posts are absurd, it's like we aren't speaking the same language. How did you get like this?
Sexism means discrimination on the basis of sex. Stating the next SC justice isn't allowed to be a man is sexism. That is undeniably a correct statement.
Now, you believe sexism against men is justified. You should own that and just admit you're deeply sexist, you're engaging in misandry and female supremacy and you're happy about that. Don't try and alter the English language to pretend that isn't your position: own it.
But I don't know if you will be able to, as you're not only distorting the language around the word sexism. Biden isn't "pointing out" a lack of representation. He isn't a passive observer merely remarking on a phenomenon. He's stated very clearly that he should be the guy to pick and he will not pick a man or a white person under any circumstances. That's not "pointing out" - it's active sexual discrimination against men and whites.
Again, own it if you like. Say you're a sexist and you think it's justified, you wish it weren't illegal because men should lose by default. But don't try and claim that statements like "men are better than women" isn't sexism.
Sexism means discrimination on the basis of sex. Stating the next SC justice isn't allowed to be a man is sexism. That is undeniably a correct statement.
Now, you believe sexism against men is justified. You should own that and just admit you're deeply sexist, you're engaging in misandry and female supremacy and you're happy about that. Don't try and alter the English language to pretend that isn't your position: own it.
But I don't know if you will be able to, as you're not only distorting the language around the word sexism. Biden isn't "pointing out" a lack of representation. He isn't a passive observer merely remarking on a phenomenon. He's stated very clearly that he should be the guy to pick and he will not pick a man or a white person under any circumstances. That's not "pointing out" - it's active sexual discrimination against men and whites.
Again, own it if you like. Say you're a sexist and you think it's justified, you wish it weren't illegal because men should lose by default. But don't try and claim that statements like "men are better than women" isn't sexism.
There is such an astounding amount of bad faith commentary in your reply that I'm just honestly shocked you can put so many ridiculous words in the mouth of a stranger based on a single sentence while simultaneously taking both the intellectual and moral high road. I'd try and discuss this further, but you clearly have zero interest in an actual discussion or in examining your views.
Interesting how they reiterate over and over how right-wing media proliferates on the platform but imply that centrist/liberal propaganda does not. Is there evidence of this?
Article about it, with some data backing it up:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/how-facebook-became-...
They censor anti-racists:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil...
AFAIK their new News tab has far-right publications like Breitbart, but no leftist publications.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/how-facebook-became-...
They censor anti-racists:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil...
AFAIK their new News tab has far-right publications like Breitbart, but no leftist publications.
"White men are so fragile," she fired off, "
Not everyone would see that as anti-racism
Not everyone would see that as anti-racism
Looks like that "anti-racist" is upset that she can't post racist and sexist things about white men. Not exactly the example I'd give to show that FB is censoring liberals.
The fact that you are getting downvoted tells me a lot. Censorship is going to never be fine, even if they pinky swear it will be used only on nazis.
[deleted]
Please don't use a term like "anti-racist" for someone who says "Whites are $NegativeAdjective."
It's really disingenuous rhetoric.
It's really disingenuous rhetoric.
I'm not sure where they get their data but this list is usually like %70 conservative media figures. https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
why the downvotes for asking this question?
Yes, there is at least some anecdotal evidence: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/how-mace...
> Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-... https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/
> Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/24/facebook-... https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/
Yes: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
US conservative content consistently dominates these rankings. Facebook is now primarily a US right-wing/conservative propaganda platform.
US conservative content consistently dominates these rankings. Facebook is now primarily a US right-wing/conservative propaganda platform.
For what it is worth, it’s been shown that the most popular and most shared posts for years have been basically 80% extreme conservative ones.
See here: https://twitter.com/facebookstop10?s=21
That said, this is no defense of left wing propaganda. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that by the numbers Facebook is mostly right wing users and that extreme right wing material is more popular.
Interestingly the popular right-wing material tends to be non-party related. Probably because sharing extreme right viewpoints on a generally conservative site is how you get clicks. It’s profitable, even if your organization has no horse in the race.
That said, this is no defense of left wing propaganda. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that by the numbers Facebook is mostly right wing users and that extreme right wing material is more popular.
Interestingly the popular right-wing material tends to be non-party related. Probably because sharing extreme right viewpoints on a generally conservative site is how you get clicks. It’s profitable, even if your organization has no horse in the race.
> by the numbers Facebook is mostly right wing users and that extreme right wing material is more popular.
Is that the case, or is it just that the extreme right wing posts get more traction than other posts. Like, are the extreme right wing posts more popular than all other posts combined, or are they getting e.g. on average 10 likes where other posts only get 7?
The source on Twitter seems to only look at pages (i.e. curated content), not what people share. Since they're doing it manually according to the bio, the sample must be pretty small.
Is that the case, or is it just that the extreme right wing posts get more traction than other posts. Like, are the extreme right wing posts more popular than all other posts combined, or are they getting e.g. on average 10 likes where other posts only get 7?
The source on Twitter seems to only look at pages (i.e. curated content), not what people share. Since they're doing it manually according to the bio, the sample must be pretty small.
Zuckerberg has the power and is being played like a violin by Trump.
And Trump is played by Putin, and Putin is played by green aliens.
Zuckerberg is the real kingmaker here or he could be.
Facebook is worse than you think. These abstract 'cancel culture' discussions are ignoring Facebook's substantial body count, role in algorithmically pushing people to hate groups for the sake of engagement, and disrupting attempts to hold the perpetrators of genocide accountable.
https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro...
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/zu...
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/debunked-antifa-wildfire-...
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac...
https://www.law360.com/articles/1305778/facebook-says-gambia...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in...
https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro...
https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-world/zu...
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/09/debunked-antifa-wildfire-...
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-fac...
https://www.law360.com/articles/1305778/facebook-says-gambia...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in...
I will never understand the extreme intellectual fragility of cancel culture.
A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?
A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?
I just finished reading "The Coddling of the American Mind", and it goes into the subject pretty well. A lot of it stems from parents not letting their kids be independent, so they never learn to deal with disagreements from dealing with other kids, then colleges cave to whatever demands they have because they just want to collect tuition money.
An article from four days ago: How Boomer Parenting Fueled Millennial Burnout -- https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/09/anne-hele...
The initial bit of the interview in the article:
> Anne Helen Petersen: There are two major factors. The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults—trying to cultivate behaviors, postures, and skills that are associated with adults, like being able to carry on conversations with adults or advocating for themselves when they feel something is unfair. I think we often admire that sort of precociousness without understanding what’s lost when you cultivate that in a child. The other component is thinking of childhood as a means to an end, and that end is getting into a good college. So instead of viewing childhood as simply childhood, parents are thinking, How can these various experiences—everything from playdates to piano lessons—lead to this larger résumé-building path to college?
