Hacker News Reader

Comment by cvwright | Hacker News Reader

I understand that Facebook is in a very tough position, trying to deal with very sophisticated and well-resourced propaganda organizations out of Russia and who-knows-where-else.

But still, I find this post more than a little creepy.

It's mostly, I think, because you could change a few names and this post would sound very much like a press release from state-owned Chinese media, about how they shut down the Falun Gong or some dissident group in the interest of national harmony.

Maybe it's the Orwellian language. "Inauthentic"? If Facebook banned everyone who's inauthentic on their site, they would be left with hardly any users at all.

View on HN

> Maybe it's the Orwellian language. "Inauthentic"?

I used FB since 2007, always with my real name, had around 200 friends, 150+ RL friends (a lot of former classmates). 2016 FB asked to see a copy of my ID to prove I'm a real person. And yes, I made political posts, so I guess someone mass-reported me. I bet you, the accounts who reported me didn't have to show their ID.

So since then I'm Facebook-free. It's not that I'm not aware they probably have all the data that would be in my ID and more anyway, it was a matter of principle, I said enough, this line I will not cross. Who do they think they are?

It's always easy to dismiss such things until they are done to you. Though to be honest, I'm GLAD. I wish it had happened sooner. These people probably considered it a victory for them, but for me they simply made my life better, and more effective at the stuff they hate. But that wasn't their or Facebook's intent.

Is it all that complicated, or is this another case where HN has a blind spot about the concept of "intent"? The issue with Russian troll accounts is that the accounts are created and driven specifically to deceive other users. You can't say that about Falun Gong.

Isn't that (possibly) true about a huge number of advertisements, political statements, religions, etc.?

When a politician says "this is good for my constituents" when it's really good for their donors, should they be banned from facebook?

Would it be the worst thing in the world if someone at Facebook at least had a long hard think about that?

Like instagram stars they should be required to clearly indicated when their post/quip/speech has been sponsored and who by. This would not be a bad thing at all.

Any time a politican says something their sponsors asked them to say, they should add a little #ad to it.

I guess, isn't there a difference between the actions of an individual and the actions of a nation state?

A singular politician voicing his/her opinion/rhetoric is one thing, a concerted nation state attack is entirely different.

I think it's interesting people are not making this distinction here.

Could this an effect of the size of Facebook?

With the amount of users they have, they are bigger than many nation states (and they also cross borders), so maybe people perceive the difference a bit immaterial?

Can you show me how to derive the "intent" bits from some pictures and text?

The social context of computing is not a computable function of its inputs.

Fortunately, decisions can be made by humans who understand social context. Not everything has to be reduced to a machine-learning classifier.

No, but having humans set bits on other humans text and pictures inevitably boils down to a “who... whom?” question

literary analysis, communications studies, sociology, anthropology, forensic science, etc

If you're the Chinese government you absolutely can. Intent doesn't mean anything if the power that be get to decide whether your intent is authentic or not.

There's no real confusion about that concept of authenticity on Facebook. They want all humans above a certain age to have a single account with the same name that they use in real life. And they don't want those accounts controlled directly or indirectly by third parties. We can argue about whether this a good policy, but it's always been reasonably clear and consistent.

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. Knowing it's used as a technical term helps to reduce the creep factor somewhat.

There is the exception of corporate accounts, and peoples’ pets accounts, etc., which would be great if they nixed them too.

It's fine to have a page for a corporation or pet, but those aren't user accounts. I follow a few corporate pages, it's a useful feature. Facebook does take down accounts that don't represent actual people.

Good point; can they remove all the "influencers" from Instagram?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com