What Stays on Facebook and What Goes? The Social Network Cannot Answer
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Back in the day, if you ran an IRC server, you generally ran the service laissez faire. Your chief concern was providing the service. If someone was sharing illegal content, that wasn't your responsibility any more than state governments sharing culpability for roads that facilitate robberies. And behavior? Who cares what you do, unless you're attacking the service?
Channels themselves could come up with their own set of rules, if they wanted. You want to restrict swearing? No problem. Only registered accounts? Fine. No discussion of politics? Who cares? If you came crying to the server administrators, because you were unfairly banned from #atheism/religion/linux for walking in and trying to have an honest debate, they'd shrug their shoulders. Not their problem!
What a ridiculous state of affairs to have the service administrators make a network wide rule: "No saying untrue things", or "Don't be mean, but only to certain groups of people". It isn't their job to decide what is true, or what is hurtful.
"Oooh, but bjt2n3904, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook! There's this great XKCD comic where he shows mean people the door, and..." -- Yes. I get it. But the fact remains, the 1A is a good principle to adhere to, even if you aren't the government. Policing your own little channel of the internet is feasible, if you so choose. Policing the entire internet is madness -- especially when it comes to subjective things like "hate".
Everyone has a different level of tolerance for putting up with jerks on the internet. One person might feel they're being targeted with harassment, another might just call that "Monday". The solution isn't to have Twitter declare how everyone should behave, the solution is for Twitter to push that decision to the user, and provide them with effective tools for filtering and blocking people.
Here's the speech if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w2i5CnZ9Xo
Facebook is trying to abide by the principles of free speech. Yes, they could try to censor their platform, but they choose not to in most cases.
And make no mistake, it _is_ censorship. Censorship is not limited to government intervention.
What I am saying, is that this quagmire the article references is a direct result of Facebook trying to decide what is "hate speech", and bad for society. It's best for them to not to try.
The thing I don't like about Facebook is not that it may restrict people acting badly, but that it shows you all the worst posts of people you know, in order to create engagement. What I would like is for all non-objectionable posts from my friends to appear in chronological order. Facebook's algorithms seem to have an emergent behavior in which they synthesize a toxic persona by selecting the posts which get the most reaction from everything a friend posts. Except when you go to a friend's page to see everything they posted recently, you get a very distorted view on your own feed. I don't think Facebook has come to terms with the monster they've created.
Your expectation of Facebook is very unrealistic, at least for now, because who is to say what is and isn't objectionable? Although I can't really make much more of a comment than that since I just don't see that many toxic posts from friends on Facebook. If my friends were really that toxic, I'd probably not be friends with them or at least just block them.
Facebook already supports a chronological feed. It just has to be turned on by the user, and it seems to untoggle itself after a while. But it's there, and that's what I tend to use. I otherwise just don't befriend toxic people, although I've blocked a few people who just post repetitive crap I don't agree with. Everyone has the tools to control their feed right in front of them, but they're not using them either because they don't know they're there or because they're afraid they'll miss that one meme post from their otherwise toxic friends.
As far as blaming people for the toxicity of what appears, I don't think that's right. Salt is toxic in large quantities, essential in small amounts. Systematically placing it in wounds adds a whole new dimension. Context has a huge effect on the meaning of events. Suppose someone made a video of dozens of brief instances where you were at your worst, and sent it to everyone you know. That would not be the truth about who you are, or your fault. Selecting one of 10 or 100 posts for how intense a reaction it gets, is creating a toxic narrative, and the emergent result of the algorithms is not to be blamed on the source of the data. Systematically manipulating the context of interactions with people is an incredibly destructive, harmful thing to do - traditionally, it's the bread and butter of tactical politics, but Facebook has brought it to ordinary people.
If I start a forum for discussing a particular subject, then disallowing discussion of other subjects is technically censorship but not bad per se, because it keeps the focus of the forum where it should be.
I _don't_ think the right answer is anything goes (even if you attempt to let the community police that with voting). I've seen many small forums self-destruct due to the dedicated action of a few committed individuals to ruining it -- either explicitly (due to a grudge) or implicitly (a commitment to getting their way at any cost). Misinformation is terribly difficult to combat, and can lead to real harm to real people.