> When childhood is treated that way, it can eliminate space for the formation of personality, independence, or confidence. Anything not oriented toward that goal of college—things like hobbies—gets lost. One of the saddest things I heard when talking to many Millennials is that when they reach a point of exhaustion with work, lift their head up, and look around them, they're like, What else is there? Do I have a personality? Do I know what I like? There's no there there, other than their ability to work, and I think that's really difficult.
The initial bit of the interview in the article:
> Anne Helen Petersen: There are two major factors. The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults—trying to cultivate behaviors, postures, and skills that are associated with adults, like being able to carry on conversations with adults or advocating for themselves when they feel something is unfair. I think we often admire that sort of precociousness without understanding what’s lost when you cultivate that in a child. The other component is thinking of childhood as a means to an end, and that end is getting into a good college. So instead of viewing childhood as simply childhood, parents are thinking, How can these various experiences—everything from playdates to piano lessons—lead to this larger résumé-building path to college?
> When childhood is treated that way, it can eliminate space for the formation of personality, independence, or confidence. Anything not oriented toward that goal of college—things like hobbies—gets lost. One of the saddest things I heard when talking to many Millennials is that when they reach a point of exhaustion with work, lift their head up, and look around them, they're like, What else is there? Do I have a personality? Do I know what I like? There's no there there, other than their ability to work, and I think that's really difficult.
> The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults
Or it's opposite.
Children recently get so overprotected (eg they no longer can go walk in the forest alone for example), so when they reach 20, they are still children mentally, they cannot stand for themselves, and they expect protection from employee, government, society even when they hear something offensive (which is a lot).
Or it's opposite.
Children recently get so overprotected (eg they no longer can go walk in the forest alone for example), so when they reach 20, they are still children mentally, they cannot stand for themselves, and they expect protection from employee, government, society even when they hear something offensive (which is a lot).
I'm 40 and have worked with plenty of people in their early 20s, one engineer who joined my company at 19. They seem completely well adjusted, smart, eager to grow and learn, and the only distinct difference I notice which maybe could moonlight as seeing them as annoying is that they ask for raises, are demanding, and know what they deserve and won't deal with bullshit.
Those are great features, and I've learned so much from the younger people I work with that I really don't get this "entitled child-like millenial/zennial" meme that keeps going on.
This doesn't seem to be a problem in tech, maybe it's in other more mainstream industries?
Those are great features, and I've learned so much from the younger people I work with that I really don't get this "entitled child-like millenial/zennial" meme that keeps going on.
This doesn't seem to be a problem in tech, maybe it's in other more mainstream industries?
the article is literally about people in tech, on top of that spotify, youtube, twitter google all having their issues with handling dissenting opinions.
I get that - I was arguing that dealing with dissenting opinions has nothing to do with the age/generation of the people.
I think it has more to do with corporate structures set up to look like democracies when they absolutely are not. That's not the IC's fault, it's the company's so they should have to figure it out.
I think it has more to do with corporate structures set up to look like democracies when they absolutely are not. That's not the IC's fault, it's the company's so they should have to figure it out.
I mean lack of protection for employment seems to be the essence of cancel culture. I suspect that this overprotection of children stems from the (often unrelated) fears of the parent, such as lack of social welfare and social services seen in other countries.
The world is pretty offensive if you listen to what people get offended by, like police shootings.
This whole panic about "sheltered millenials" or whatever seems to be projected from boomers (and older) who refuse to admit how poorly society functions compared to the idealistic but anemic view through the lens of private media (universally owned and operated by older generations).
The world is pretty offensive if you listen to what people get offended by, like police shootings.
This whole panic about "sheltered millenials" or whatever seems to be projected from boomers (and older) who refuse to admit how poorly society functions compared to the idealistic but anemic view through the lens of private media (universally owned and operated by older generations).
I heard from a retired teacher that the change he saw over time in young people was somewhat due to they grew up in smaller families with 0-1 siblings, and didn't have to share rooms, toys, etc.
Like that time a professional athlete was blacklisted from his league for kneeling silently during the national anthem? Is that the cancel culture you're talking about?
I talk about all forms of cancel culture and don't care which side of the political ail it comes from.
But you said:
> A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?
Are you referring to NFL executives? I suspect not.
> A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?
Are you referring to NFL executives? I suspect not.
The context of this is the employees at Facebook, I don't think there are many NFL executives employed at Facebook.
Judith Butler --
> Interviewer: You weren't a signatory to the open letter on “cancel culture” in Harper’s this summer, but did its arguments resonate with you?
> JB: I have mixed feelings about that letter. On the one hand, I am an educator and writer and believe in slow and thoughtful debate. I learn from being confronted and challenged, and I accept that I have made some significant errors in my public life. If someone then said I should not be read or listened to as a result of those errors, well, I would object internally, since I don't think any mistake a person made can, or should, summarise that person. We live in time; we err, sometimes seriously; and if we are lucky, we change precisely because of interactions that let us see things differently.
> JB: On the other hand, some of those signatories were taking aim at Black Lives Matter as if the loud and public opposition to racism were itself uncivilised behaviour. Some of them have opposed legal rights for Palestine. Others have [allegedly] committed sexual harassment. And yet others do not wish to be challenged on their racism. Democracy requires a good challenge, and it does not always arrive in soft tones. So I am not in favour of neutralising the strong political demands for justice on the part of subjugated people. When one has not been heard for decades, the cry for justice is bound to be loud.
> Interviewer: You weren't a signatory to the open letter on “cancel culture” in Harper’s this summer, but did its arguments resonate with you?
> JB: I have mixed feelings about that letter. On the one hand, I am an educator and writer and believe in slow and thoughtful debate. I learn from being confronted and challenged, and I accept that I have made some significant errors in my public life. If someone then said I should not be read or listened to as a result of those errors, well, I would object internally, since I don't think any mistake a person made can, or should, summarise that person. We live in time; we err, sometimes seriously; and if we are lucky, we change precisely because of interactions that let us see things differently.
> JB: On the other hand, some of those signatories were taking aim at Black Lives Matter as if the loud and public opposition to racism were itself uncivilised behaviour. Some of them have opposed legal rights for Palestine. Others have [allegedly] committed sexual harassment. And yet others do not wish to be challenged on their racism. Democracy requires a good challenge, and it does not always arrive in soft tones. So I am not in favour of neutralising the strong political demands for justice on the part of subjugated people. When one has not been heard for decades, the cry for justice is bound to be loud.
