Comment by r2dnb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by r2dnb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Remember :

- It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign

- At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm

- Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumors" etc...)

- Post election the Fake News narrative started to be really pushed by politics

- At the same time, FB started to announce actions to fight the so called "Fake News Problem".

- And these day, hearing FB and mainstream media, the rethoric is as shameless as "We need to clean the news".

Having been caught doing some very troubling things, FB answer is to double down with what would be called censorship if it was being done in China.

Shutting down opinions, based on the opinions expressed can remind certain patterns of a not so old history. I find it shocking that people accept this development so quietly. Everybody seems to be ok with that. It seems like citizens are no longer awake and fighting for the bill of rights, seriously folks how can something like this possibly happen in this country ? Are you realizing what is happening here ?

In 2016, the average citizen thinks he is a good citizen and is all proud by being "politically correct" for a number of small things (often ridiculous and preventing him from maturing his own opinions) but everybody is comfortable with movements such as "Cleaning the news" being organized in plain sight. That's how you know something is fucked up. This is a shame.

"It seems like citizens are no longer awake and fighting for the bill of rights"

Nothing in the bill of rights applies here. You don't have freedom of speech on Facebook - They make the rules and decide what is allowed and not allowed. It's a company, not the US Government. If enough of their users are upset that fake news like "The Pope endorses Donald Trump" (a real example) is surfacing constantly on their news feeds, it is in Facebook's best interest as a company to try to remedy the situation. They make money when people are actively using their site - and if the "Fake News Epidemic" is causing people to stop using Facebook, they'll try to stop it.

Nobody is making anybody use Facebook - it does seem kind of silly to me, but clearly they see value in this (or not doing this was losing them money). What we really need to do is stop treating large corporations like they are a government entity and getting upset when they start restricting "free speech" - they have no obligation to allow people to post anything they want, and can manipulate your timeline as much as they want because you signed their ToS.

I just posted on an another thread that the problem here is that Facebook positionning / PR is to be say that they are a neutral agent.

"Share what you want with your friends / family etc." This is why this case is different. If I use ExxonMobilBook, I kind of know what to expect of Greenpeace related stories.

Given their size, extra-precaution needs to be taken. They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent.

"They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent."

That is an opinion. They, in reality, don't need to do anything, nor do they owe you anything. Just because their positioning/PR makes them seem neutral, that doesn't mean they are required to be. They don't need to take precaution, and I will eat my shoe if this decision is what causes Facebook to lose users. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of users don't care, .09% are cool with facebook doing this, and .01% (you) want them to roll back.

To be fair, facebook can, if it wants, put full blown nazi propaganda on their network and delete anything anti-nazi. Of course just because it's legal for a company to do that doesn't mean it's ethical and okay and we should just accept it. Similarly, while it's perfectly legal or facebook to select news stories to try and politically influence it's users, that would be highly unethical.

To be fair to facebook though, reddit has been actively caught doing this repeatedly so I don't know why everyone is harping on facebook instead of reddit.

> 99.9% of users don't care

More like 99.9% of users don't know enough about the situation to warrant an opinion.

I mean, if you asked random passerby on the street about Facebook's neutrality in terms of freedom of speech, I guarantee you that 99.9% of them will respond with something along the lines of "I don't know, I just use it to share funny cat videos with my friends lmao xD" or "If you don't like it you don't have to click on it".

First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution.

This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations.

You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies.

>Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies.

I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach".

The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. HN is transparent, Breitbart is transparent. You know their opinions, you know their agenda. But this is not the case with FB which pretends to be neutral, and this is the issue.

>This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations.

Do you remember the anti-trust suits against Microsoft ? You can't pretend that a company having the influence FB has is just a corporation like another. When you have this size, you have added responsibility / expectations since your actions directly impact a significant part/aspect of the country.

Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. The citizen should at least pay attention to what is happening.

> I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other.

They're not policing what you share with your friends, just what you can do on their platform. They are under no obligation to provide infinite reach for whatever drivel you want to share.

If you're sitting in a bar sharing racist anecdotes with your friends, that bar has the right to kick you out if they feel like. It's their bar.

If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else. There's even an alt-right social network you'll fit right in on.

> The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity.

They're completely open about it. They've posted multiple stories about how they're addressing this, will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0]

> Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point.

No, it does not. The Bill of Rights restrains what the government can do, it has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do.

Do you also think Smith & Wesson should be required to provide free guns, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution?

[0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/

> If you're sitting in a bar sharing racist anecdotes with your friends, that bar has the right to kick you out if they feel like.

Except for a lot of people there is no other bar. Your friends are in that bar, the bar has used their position to close other bars. And the only other bar still open is 20 miles away in a basement.

> If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else. There's even an alt-right social network you'll fit right in on.

The media is pushing the line "Alt-right == Nazi", so you are calling someone a Nazi because they have issues with Facebook controlling what their users see. After Facebook has already admitted to large scale manipulation of their users emotions[0].

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-...

There are tons of other bars. What exactly has Facebook done to close other bars?