I _don't_ think the right answer is heavy moderation. I even feel like hacker news goes overboard sometimes (though I do enjoy the irony of comments here railing against calls for moderation on FB). A ministry of truth is never a good idea because it creates a clear path to corrupting the truth by controlling an entity.
I do think it is reasonable, however, to consider certain things to be settled facts. Humans breathe air, the earth is round, the holocaust happened, slavery is bad, racism is bad. Of course I have no answer about where the line is drawn between what I just said and a ministry of truth.
In my experience, the most successful communities are intelligently moderated, however, including IRC. Though the moderation was more about banning people and keeping channels on-topic than suppressing certain ideas.
The best answer I have so far is social consequence -- disagree vocally & publicly, block early, block often. Of course there are a whole slew of downsides here too, but I haven't seen anything better.
Too bad, so sad. The health and growth of your channel is not the network's problem, unless downtime and latency are your issues. If you can't solve the squabbles in your #furry/lgbt/conservative/socialist sub community, you can't expect me to come and declare you "the winner of the internet fight" and banish the losers. Do that yourself, if you're the chanop. If you aren't, start another channel.
> Misinformation is terribly difficult to combat.
Still not the network's problem. Last I checked, my role was providing a service, not arbitrating truth.
> and can lead to real harm to real people.
Mmn, aaand still not the network's problem. (If said harm even exists. Most times, it's just "emotional distress", or some indirect butterfly effect we want to blame for things like Trump, instead of looking at the direct causes.) If there is harm, it's the local, state, and federal government's problem. Not the service administrators.
> A ministry of truth is never a good idea
But it's what you're calling for. You try to make it seem virtuous by limiting the scope to certain "undeniable facts" like racism, slavery, the holocaust. Or worse, I've seen people trying to push it off to some Mechanical Turk, like Machine Learning. The computer will tell us if it's racist! It will soon grow to include vaccines, global warming, and a litany of other "social ills to be fixed" that just need to be accepted as truth.
When people living in the jurisdiction who elected that government will have enough, the government will shut down, block, or heavily regulate these networks. The internet is global, they can’t prosecute users.
When that will happen, it will become the network's problem.
Even if the networks themselves don’t feel any moral responsibility for that real harm, it’s in their best interest to do something.
Is this actually true? I've seen it mentioned in a few places. Why isn't "obviously we can't vet every comment prior to it appearing but we do our best with a combination of humans and scripts to remove stuff that breaks our rules" an adequate defense?
On the other hand, what if a newspaper posts an editorial that "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong (TM)"? Do they share more responsibility than if someone comments on the system?
Facebook is trying to decide whether it's an IRC server, or a newspaper. I think the problem is that they want to be both.
You hit the nail so hard on the head with this statement, Facebook has come to a point where it cannot just be a "traditional social network" if it wants to continue to expand within the stock market and grow globally--it needs to be THE ONE TRUE source of information, discussion, media, news, politics, small community groups, advertising.
What used to be a cool place to check on your friends, their interests, and what they are doing has turned into attempting to be a little bit of every single site so much that users "shouldn't have to" go anywhere else.
I care much more when I share a link, and Facebook tells me they've flagged it as "untruthful" and won't let me share it. That's what my root comment is about.
For example, reddit does that, and unlike FB they’re not afraid to talk to journalists about their content policing, see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778
A quote from that article:
Melissa Tidwell, Reddit’s general counsel, told me, “I am so tired of people who repeat the mantra ‘Free speech!’ but then have nothing else to say. Look, free speech is obviously a great ideal to strive toward. Who doesn’t love freedom? Who doesn’t love speech? But then, in practice, every day, gray areas come up.”
Edit: Thanks all. I'll know better than to kick the troll hive next time.
Leave it to the network to naturally filter out content they don't want.
If I say that 4 million died in the Holocaust rather than 6 million, is that Holocaust denial?
Edit: funny that people are downvoting me because they think I'm speaking against free speech, thus silencing my opinion.
You could say the Beatles caused Sharon Tate to get murdered.
Trust me, deciding what is hate speech is is impossible. And lots of people try to advance their agenda accusing others, trying to silence them. I have seen it a lot of times.
Regarding fake news, Facebook tried to suppress them. But they don't know how politics in my country work, so they leaned on another institution. The other institution is managed by the wife of a politician. I think you can guess the rest.
Silencing one thing can be simple.