A lot of kids have grown up with "disagreement". The leading edge of this is trans people; if you're trans you'll find that basically everyone "disagrees" with that, sometimes to the point of violence. I think people are very used to dealing with that kind of "disagreement". What they would like is for it not to be based on prejudice, wrong assumptions, and cruelty, and to be able to get on with their lives without having to run into "disagreement" at every turn.
Given that there aren't "a lot" of transpeople I am not sure I understand your point is, care to elaborate?
That was an example of people who receive "disagreement" simply by existing. My point is that a lot of people have recieved what you call "disagreement" and what I and they call "prejudice".
You are talking about two very different things.
I am talking about our upbringing I am fairly sure most parents aren't prejudice against their children and I am pretty sure most kids aren't trans although it's certainly in vogue to call yourself to something of that effect in many youth circles.
So it's not a good example it's missing the point as most people we are talking about here aren't trans.
I am talking about our upbringing I am fairly sure most parents aren't prejudice against their children and I am pretty sure most kids aren't trans although it's certainly in vogue to call yourself to something of that effect in many youth circles.
So it's not a good example it's missing the point as most people we are talking about here aren't trans.
I’ve had someone openly claim I must be lying when I say I’m vegetarian; I’m just young enough to avoid my left-handedness being problematic (Latin: sinister); I don’t believe in any god, and some people think that is impossible; I’m bi and people deny that exists; I know people who are ace and the position of some Catholics is “Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist.” [Vision, David Nantais, S.J. and Scott Opperman, S.J., 2002]; there are people who say black lives don’t matter; likewise refuges, gypsies, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, the disabled, communists, and billionaires; and for every successful woman you can find a man who thinks their place is the kitchen, for every lesbian a man who thinks they can be “turned straight”.
The trans people I became friends with around 2008 have gone from being open about it then to being in the closet about it now. The category “trans” a valid example of the violent-denial-of-existence that some groups face. And yes, some of those trans people have their existence denied by their parents, just as some gays and lesbians are sent to “straight conversation therapy” by their parents. How prevalent that is I can’t say, but I can say that overall trans people have a surprisingly high rate of violent-existence-denial compared to all the other groups I’ve listed.
The trans people I became friends with around 2008 have gone from being open about it then to being in the closet about it now. The category “trans” a valid example of the violent-denial-of-existence that some groups face. And yes, some of those trans people have their existence denied by their parents, just as some gays and lesbians are sent to “straight conversation therapy” by their parents. How prevalent that is I can’t say, but I can say that overall trans people have a surprisingly high rate of violent-existence-denial compared to all the other groups I’ve listed.
since when have lefthandedness been a problem?
You are also confusing two different discussions.
You are also confusing two different discussions.
School children in the 1970s (so, people who are about 50+ today) might have come across teachers who wanted to "correct" the left-handedness.
https://www.rightleftrightwrong.com/history_recent.html
> It was only in the Post-War years, under the influence of John Dewy’s progressive education movement, that a certain amount of tolerance for individual differences and non-conformity developed. But, even then, indeed as late as the 1960s and 1970s, Catholic school teachers in particular routinely inflicted corporal punishment and psychological pressure on left-handed students, ranging from accusations of being in cahoots with the Devil to, bizarrely, being Communist.
> Soviet bloc countries continued to maintain strict policies against left-handedness that persisted well into the 1970s. Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia and the Iron Curtain countries all made right-handed writing compulsory in school. In Albania, left-handedness was actually declared illegal and was punishable as a crime.
> Even in the relatively open-minded and informed society of today, parents and teachers may encourage a left-handed child to switch out of the best of motives, such as a genuine desire to make their lives easier in a largely right-handed world. The children themselves may impose their own peer pressure to conform to majority norms, and a good percentage of natural left-handers tell of their own self-inflicted attempts to switch hands during childhood.
https://www.rightleftrightwrong.com/history_recent.html
> It was only in the Post-War years, under the influence of John Dewy’s progressive education movement, that a certain amount of tolerance for individual differences and non-conformity developed. But, even then, indeed as late as the 1960s and 1970s, Catholic school teachers in particular routinely inflicted corporal punishment and psychological pressure on left-handed students, ranging from accusations of being in cahoots with the Devil to, bizarrely, being Communist.
> Soviet bloc countries continued to maintain strict policies against left-handedness that persisted well into the 1970s. Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia and the Iron Curtain countries all made right-handed writing compulsory in school. In Albania, left-handedness was actually declared illegal and was punishable as a crime.
> Even in the relatively open-minded and informed society of today, parents and teachers may encourage a left-handed child to switch out of the best of motives, such as a genuine desire to make their lives easier in a largely right-handed world. The children themselves may impose their own peer pressure to conform to majority norms, and a good percentage of natural left-handers tell of their own self-inflicted attempts to switch hands during childhood.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement
You mean the "anti-maskers" who throw a fit for wearing a face covering for 30min when they have to go to the supermarket?
You mean the "anti-maskers" who throw a fit for wearing a face covering for 30min when they have to go to the supermarket?
No because there’s no desire to build or maintain a relationship with the person. You just emotionally reduce them an NPC and do damage control until they are gone. Pretty much how social media works.
Thanks for a good answer, you've got a point, though I suspect it works in similar ways with people you do and don't want to maintain a relationship (and a lot of relationships fail because of similar reasons)
(Unless of course the person is good at manipulation, though eventually things fall apart)
(Unless of course the person is good at manipulation, though eventually things fall apart)
There are plenty of "pro-maskers" who have the same meltdowns. Videos are replete online. It's all just a symptom of a culture that can't handle treating each other like human beings. Like everything is an anonymous forum online.
Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her.
Mob like behaviour to hound someone for their beliefs just reeks of illiberalism.
Mob like behaviour to hound someone for their beliefs just reeks of illiberalism.
Do you think it would be "illiberal" to hound someone for believing that white people are inherently superior to black people?
To keep things in context, JK Rowling has stated that she believes that biologically male people are inherently a danger to biologically female people.
This is fundamentally the paradox of tolerance: is it intolerant to be hostile to intolerant beliefs?
JK Rowling's essay explaining her stances on trans people:
> ... I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.
> When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-...
To keep things in context, JK Rowling has stated that she believes that biologically male people are inherently a danger to biologically female people.
This is fundamentally the paradox of tolerance: is it intolerant to be hostile to intolerant beliefs?