Twitter is still around and very popular. So is Reddit. Heck, there's even a social network built just for people like you: https://gab.ai/

>It has nothing to do with what individual corporations can do.

My point was that we should pay attention as "citizens" because Freedom of Speech is / may be concerned. I wasn't trying to build a legal case with references accurate enough to be received by a judge. This is a about "Freedom of Speech" is the only thing I was trying to say.

>If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else

You're ignoring my point on the fact that FB is not a corporation like another. According to you Microsoft could have gotten away with : "People can use another OS" in the 90s, but this is not how things worked out. We need to respect law and understand why this kind of laws have been put in place. We paid a huge price before understandind why we needed them, repeating history will be expensive.

I can understand your point, I hope you could understand mine too even if you disagree.

Finally

>Will provide links to third-party analysis for any flagged stories, and list the criteria for third-party fact-checking. [0]

Thanks, this is interesting. Let's see how it turns out.

> If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else.

Okay, I'll just go find another social network where millions of non-technical individuals congregate en masss.

Oh wait...

Facebook censored me when I tried to share the Snowden Documents.

I barely trusted them before and haven't trusted them since.

> I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "

They don't choose that, they choose what you can share via their platform. You can share whatever you want with friends, etc., using your own resources instead of theirs, and Facebook has no say.

Facebook limiting the use of Facebook's resources to things Facebook is comfortable with may not make them your ideal service, but why should they be obligated to be that?

> Facebook limiting the use of Facebook's resources to things Facebook is comfortable with may not make them your ideal service, but why should they be obligated to be that?

Ideally, they shouldn't. But, as of this writing, they have a virtual monopoly on social media.

- Want to talk to your friends? Message them on Facebook Messenger/WhatsApp/Instagram.

- Want to share photos? Send them via Facebook Messenger/WhatsApp/Instagram.

- Want to see what kinds of events are happening in your city/town? Facebook Events.

- Want to see different stories of the day (the whole "staying informed" thing)? Facebook Pages

- Want to use a different service other than Facebook? Good luck, because everyone else who may not be as skilled in tech as you are still hooked on the service.

If another IM or events service gets popularized, then FB's foothold might be loosened. But, until that happens, we have to actively make sure that the things shared on the platform are as free as possible.

  This has nothing to do with the bill of rights.

Agreed.

  You don't have an inalienable right to spread
  whatever political lie you want

In the U.S., you do. "Real" media do it all the time. There are laws against making slanderous or libelous statements against individuals and entities, but every American has the right to say, "the moon landings were faked and greens are smarter than libertarians" if they want.

You dropped the most important part of that quote: "to millions of people."

You're free to go on any street corner and rant about the moon landings. Facebook just isn't under any obligation to give you a platform to reach millions of people with that.

Even Facebook readers can post such things, and Facebook staff can remove it if they choose. Otherwise, you are seeking prior restraint.

Typically, an individual lacks the reach to make statements visible to "millions" of Facebook feeds, unless they are celebrities.

Sure, but my point is that Facebook is no under obligation to allow you to post that stuff and is free to remove it whenever they feel. They could delete Breitbart's page tomorrow if they felt like it.

> You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people.

Well, that's arguable, but in any case, and perhaps more to the point here, in the US you don't have a Constitutional right to force any private party to cooperate with you in spreading any political idea (lie or not) you want, even when you have the right to spread that idea yourself.

OOh, juicy controversial comment. I hope some people take the time to read it instead of passing over it because it's slightly greyed out.

I for one don't agree that reddit and facebook have a "duty" to remain uncensored. If Breitbart is allowed to be overtly pro-Conservative while claiming to be the only "real" news source, reddit and facebook should be allowed to do whatever they please. All the other news agencies do it, what makes facebook so special?

Isn't that a problem when a news that says that the Pope supports Donald Trump gets over 1 millions shares? This isn't opinion, this is pure fabrication.

A guy fired a gun in a pizza place, this is facebook's response. That guy arguing this is an affront to the bill of rights, seems to have never read the bill of rights.

The article could go on and make the case that the actions of the Pope are not aligned with his rethoric which shows that nothing is as black and white as what you suggest.

The example you responded to isn't a "What If" scenario - it actually happened. The headline and body of the article claimed Donald Trump was endorsed by the Pope with no evidence. It's fake news no matter how you look at it.

>The example you responded to isn't a "What If" scenario - it actually happened.

Then you are acually making my case. My point was that it would be hard to call that a fake news, this is an opinion.

You are gas lighting.

It is not "opinion" on whether the Pope endorsed Trump. It is unequivocal fact that he did not. Reporting to the contrary is fake news.

As long as they stick to flagging/marking posts while keeping them visible I don't see how that's different from how HN works. Are you opposed to that as well?

>Are you opposed to that as well?

HN never pretends to be neutral, it is a community with a set of rules. For example we even expect them to filter out-of-topic posts, and we know very well the opinions of the moderators / founders and where their line in the sand is.

However FB pretends to be neutral. If it's only flagged and there is no impact on the ranking algorithm, of course there would be no issue. It would just be a way to know FB opinion. But, frankly, we know better than that, of course the ranking and the reach will be impacted. This is even the stated intent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com