But once you take of role of censorship, people will ask you to censor other stuff and give reason for censoring/not-censoring that. It will quickly grow into an unmanagable mess.
By who's definition of "fake news"? Do you want anyone who contradicts the current US administration thrown off the platform? Anyone who contradicts current Facebook leadership?
> Shouldn't corporations know better and be held to higher standards than individuals?
Corporations aren't magic. I have a corporation, its HQ is my home and I pay ~$20 every year to stay registered, it's not like that corporation knows any better than I do. One of my hometown churches publishes a newsletter that's essentially whatever my dad wanted to write. I would expect a lot of niche or local news sources are similar.
News can be defined as genuine if it's truthful, in reporting facts, in reporting uncertainties & limits of current knowledge, in reporting potential conflicts of interests and finally in explicitely outlining when unproven opinions are put forth, whether by the author or by an interviewee.
News is deemed fake when it fails to be truthful. While there can be some grey areas, or perhaps poor journalistic standards, there are plenty of cases where articles fail to disclose conflict of interest, put forth unfounded opinions and intentionally mislead the reader to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is fake news.
"Untruthful" is begging the question. For the rest of it, virtually all news articles fail to disclose the writer's personal biases, put forth unfounded opinions, and intentionally lead the reader to draw particular conclusions. Your proposed standard is hardly any better than "news I don't agree with" in practice.
Second paragraph opens "With just over eight months left until Britain is due to leave the EU, there is little clarity about how trade will flow" - sounds like unfounded opinion to me. Third paragraph talks about "a step that could spook financial markets and dislocate trade flows across Europe and beyond." which is either vacuously true (anything "could" anything else - but then why say so?) or baseless speculation. "few diplomats expect the deal to be struck until months later." is unsubstantiated opinion - even if it were possible to verify who these "diplomats" were, having a news article report an opinion second-hand doesn't make it any less an opinion. Likewise "some investors have said such a chaotic scenario would seriously damage both the economies of Britain and the EU over the short term.", and "they cast as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration.". I doubt the second half (below "DISORDERLY BREXIT?") will be much different.
I'm not trying to attack Reuters here - they do better than many news sources - but any kind of substantive reporting requires making judgements on questions that are politicised or, often, inherently political. Even the most skilled journalist will make calls that eventually turn out to be laughable in hindsight. I want committed, engaged journalism - reducing reporting to a bloodless "A said this, B said that, readers at home must make up their own minds" would not be an improvement - but the price of that is that journalists must have the freedom to make honest mistakes. And that in turn means tolerating the dishonest kind, unless and until we can come up with some clear bright lines that separate the one from the other.
""" [Facebook] thinks about free speech the way the US govt. thinks about free speech. There is no rule that that has to be the case... A way of avoiding the choice [about who to censor] altogether is to say free speech is protected in the public sphere so we are going to protect it in the private sphere...
We speak about facebook as if it is a democracy, something that has to have a consistent set of values that it applies equally... and there is some principle of fairness and equality that it must apply... facebook is acting as if it is constrained by these American notions... In countries like Germany there are strict hate speech laws. Facebook could be more like Germany...
We are asking Zuckerburg to accept the power he has and use it wisely, and he is reluctant to do that... Zuckerburg has to solve this problem that he has created, and if he cant solve it or isn't willing to solve it, maybe he shouldn't have all this power. """[1]
The NYT is criticizing facebook for having fair and egalitarian values, and all but calling for regulation if facebook doesn't censor views the NYT doesn't like.
The NYT has a HUGE conflict of interest when it comes to facebook. It also has a doubly huge interest in regulating speech, if they can get the government to force companies to de-list NYT's competitors under the guise of fake news that is a huge win for them. Nowhere was that disclosed in this podcast. Under your criteria, that makes this fake news. Should facebook remove links to this podcast now?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/podcasts/the-daily/facebo...
Full disclaimer: I subscribe to the NYT. The paper+online editions. But any newspaper has different sections: dry reporting, rushed breaking news, in-depth analyses, op-ed commentaries, etc. The style of each is different. More importantly, the purpose of each type of article is different.
A lot of us got used to only reading newspaper articles via google or via our social media feed—appearing between a cat video and a political meme. After a while we start to all consider them the same. Context is lost. To me that is the greatest harm of social media. We strive for efficient use of our time but in the process we lost the context of what we're reading.