JK Rowling's essay explaining her stances on trans people:
> ... I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.
> When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-...
I feel JK Rowling was echoing a common sentiment in many women: “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” - Margaret Atwood
Atwood is not anti-trans and has criticised JKR for her bigoted beliefs.
Also, she's lying about "throwing open the doors". That was never the intention of proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. We've had years of hateful campaigning, with the most prominent support coming from JKR but also from the right wing UK press, spreading misinformation.
http://qna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/1236318/origin...
> The Equality Act allows service providers to offer separate or differing services to men and women, or services to one sex only. For example, a domestic violence refuge may offer its services only to women. The Act also allows service providers to exclude a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from a single-sex or separate-sex service, provided that doing so is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim –in other words, where the service provider can demonstrate that there is a very strong reason for doing so. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the needs of both the individual trans person and other service users.
> When launching the consultation, the Government said that it did not intend to amend the Equality Act. The consultation document stated that service providers would still be able to exclude trans people from single-or separate-sex services in certain circumstances, and that this could also apply to someone who had changed their legal gender and was in possession of a GRC. The Government’s view at the outset of the consultation, therefore,was that the operation of the single-sex exception would not be affected by changes to the GRA
http://qna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/1236318/origin...
> The Equality Act allows service providers to offer separate or differing services to men and women, or services to one sex only. For example, a domestic violence refuge may offer its services only to women. The Act also allows service providers to exclude a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from a single-sex or separate-sex service, provided that doing so is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim –in other words, where the service provider can demonstrate that there is a very strong reason for doing so. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the needs of both the individual trans person and other service users.
> When launching the consultation, the Government said that it did not intend to amend the Equality Act. The consultation document stated that service providers would still be able to exclude trans people from single-or separate-sex services in certain circumstances, and that this could also apply to someone who had changed their legal gender and was in possession of a GRC. The Government’s view at the outset of the consultation, therefore,was that the operation of the single-sex exception would not be affected by changes to the GRA
I never said if I agree or disagree with her, but seeing her experience with assault in the past. Can you see why she might feel like that?
I sympathise with her and the groups she referred to as well. We all are a product of our experiences and hardships, at the end of the day that shapes our opinions.
We can disagree with her but do we really need to resort to these methods.
I sympathise with her and the groups she referred to as well. We all are a product of our experiences and hardships, at the end of the day that shapes our opinions.
We can disagree with her but do we really need to resort to these methods.
I understand why she has these sorts of terrible beliefs, but I still think she deserves criticism for having them. Did you know that some anti-black racists also justify their beliefs based on their personal experiences? One person's individual experience is not an excuse for having terrible beliefs.
It all comes back to the fundamental question: is it ethical to criticize racists/sexists/homophobes/etc? You seem to be proposing that it's unethical to criticize such people?
It all comes back to the fundamental question: is it ethical to criticize racists/sexists/homophobes/etc? You seem to be proposing that it's unethical to criticize such people?
A bigot can point to one experience with a minority and blame the entire demographic, but a minority can't say one white person said a slur to them therefore all white people are racist pigs without backlash. There's an XKCD comic about this and girls in math.
Like many, I have a problem with hounding people for any reason. That's mob justice, which is no justice at all.
Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her.
She has changed a lot since writing Harry Potter. It's obvious that she no longer believes in supporting marginalised groups or telling people that it's OK to be who you want to be. Her recent work is extremely political and designed to further marginalise people who are already marginalised - she's literally just had a book published that's about a serial killer who dresses as a woman to approach and attack other women, which isn't even slightly veiled as an attack on the trans community.
If that's how she thinks now then she has every right to be like that, but everyone else has the right to point out she's being an asshole.
As always, there's an XKCD for this - https://xkcd.com/1357/
She has changed a lot since writing Harry Potter. It's obvious that she no longer believes in supporting marginalised groups or telling people that it's OK to be who you want to be. Her recent work is extremely political and designed to further marginalise people who are already marginalised - she's literally just had a book published that's about a serial killer who dresses as a woman to approach and attack other women, which isn't even slightly veiled as an attack on the trans community.
If that's how she thinks now then she has every right to be like that, but everyone else has the right to point out she's being an asshole.
As always, there's an XKCD for this - https://xkcd.com/1357/
Damn you see the plot point of a serial killer dressing as a woman as attack on trans? I often wonder if I am crazy, because that would never cross my mind. Why would I associate a serial killer with trans? Maybe a woman serial killer that kills women is also an attack on women? I think this kind of reaction actually harms trans more than the story. So out of this world that people will think that trans or gay or blue bi are not good in their mind and thus not a fellow person.
Damn you see the plot point of a serial killer dressing as a woman as attack on trans?
In itself, no. When it comes from someone who has a history of claiming trans people are dangerous and shouldn't be alone with women, yes. Context is important.
In itself, no. When it comes from someone who has a history of claiming trans people are dangerous and shouldn't be alone with women, yes. Context is important.
> When it comes from someone who has a history of claiming trans people are dangerous and shouldn't be alone with women, yes.
More specifically, when it comes from someone saying trans-women shouldn't be allowed it women's restrooms for the precise reason that it would be an opportunity for men who want to attack women to pretend to be women so that they could do so freely, a fictional piece with a central element that is a man who pretends to be woman so that he can attack women can very easily be seen as a dramatization of the exact argument the author has publicly made against trans rights.
More specifically, when it comes from someone saying trans-women shouldn't be allowed it women's restrooms for the precise reason that it would be an opportunity for men who want to attack women to pretend to be women so that they could do so freely, a fictional piece with a central element that is a man who pretends to be woman so that he can attack women can very easily be seen as a dramatization of the exact argument the author has publicly made against trans rights.
Could you provide a link to the context? I am skeptical but even so I upvoted you. I am sorry that your opinions lead to downvotes.
JKR write under the pen name Robert Galbraith.
Is it just a coincidence that the pen name she picked was the name of a gay conversion therapist?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath
Is it just a coincidence that the pen name she picked was the name of a gay conversion therapist?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath
He is Fucked if Biden wins - and I suspect the dual stock structure used to maintain control might get looked at by the SEC.
The Board need to tell him
" Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!"
The Board need to tell him
" Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!"
And then he'll appoint Peter Thiel as his successor.
As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning.
It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting.
We might, of course, both be wrong :)
It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting.
We might, of course, both be wrong :)
I think that’s a take without merit. It’s certainly not clear-cut.
