Hacker News Reader

Comment by zepto | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone else think it is dangerously Orwellian to describe speech as people 'hurting themselves and others'?

We seem to have a serious problem resulting from people living in bubbles of information sources that only confirm their own viewpoint.

How can the solution to that problem be to have a single corporation design the bubble for everyone?

(Note: I know he's taking about actual videos of violence taking place. However my point is that violence is already happening, and hiding that from public view is 'out of sight, out of mind')

View on HN

He may be referring to speech in part, but he's also referring to people killing themselves and others on camera on Facebook. I think that's what has triggered this.

Like the videos that sparked Black Lives Matter and United? Are you sure you want them silenced? And which hurt and kill is sharing worthy?

Any rule that limits speech can be twisted into censorship of worthy causes. And the restrictions on speech always hurt the weaker sides.

(not talking about first amendment which is about who has the right to limit it and in what conditions, just the effects of said limitations)

I thought he was referring to situations like the person who killed his daughter on Facebook Live[1].

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thai-man-films-...

Nobody's forcing you to have a Facebook account, or participate in it. It's not "for everyone".

Unfortunately, it kind of is becoming that way. Facebook is becoming a de-facto public utility.

The phone and telegraph companies started out as "optional" services. If you didn't like the telegraph company arbitrarily blocking journalists that criticized them, you were free to not use telegraphs.

Facebook is being tied to credit worthiness, and job applications, whether we like it or not.

And in some parts of the developing world, it is more important than a phone number. It is recognized as being so vital, that providing Facebook access is subsidized.

We can no longer pretend that Facebook is some sort of toy, and dismiss criticism by saying that if you don't like it you shouldn't use it.

> Facebook is being tied to credit worthiness, and job applications, whether we like it or not.

Where, how? I've never heard of someone needing a Facebook account for credit and any employer asking for your Facebook profile is a huge red flag.

> Where, how? I've never heard of someone needing a Facebook account for credit and any employer asking for your Facebook profile is a huge red flag.

Here[1]. Saying "wasted" as a status update can affect a credit score. And even if it isn't disclosed, employers, and other entities, may use your Facebook activity. This is a totally valid issue. So, yes, Facebook does matter, whether you like it to or not. It isn't just a toy, and you can't just stop using it, without it potentially harming you. I think it's totally unfair, but people now have to consider their online presence when hunting for a job.

And they don't have to ask for your Facebook account specifically. Companies like ru4.com can tie your financial identity to your social media identity[2]. Just like how even though you didn't submit anything to the 3 credit bureau, they will find data for you, it is also becoming true with social media. I can't log into chase.com without allowing scripts from ru4.com. Luckily, I use a sandboxed Firefox profile, that has never touched Facebook.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog...

[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/02/1521239/even-the-ad-...

Walled gardens are awful things in my book.

It's a delicate balance, but Facebook can't even remove overtly racist/sexist/etc. posts/accounts with any reliability right now.

Its unclear to me as well. I've been hearing speech can be violence from my younger coworkers.

Your younger coworkers are wrong. By definition, violence is physical.

There is, however, a push within educational institutions to redefine terms like "violence" as part of a wider "social justice" programme. The crux of it is that offending someone else is a very bad thing to do, regardless of whether it's intentional or your words are true.

Is it true that violence is physical, by definition?

It is one definition, but there are other more abstract definitions that mean "an unjust exertion of force or power", "rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language", "damage through distortion", etc.

For example, the phrase "violent scolding" is stuck in my mind from a fairy tale I read as a child, and indeed, if you search Google Books for that phrase, you'll see many examples dating back to at least the 1800s, examples that do not mean physical violence.

So, I don't think it's some new redefinition of violence to use it more abstractly. I think of it similar to the term abuse. Sure, abuse often means a physical act, but it often means verbal/emotional acts.

In "violent scolding", the violent is a figure of speech. It's not real violence.

Like a particularly showy car could be colored "violently red". Still, it's not violence that anyone should step in to stop.

Maybe we need a word that is more powerful than harassment, that isn't physical violence.

I've heard people say things like "virtual rape". I think it's problematic to say that something that occurs in text can compare to having your body physically violated.

Pretty sure he is talking about physical violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com