That's why I'm ok with paying a paper to compile and organize the information for me. Do I agree with every article the NYT puts out? Nope. Do I get irritated at articles written from particular biases? Yes, it happens. But overall the info is of quality and organized in such a way as to be the most efficient use of my time.
As a side-note I picked the NYT because I happen to like their in-depth data visualization group (another disclosure: I happen to like d3.js and its creator used to work there). But there are plenty of other quality papers out there who also do original journalistic work.
Nobody should be in a position where they have to say "that's a podcast" in order to defend the NYT.
We have several agencies that regulate corporations. I would hope that most corporations could follow the laws better than you. That's assuming you aren't a lawyer.
Why is the basic assumption that a corporation whose goal is to connect people should be responsible for what those connected people share with each other?
I'll give you that a corporation with the goal of providing accurate information to people should have a higher standard of publishing information that is correct.
But if, say, Heinz, wanted to say that people in China can't drive or that the Holocaust is a fiction, why is it the company's responsibility to get that right? Their responsibility is baked beans and ketchup.
Like lmm, this article made me more sympathetic to Facebook. And that the NYT is sort of glossing over things. I'd like to hear their policy on "fake news" and all that.
I applaud Facebook for defending InfoWars in this instance even though they disagree with them. I applaud Facebook for defending Holocaust deniers even though they disagree with them. It is the absolute hardest thing in the world to defend the worst when they've done nothing wrong. We glorify people who say things like "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". But when it comes time to actually put that sentiment into action, we waffle. Only allowing speech we agree with is not allowing speech to be free. Freedom must include the freedom to be stupid or it is no freedom at all.
Their goal isn't to connect people. That sounds like something Zuckerberg would say. Their goal is to make money from their users data.
Facebook is responsible because they have algorithms which show and hide items in the news feed. If they merely showed what was posted without any sophisticated algorithms I think they could claim some innocence.
Facebook doesn't care about freedom. They care about not pissing off their conservative user base and losing them to other sites, like Gab, or perhaps Chinese clones that Zuckerberg is worried about.
I, an adult, can not share pictures of a certain part of day-to-day life with other adults. It is legal to do so and common on other platforms (e.g. Twitter).
What principled position have they taken here?
Or is it merely that curating the feed allows for retaining a user’s attention?
If truly the latter, that is just atrocious.
- Is it (de facto) public utility.
- Does it have a public service responsibility.
- Should there be "program content regulation" equivalents for internet social media?
- Should FB stick to removing only illegal content, or should it start doing social control. Misinformation is not generally illegal and what is not socially acceptable is much larger set than what is illegal. Removing Holocaust denials is a start, but what if all FoxNews content disappears too?
Edit: clarity
Bad ideas should be discussed publicly so that all can see the arguments against. Covering up/hiding such speech doesn't end that speech, it just makes sure that those who believe it never hear a refutation.
Do you think Facebook should allow paid antisemitic advertising on the platform?
https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-link...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/11/facebook-...
Free speech is a concept relating to the ability to articulate and express an opinion without fear of censorship or retaliation.
I do not put forward the position that my house allows free speech to everyone.
However, that person is well within their rights to go out into the streets and yell their positions at the top of their lungs. And I will support him in that. And I will decry any platform that purports to allow free speech but then censors a person.
But I'm also ok with someone creating a platform that doesn't allow for all speech. That falls under freedom of association.
Are you seeing just how complicated all of this is now?
Yes, you just repeated what I said.
I think you replied to the wrong comment :)
> Free speech relates to the government punishing or silencing people for what they say.
Versus:
> Free speech is a concept relating to the ability to articulate and express an opinion without fear of censorship or retaliation.
Do you think Facebook should allow paid antisemitic advertising on the platform?
What the government is allowed to do or not do with regards to speech is a First Amendment issue.
Facebook is dedicated to the overall principle of free speech. Which is different.
Facebook's definition of free speech is unclear and they change it when it suits their business needs. They are not as principaled as you make out. They are using it as an excuse to not deal with a problem that will cost them some time and money to solve.
You didn't answer my question. Do you think Facebook should allow targeted paid antisemitic advertising on the platform? Genuinely interested in what people think after Zuckerberg raised the issue.
Someone said that you shouldn't give a platform to someone who wouldn't extend the same courtesy.