Here’s The Economist and FiveThirtyEight both saying that they favor Biden to win (at the time of my posting this):
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
Here’s The Economist and FiveThirtyEight both saying that they favor Biden to win (at the time of my posting this):
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
Is there a point? 538 showed Trump having a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election on the day of the election. Flipping a coin twice and getting two heads is not particularly surprising.
538 is showing Trump of having a 1 in 5 chance of winning 2020: not favored but very possible. But if you dig deeper, the main reason that his odds are that high is that there's lots of time for stuff to happen between now and November 4th. If the election were to be held today the odds would be 1 in 19 for Trump.
edit: rereading it sounds like I'm discrediting the 1 in 5 forecast. Not at all, I think they're right about the 1 in 5. There are two main reasons to go from 1 in 19 to 1 in 5:
- future unknown events. Like Comey in 2016. Some of these events will help Biden and some Trump, but if they're random they will pull the odds toward the middle.
- when asked who would better handle the economy, Trump has the lead over Biden. Elections have always been about the economy, but 2020 hasn't been so far. Reversion to the norm is always a good guess.
I'm badly summarizing 538 in my comments, this is not original thought.
538 is showing Trump of having a 1 in 5 chance of winning 2020: not favored but very possible. But if you dig deeper, the main reason that his odds are that high is that there's lots of time for stuff to happen between now and November 4th. If the election were to be held today the odds would be 1 in 19 for Trump.
edit: rereading it sounds like I'm discrediting the 1 in 5 forecast. Not at all, I think they're right about the 1 in 5. There are two main reasons to go from 1 in 19 to 1 in 5:
- future unknown events. Like Comey in 2016. Some of these events will help Biden and some Trump, but if they're random they will pull the odds toward the middle.
- when asked who would better handle the economy, Trump has the lead over Biden. Elections have always been about the economy, but 2020 hasn't been so far. Reversion to the norm is always a good guess.
I'm badly summarizing 538 in my comments, this is not original thought.
Not sure what your saying. But if your saying they got it wrong they gave trump a 25+% of winning. Things with a 1/4th probability happen all the time.
Sure, they happen, but how often? One in hundred times?
Things with a 1-in-4 probability happen about 1-in-4 times.
Bad joke, apparently.
Aww, you got me. :)
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/08/25/armadeaddon-gr...
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/08/25/armadeaddon-gr...
Yeah, and probably Zuck has better data than both ;)
My money is on Biden receiving the most votes in the popular vote, but Trump still being in power next year, and a huge amount of litigation and riots in the meantime.
(Not sure why this got downvoted; Clinton won the popular vote last time, I see no reason that won't happen again?)
(Not sure why this got downvoted; Clinton won the popular vote last time, I see no reason that won't happen again?)
Yeah, chiming in from the Mid-West, the Trump base is out in full force. Lots of Trump signs in yards (with varying degrees of offensive slogans), seeing Trump flags flying from the back of pickup truck beds and yards everywhere... one gets the opposite impression. Whether the 'silent-majority' is truly the majority or actually the 'extremely vocal minority' will decide the election. However, there is no denying Trump has a very energized base out here. I have a feeling the Trump will lose the popular vote, but as 2016 has shown, mid America will be the deciding factor.
The other troubling thing, as related to the article, is the huge role conspiracy theories like Qanon will play in this election. Just as the article describes, through FB's algorithm, people engaged with traditionally left-leaning communities (non-GMO, alternative medicine etc) are getting sucked into this madness. FB's work to suppress this is not only too little, too late, it also creates a self-enforcing narrative that 'the elites' are actively engaged in a cover-up. It's pretty scary stuff. Not to mention, the cognitive dissonance is only amplified by civil-unrest and a global pandemic. The psyche of the body politic has been absolutely ravaged by the events of 2020, creating a perfect-storm for the unexpected to occur.
The other troubling thing, as related to the article, is the huge role conspiracy theories like Qanon will play in this election. Just as the article describes, through FB's algorithm, people engaged with traditionally left-leaning communities (non-GMO, alternative medicine etc) are getting sucked into this madness. FB's work to suppress this is not only too little, too late, it also creates a self-enforcing narrative that 'the elites' are actively engaged in a cover-up. It's pretty scary stuff. Not to mention, the cognitive dissonance is only amplified by civil-unrest and a global pandemic. The psyche of the body politic has been absolutely ravaged by the events of 2020, creating a perfect-storm for the unexpected to occur.
The midwest likes the Republican candidate, but the entire Midwest gets a the same number of electoral college votes as, what, eight or nine coastal states?
I should have included the South in my assessment, when you have states like Texas and Florida with 2nd and 3rd most (tie) amount of electoral votes, not forgetting 'swing' states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan that have a lot of pull. The middle of the US, and the East Coast South of the Mason-Dixon line is solid red. Gerrymandering has made it so even states like Georgia with a majority African-American population concentrated within congressional districts with enough political power to theoretically do something (Atlanta) will likely never flip blue (assuming said population were to vote blue). Same story where I live in southern Ohio. It's pretty sad. I think the electoral college needs to go away, but I doubt I'll ever see it in my lifetime. Hate to be a bummer on this, just tempering my own expectations.
People probably misunderstood what he was saying. If trump loses the electoral college there’s no way he will be in power next year. But, Trump could plausibly win the electoral college again and is almost guaranteed to lose the popular vote. For reference, 538 has Trump right now at 22% chance to win the electoral college. The day before the 2016 election they had him at 28% to win.
I would hope that Biden's team learned from Clinton's run that they need to focus on winning the most electoral votes this time and not just the most votes, period.
secondcoming(2)
FWIW here's my take:
- No one voting for Hillary in 2016 is voting for Trump in 2020
- People voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016 are either not voting or voting for Biden in 2020
- Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 out of protest for Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination are either not voting again or they're voting for Biden in 2020
- People who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into three camps: they're either voting for Trump in 2020, voting for Biden in 2020, or not voting at all.
All in all it looks like Biden is going to get more votes than Hillary did in 2016 and Trump is going to get fewer votes than he did in 2016. Trump's incredible campaign gaffe in Minnesota has cost him that swing state and is swinging the rest of the swing states of the U.S. Midwest, which is where I live, to Biden.
Bottom line - Biden's path to the White House appears to be less shaky than Trump's path to the White House. However, Trump has made comments indicating that he's willing to make this election cycle very ugly and we may be looking at our first non-peaceful transition of power in American history.
I'm no political science expert or anything, that's just how things appear to me.
