Hacker News Reader

> For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads

I would still request evidence about the scope of this, because basic evidence suggests strongly that the influence was minuscule.

So I would heavily question "deeply impacted". Perhaps this whole story was just fake news?

I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election.

There are far more probable explanations for the result of the election.

If well documented manipulation of social media by foreign governments had a "minuscule" effect on the election, what are the "far more probable explanations" you speak of?

Revelations of systemic DNC bias and their actions to intentionally harm a democratic candidate destroyed public faith in the DNC establishment.

Hillary didn't take any non-screened questions from the press for a period of several months during the heat of the campaign.

HRC campaign was overconfident in swing states and chose not to campaign there.

All of what you write can be true without contradicting or minimizing the effectiveness of well documented foreign influence. These issues are not at all mutually exclusive. I was responding to the claim that foreign influence was "minuscule" in comparison to local issues. You cannot quantify the effect of foreign influence until all the facts are known.

That people voted for the candidate they wanted to win based on their own analysis, thoughts and free will.

If advertising can win elections, then Hillary would have won since she far outspent Trump on media. Let's not forget she had a much larger army of astro turfers (Correct The Record) pushing her message on the internet and it was all for moot. It turns out people aren't as easy to sway as advertisers would have you believe.

> Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it.

Because a company can censor whatever they want, and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. With the government, there is an inherent threat of violence if you don't comply. Very simple.

> and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to.

That must be a nice fantasy land you're living in.

Yes, currently they can. The argument is that this is not desirable given how much sway these companies have over politics. For example, I have read that Donald Trump was elected as a result of Twitter; I wonder if he can win re-election when all of his support inevitably gets banned? It will be interesting to watch.

If the public square has become the internet, it behooves the government to regulate it for political speech in the same way they do sex,race,religion, .etc.

> "Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it."

Speaking as a child of communism, the difference is that in case the government is doing the censorship you're no longer free to build your own platform, you're no longer free to have your own voice.

In one case it's a matter of freedom, in another it's just a matter of cost. The difference is night and day.

---

> "For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement."

Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues and there's absolutely no evidence that regulation helps in increasing the quality of news. Worse, government mandated censorship is pretty much irreversible without a revolution.

This notion that people need protection from external influence has been the explanation for the censorship happening behind the Iron Curtain. It's the logic used by dictators and oligarchies.

---

> "Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected."

You still have the freedom to delete your Facebook account and note that I totally agree about privacy protections. I love the GDPR, but don't push censorship on me just because you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Also don't lump privacy together with fake news, in order to appeal to emotions, because they are not the same thing. Why don't you throw a "think of the children" in there too.

> Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues

Regulation does not equate censorship. There are other things that can be done. What do you think about this one "The report also said social media companies should agree to "code of conduct" to govern their commercial agreements with publishers."?

It looks like a good idea that the tech giants should be held accountable for how they run their advertisement business that affects the behaviour of all the population.

"Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision?" is a valid question. It is not censorship. What do you think about it?

“That affects the behavior of all the population” seems a bit hyperbolic no? I can’t imagine everyone being equally affected by media operations since not everybody believes everything they are told by any number of news outlets. Accountable in what way? Who they sell their ads to? Seems like a big disadvantage to place on one portion of the advertising industry. And you think Congress is going to be up to the job of actually regulating here other than just bringing people in to grandstand and provide platforms for elections. I’m interested in how this would look, I just don’t see how government is going to be effective here for the people and not just for it’s own ends. Should these companies be allowed to run psychological experiments? I would postulate all advertising is an attempt at psychological manipulation and therefore an experiment by a group on the populace at large to see if that manipulation is effective. So.. no advertising then becuase some people are willing accept what they are told because it supports what they already believe or don’t have the tools/info/want to find opposing view points? When is the onus placed on the consumer to consume with some level of skepticism? I have a hard time believing the consumer is blameless here. Information is power and is expensive. Believing that any article is telling you any whole truth is entirely misguided — everyone wants to sell you something whether it’s a product or a way of thinking that supports someone else’s agenda.

Regulation isn't censorship. The FCC has been regulating broadcast news for decades in the US. The bullet points in the article are so far from "censorship" that anyone jumping to that claim is hard to take seriously.

Also "child of communism" is a combination appeal to emotion with an appeal to authority thrown in for good measure. It's an attempt to paper over a breathless strawman argument - so, triple threat, I guess.