Someone replied that it runs counter to the ideals of free speech that is one of the hallmarks of the country in which Facebook is based. They then asked why should Facebook lower their standards.
You then said that "Free speech relates to protecting people from the government punishing or silencing people for what they say". Which is wrong. Full stop.
The concepts of free speech apply everywhere. If you choose not to give a platform to certain viewpoints, you are not a place for free speech. But that is within your right on your own property. The concept is still valid, but you choose not to allow it.
So your question is meaningless.
They are trying to remain as free as possible while being respectful of all opinions, especially ones they disagree with. It is difficult. You want to go somewhere extreme because extreme example serve to demonize the side you don't like or to make it as obvious as you can.
But should Facebook allow targeted paid religious advertising? Should the allow targeted paid advertising for Scientology? Flat-earth? Anti-vaccine? Chiropractors? Fast food? Cigarettes? Alcohol?
Where is that line supposed to be drawn? And why there?
I'm not calling them principled. I'm saying the issue is messy and complicated. Something you refuse to acknowledge.
Can you answer the specific question about a specific topic (holocaust denial) that the CEO of the platform raised or is that case too messy?
(All three guidelines could certainly be challenged or have nuanced exceptions; this certainly isn't a straightforward issue.)
I think Zuckerberg was also shaken by the Congressional hearing, and seems to be cowtowing a bit to Conservatives after the raking he got from Cruz. He is trying to avoid the appearance of being partisan, but also trying to uphold ideals of reason and truth. That’s a no-win situation when one side has made it their fundamental platform to oppose reason and truth.
That's a fairly extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about extraordinary claims.
Do you have any evidence of this? Care to share your most compelling piece?
Ideas matter.
Culture is not an imaginary concept. It is real, and it matters. You can safely ignore it in the short run with few problems, but ignore it in the long run and you will may suffer dire consequences.
Certain words have very precise meanings, that's why we have synonyms in our language. Improper choice of words matters, to varying degrees. As does improper "choice" of "facts".
The degree to which an individual and overall collective society understands and correctly interprets (to the best of our ability) reality, and honestly acknowledges the that which they know to be true, matters. Some lying may be justified in an "the ends justifies the means" sense, sometimes, but be careful that you don't get into a habit of it lest you lose the ability to recognize when you're lying. This goes doubly, at least, for the media. Repeat something enough times and people start to believe it whether it is true or not. In practice, perception is reality, and I think you can observe this theory in action in any internet forum, including this one (on certain topics), as well as the overall political discourse we're enjoying in the West at the moment. And when I say this, I am keeping in mind this: https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
Censoring (via outright deletion/banning, or via imperfect downvote-based mechanisms) sincere and legitimate opinions that may differ from the current mainstream fashion can result in perception bubbles forming within social media communities. In the long run, this can affect people's perception of reality, and it matters. The universe doesn't care whether you agree or not.
I hope you might reconsider the content of my past and future posts with these ideas in mind.
EDIT (since I am currently censored):
> Great! Both you and the guy that you are originally challenging seem to agree that facts and truth matter. So what's the problem?
He is stating opinions as if they are facts, that's the problem.
> I think I'll do you the favor of not addressing most of the rest of your post, which seems a little... unfocused.
Consider the possibility that it isn't me that is in need of a favor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
I think I'll do you the favor of not addressing most of the rest of your post, which seems a little... unfocused.
Also, it's the only part of his post you have issue with? Why is that?
Then qualify it as an opinion rather than stating it as a fact. People subconsciously form opinions based on information they consume, including comments like that (not your comment, to be clear).
I don't know about you, but when I come to a forum that takes itself as seriously as HN, I expect people to hold themselves to some reasonable standard of honesty. You'd be a fool to believe everything you read on reddit, can we not set higher standards for ourselves here? The HN guidelines suggest that's our intent.
> Also, it's the only part of his post you have issue with? Why is that?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't have an issue with the rest of his post because it not only seems at least reasonably accurate, but some of it ("It’s too easy to think that everything should be clear-cut, but reality is messy") seems very insightful in this age of largely fact-optional ideological sniping.
Meta: "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
I'd bet money bet this message isn't entirely honest with respect to the underlying algorithm. In my opinion, Facebook isn't the only platform that has a ~moral responsibility in society with respect to speech and its effect on society.
It is a problem.