- No one voting for Hillary in 2016 is voting for Trump in 2020
- People voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016 are either not voting or voting for Biden in 2020
- Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 out of protest for Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination are either not voting again or they're voting for Biden in 2020
- People who voted for Trump in 2016 fall into three camps: they're either voting for Trump in 2020, voting for Biden in 2020, or not voting at all.
All in all it looks like Biden is going to get more votes than Hillary did in 2016 and Trump is going to get fewer votes than he did in 2016. Trump's incredible campaign gaffe in Minnesota has cost him that swing state and is swinging the rest of the swing states of the U.S. Midwest, which is where I live, to Biden.
Bottom line - Biden's path to the White House appears to be less shaky than Trump's path to the White House. However, Trump has made comments indicating that he's willing to make this election cycle very ugly and we may be looking at our first non-peaceful transition of power in American history.
I'm no political science expert or anything, that's just how things appear to me.
I think you're mostly getting downvoted for speaking in certainties. That's a reasonable take if you said "most" in front of each bullet, but claims of "no one" only take a single person for the claim to be wrong.
Your first point is off, people have switched camps to the right since last election, despite how hard this may seem to believe. They look at how childish the left has become and have decided the right is less evil.
> They look at how childish the left has become and have decided the right is less evil.
The left is childish? President of the United States literally tweets gifs of himself beating up CNN on Twitter.
We live in differently realities. I see one side that shows some semblance of decorum and another that is basically the political equivalent of the Joker but without the charisma and philosophical consistency.
The left is childish? President of the United States literally tweets gifs of himself beating up CNN on Twitter.
We live in differently realities. I see one side that shows some semblance of decorum and another that is basically the political equivalent of the Joker but without the charisma and philosophical consistency.
>We live in differently realities.
That sums it up doesn't it? Both sides only see the worst the other side has to offer. It feeds the algorithm for it to be so.
But that illusion is actually quite fragile and hard to maintain, and the other side has an obvious incentive to shatter it by any means available. I would guess a lot of people, on both sides, will switch votes this time around.
That sums it up doesn't it? Both sides only see the worst the other side has to offer. It feeds the algorithm for it to be so.
But that illusion is actually quite fragile and hard to maintain, and the other side has an obvious incentive to shatter it by any means available. I would guess a lot of people, on both sides, will switch votes this time around.
You can generally see the worst the republican side has to offer directly from their own news media and the Presidential twitter account.
this shows how dangerous the Left Wing filter bubble has become.
undecided voters dont care about a 2 year old funny meme gag video. they care about 100+ days of nightly riots in dozens of cities. they care about police officers being shot by assassins and ordinary home owners being assaulted by mobs with impunity. they care about sky rocketing homeless, murders, burglaries and robberies. they care about millions of small businesses being permanently closed and tens of millions of unemployed.
just like in 2016, the Left drank its own kool-aid and believed in its own filter bubble propaganda and got blind sided by the freight train of Reality.
Trump will win again, and the Left will be shocked and cry again because they walled themselves off from the real world.
undecided voters dont care about a 2 year old funny meme gag video. they care about 100+ days of nightly riots in dozens of cities. they care about police officers being shot by assassins and ordinary home owners being assaulted by mobs with impunity. they care about sky rocketing homeless, murders, burglaries and robberies. they care about millions of small businesses being permanently closed and tens of millions of unemployed.
just like in 2016, the Left drank its own kool-aid and believed in its own filter bubble propaganda and got blind sided by the freight train of Reality.
Trump will win again, and the Left will be shocked and cry again because they walled themselves off from the real world.
We've banned this account for using HN for political and ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, regardless
of which politics you favor or oppose.
More explanation here, and links to plenty more, if anyone wants it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24582668.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
More explanation here, and links to plenty more, if anyone wants it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24582668.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The burning of american cities by antifa could not have played into trumps hands any better. I almost wonder if right wing organisations are behind them sometimes.
What burning? I asked my friend in Portland about how the anarchy in Portland is, and he responded, "Eh, a bunch of people are pissed in about one city block."
Here in Chicago, things are completely fine and have been except for the day or two after George Floyd was murdered.
Here in Chicago, things are completely fine and have been except for the day or two after George Floyd was murdered.
Are you joking?
Here's a map for you - https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-ar...
And a portland example I think most people have seen - https://usagag.com/2020/09/04/antifa-burn-portland-mayors-ho...
Here's a map for you - https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-ar...
And a portland example I think most people have seen - https://usagag.com/2020/09/04/antifa-burn-portland-mayors-ho...
Reality doesn't matter all that much. The news has played up the violence to get viewers and ad impressions because that is its nature and its lifeblood. That can be easily be given the right spin to sway voters on the fence away from the left.
Had the protests been purely peaceful, it would've been looked really good for the left. As it stands, it's been a heaven-sent blessing for the right to use as propaganda instead.
Had the protests been purely peaceful, it would've been looked really good for the left. As it stands, it's been a heaven-sent blessing for the right to use as propaganda instead.
40 people being shot every weekend in Chicago is "fine"?
Murders are up 55% in Chicago this year. CPD clearance rate for solving murders is 45%.
citation: https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/a...
that is not "fine." the Left choose to ignore reality and see a happy little tree illusory version of reality. that is why the Left keep losing elections.
Murders are up 55% in Chicago this year. CPD clearance rate for solving murders is 45%.
citation: https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/a...
that is not "fine." the Left choose to ignore reality and see a happy little tree illusory version of reality. that is why the Left keep losing elections.
Sure that happens in any big city. It has more to do with systemic poverty and gang violence than it does with imaginary "antifa" bogeymen Fox News keeps yammering on about.
Also OP mentioned American cities burning. While 40 murders is awful, nothing is "burning". And keep in mind this 40 is in a city of 4 million... ie a bigger population than the 20 least populated US States.
Also OP mentioned American cities burning. While 40 murders is awful, nothing is "burning". And keep in mind this 40 is in a city of 4 million... ie a bigger population than the 20 least populated US States.
My conservative news watching relatives told me they wouldn't feel safe in my city due to the "riots"
The actual "riots"?: like 100 people laid on the ground in front of the police station for a few hours and didn't do anything and marched around town chanting slogans or singing songs. I think maybe a streetfront window was broken in? But I could be misremembering.
These people are so terrified of boogeymen they've never seen, of post-apocalyptic events that don't even happen. What the fuck
The actual "riots"?: like 100 people laid on the ground in front of the police station for a few hours and didn't do anything and marched around town chanting slogans or singing songs. I think maybe a streetfront window was broken in? But I could be misremembering.
These people are so terrified of boogeymen they've never seen, of post-apocalyptic events that don't even happen. What the fuck
> I almost wonder if right wing organisations are behind them sometimes
There's extensive discussion of "provocateurs". Very little is ever proved, although at one point there was an attempt to build a crowdsourced facial recognition database of police to spot undercover agents.
There's extensive discussion of "provocateurs". Very little is ever proved, although at one point there was an attempt to build a crowdsourced facial recognition database of police to spot undercover agents.
Polls currently favor him to win.
It's pretty wild to see the framing here. Employees want him to take a harder line? How many? His user base wants him to do the opposite? Do they? Mark is a centrist! Wow! That's quite a revelation!
>At another company, the CEO might have ignored such a question from his workforce or declined to take it at all.
A lesser CEO might have balked at the challenge! But our illustrious hero steeled himself for the task.
>With tens of thousands of employees and more than 3 billion constituents worldwide
Constituents? Why are we using euphamistic language? Is it because constituents sounds nice and fluffy whereas "User" would fit in a sentence "Donald Trump used facebook to threaten to shoot people, Facebook's CEO decided that this was an appropriate use of Facebook"
Sorry, as the article rightly points out, I'm biased, I oppose threats of violence. I'll leave true judgement to the enlightened centrists.
>At another company, the CEO might have ignored such a question from his workforce or declined to take it at all.
A lesser CEO might have balked at the challenge! But our illustrious hero steeled himself for the task.
>With tens of thousands of employees and more than 3 billion constituents worldwide
Constituents? Why are we using euphamistic language? Is it because constituents sounds nice and fluffy whereas "User" would fit in a sentence "Donald Trump used facebook to threaten to shoot people, Facebook's CEO decided that this was an appropriate use of Facebook"
Sorry, as the article rightly points out, I'm biased, I oppose threats of violence. I'll leave true judgement to the enlightened centrists.
Whatever you think of the opinion of some of the employees regarding FB's stance towards politics, they're just never going to get their way without a union. It's exactly right that FB is a monarchy and what we see here are akin to the political challenges you'd read about in a monarchy. The small collective actions seem to be a good step in that direction but still much, much smaller than you'd need to form a union. We've seen recent unionization efforts in professional occupations that are shrinking - media & academia mainly. But I'm not sure political mishandling or ethical concerns about data are enough to overcome the fact that tech is growing and paying good wages. People need some self-interest at stake before they make the leap to something risky like that so we'll probably keep seeing this sort of employee flailing, be it leaks or small group actions or what have you.
Unions are absolutely detrimental to the society. Thank god we'll never have one for Software Engineers.
Great short explanation from Milton Friedman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4
Great short explanation from Milton Friedman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYgiOC9cj4
Yea Europe is a workers hell hole because of this. /S
It is. 50% of youth unemployment in Spain for example.
Oh I wasn't aware that was purely caused by Unions!! And you chose the EU country with one of, if not THE highest unemployment rate.
Every country has issues. To say that Unions don't work when the EU has a strong union culture, and then scapegoat other issues in random EU countries is intellectually dishonest.
Spain has insane unemployment rates because of generations of poorly thought out policies, not unions. They basically had a similar setup to Greece where tons of people don't pay taxes, and it survives heavily off tourism and produces few other things to make up for the tourism economy. Any country that generates MOST of its economy from tourism is going to have a rough time. We've seen it time and time again.
None of this proves the EU is a hell hole, and it has no inherent relation to unions.
Every country has issues. To say that Unions don't work when the EU has a strong union culture, and then scapegoat other issues in random EU countries is intellectually dishonest.
Spain has insane unemployment rates because of generations of poorly thought out policies, not unions. They basically had a similar setup to Greece where tons of people don't pay taxes, and it survives heavily off tourism and produces few other things to make up for the tourism economy. Any country that generates MOST of its economy from tourism is going to have a rough time. We've seen it time and time again.
None of this proves the EU is a hell hole, and it has no inherent relation to unions.
[deleted]
God, how dare workers collectively demand a safe working environment!
Do you support child labor laws, weekends off, and reasonable working hours? Because if you do, I got news for you...
He's largely taking examples from public-sector unions, which have particularly problematic legal framework in the US.
Private unions can be essentialy seen as corporations, very much like any other firm, that sell labor. Such unions can in principle specialize, compete and offer unique advantages. Again – just like any other market firm. It's just that the US law makes that hard by setting them up for a narrow antagonistic role of fighting with labor management for goodies.
Private unions can be essentialy seen as corporations, very much like any other firm, that sell labor. Such unions can in principle specialize, compete and offer unique advantages. Again – just like any other market firm. It's just that the US law makes that hard by setting them up for a narrow antagonistic role of fighting with labor management for goodies.
This aligns with how I have always seen Facebook, in contrast to Google for example.
In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization, whereas Facebook centers on the revenue and does not shy away morally doubtful decisions (like selling user data without regard for their anonymity, which Google avoids by restricting sensitive access to closed-loop algorithms).
And that makes sense in that Google historically (and still now) favors attracting talents and great minds (who lean leftwards) to work in its teams, to build the best technology, whereas Facebook tries to focus on its market, and how to please users (quite 50/50 politically) as well as business partners (maybe rather revenue-focused guys than socially responsible guys).
Both approaches make sense, but I do prefer the Google approach.
In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization, whereas Facebook centers on the revenue and does not shy away morally doubtful decisions (like selling user data without regard for their anonymity, which Google avoids by restricting sensitive access to closed-loop algorithms).
And that makes sense in that Google historically (and still now) favors attracting talents and great minds (who lean leftwards) to work in its teams, to build the best technology, whereas Facebook tries to focus on its market, and how to please users (quite 50/50 politically) as well as business partners (maybe rather revenue-focused guys than socially responsible guys).
Both approaches make sense, but I do prefer the Google approach.
> In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization
What dream world are you living in and also where do you get this from? Google, like countless other companies in tech, is a for-profit company, that optimizes for revenue and revenue only. If they are doing anything for the "greater good", it's because it'll eventually drive up their revenue.
If they truly wanted to do something for the greater good, they'd turn Google/Alphabet into a non-profit. But alas, they are not.
What dream world are you living in and also where do you get this from? Google, like countless other companies in tech, is a for-profit company, that optimizes for revenue and revenue only. If they are doing anything for the "greater good", it's because it'll eventually drive up their revenue.
If they truly wanted to do something for the greater good, they'd turn Google/Alphabet into a non-profit. But alas, they are not.
I have no insight about what the parent comment said but Google at one point in the past did quit the Chinese market on principles, the success of their compatriots like Apple which were more flexible with their principles does show the opportunity they left.
There are several ways to build a business plan to make profit, and Google chose the one where they attract and retain an elite scientific and engineering staff in order to build awesome products, and so they respect the ideological lining of these staffs.
Facebook insists more, in a more conventional way for sure, on marketing and business negotiations.
Both approaches "increase revenue", of course, however not the same way, not with the same timeline (one of them is more long-term than the other), and, last but not least, not with the same heartburn when I read about it.
PS: greater good is not opposed to profit. Your physician gets your money to care for your health. He chose this job rather than, say, the military.
Facebook insists more, in a more conventional way for sure, on marketing and business negotiations.
Both approaches "increase revenue", of course, however not the same way, not with the same timeline (one of them is more long-term than the other), and, last but not least, not with the same heartburn when I read about it.
PS: greater good is not opposed to profit. Your physician gets your money to care for your health. He chose this job rather than, say, the military.
>In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization
I did not expect such display of naivety on HN of all places.
I did not expect such display of naivety on HN of all places.
Google stopped several projects it had collaborating with Defense, retracted from the Chinese market, stopped mining Gmail data... all of that illustrate my point.
So, it is a point of view supported by evidence, not "naivety".
As I said, I am not personifying these companies, just stressing the leverage of different mechanisms as business plans, and the one favored by Google is to attract and retain its elite staff, and to do so they have to behave.
So, it is a point of view supported by evidence, not "naivety".
As I said, I am not personifying these companies, just stressing the leverage of different mechanisms as business plans, and the one favored by Google is to attract and retain its elite staff, and to do so they have to behave.
> like selling user data without regard for their anonymity, which Google avoids by restricting sensitive access to closed-loop algorithms
Where can we find evidence that this is true in both cases?
I certainly see the differences between how G and FB presents themselves to the world. But I'm not sure that deepdown how they paint themselves actually make material differences in how, as major tech companies at center of contemporary society, they operate, or what drives their leadership (ie. profit).
Where can we find evidence that this is true in both cases?
I certainly see the differences between how G and FB presents themselves to the world. But I'm not sure that deepdown how they paint themselves actually make material differences in how, as major tech companies at center of contemporary society, they operate, or what drives their leadership (ie. profit).
> In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization
No, they're not.
They just have better PR. They're both for profit companies with their share of controversies, but Google just has better PR.
No, they're not.
They just have better PR. They're both for profit companies with their share of controversies, but Google just has better PR.
PR is different from what the employees see from within.
Moreover, Google supported its "responsible" positions by carbon-neutral engagement, retracting from Chinese market, stopping mining email data, and more. I don't really understand why you would describe this as PR, if so then every decision is PR, and in this case "good PR" would amount to "good decisions" and I'm fine with that but not with the pejorative stench of the word PR (and because for most people it does not mean "decision").
Moreover, Google supported its "responsible" positions by carbon-neutral engagement, retracting from Chinese market, stopping mining email data, and more. I don't really understand why you would describe this as PR, if so then every decision is PR, and in this case "good PR" would amount to "good decisions" and I'm fine with that but not with the pejorative stench of the word PR (and because for most people it does not mean "decision").
Facebook ticks all of those?
It's banned on china.
https://sustainability.fb.com/
No proof on privacy issues but certainly neither seem saint.
Any other concrete examples?
It's banned on china.
https://sustainability.fb.com/
No proof on privacy issues but certainly neither seem saint.
Any other concrete examples?
That's good to hear.
It seems to me that FB is still a little short on ecological engagements. At least, compared to Google.
So, room for improvement.
About privacy concerns, for example: FB is not guaranteeing anything about not mining your private messages. What I find when googling it does not reassure me neither.
It seems to me that FB is still a little short on ecological engagements. At least, compared to Google.
So, room for improvement.
About privacy concerns, for example: FB is not guaranteeing anything about not mining your private messages. What I find when googling it does not reassure me neither.
Facebook's privacy policy spells out what they use as sources of data for ads and messages are not on that list.
Personifying moral decisions is the wrong approach nine times out of ten.
Incentives and structures are more important than the character of the people or business plans. Neither company (nor any big public company) chooses principles when it would lose them large sums of money.
Both Google and Facebook sell adds but they do it differently. Facebook is in business where the gravity constantly pulls towards the type of decisions that Facebook does. Sure, Zuck could do better decisions, but even if he would he has only narrow options.
That's why you need government policies that alter the incentives.
Incentives and structures are more important than the character of the people or business plans. Neither company (nor any big public company) chooses principles when it would lose them large sums of money.
Both Google and Facebook sell adds but they do it differently. Facebook is in business where the gravity constantly pulls towards the type of decisions that Facebook does. Sure, Zuck could do better decisions, but even if he would he has only narrow options.
That's why you need government policies that alter the incentives.
I am not really personifying it besides the introductory line:
I am explaining that the mechanism is that Google cares foremost about attracting and retaining a somewhat socially and ecologically responsible (one could say as well leftwards as a synonym) staff.
The fact that elite scientists and engineers are leaning to the left is a demographics fact, not some opinion from me. And it can even been explained by how the education system endows its pupils with a set of values, meant to make them better citizens i.e. more responsible, and finally that means more on the left.
I am explaining that the mechanism is that Google cares foremost about attracting and retaining a somewhat socially and ecologically responsible (one could say as well leftwards as a synonym) staff.
The fact that elite scientists and engineers are leaning to the left is a demographics fact, not some opinion from me. And it can even been explained by how the education system endows its pupils with a set of values, meant to make them better citizens i.e. more responsible, and finally that means more on the left.
My argument was that "Google cares foremost" relevant to Facebook only as far as their business allows it, just like Facebook. There may be small percentage of something else but it's the main explanation.
This was my main criticism. What is your response to that?
This was my main criticism. What is your response to that?
FB could have taken the same stance than Google about carbon-neutrality targets.
It could have also pledged to not data-mine user DMs.
It did not.
It could have also pledged to not data-mine user DMs.
It did not.
> It could have also pledged to not data-mine user DMs.
To counter my argument you must
1) find an example,
2) estimate the economic burden of that estimate.
It's my understanding that DM' is much more important part of FB business than it is to Google. My argument relies on weighing the economic impact.
To counter my argument you must
1) find an example,
2) estimate the economic burden of that estimate.
It's my understanding that DM' is much more important part of FB business than it is to Google. My argument relies on weighing the economic impact.
I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway.
In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period.
I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others?
Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others...