Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinzollars | Hacker News Reader

I can't figure out why Facebook attracts so much negative attention. Facebook does a great job at removing violent content. The most hateful content I see on the Internet is on Twitter. The violence and hysteria are so much I'm thinking of deleting that platform.

View on HN

Facebook is frequently the target of the traditional media because these outlets have been largely shut out in favor of conservative sites. Take a look at the most popular news posts for 6/19 and 6/24:

https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1275852495215042562

https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1274014164487294976

It seems like Facebook’s most active user base is conservative leaning.

> Facebook is frequently the target of the traditional media because these outlets have been largely shut out in favor of conservative sites. Take a look at the most popular news posts for 6/19 and 6/24:

> https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1275852495215042562

> https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1274014164487294976

> It seems like Facebook’s most active user base is conservative leaning.

Reading more about the methodology, it is hard for me to extrapolate your conclusion. For example, interactions are all interactions. It could be that many people comment negatively on the subject of the post, which by this methodology would be construed as support for that topic.

Does 'best performing' filter out interaction from bots? Bot traffic could lead one to assuming this content is more popular than it actually is.

Facebook is a scapegoat, in the Girardian sense, a place for the entire media to foist its sins on to, in order to purge itself of responsibility: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo....

It's also a rival and a source of succor for media companies; in some ways, media companies have a child-parent relationship with Facebook.

One is a personalized echo chamber, the other exposes you to the most provocative (by interaction) content. No shit your twitter feed is more aggressive... your personal facebook feed has nothing to do with how toxic facebook or twitter is in sum.

Facebook has better technology and policies in place to stop violence, human trafficking and hatful negative content.

The critics seem content with Twitter because it flags a RealDonaldTrump tweet from time to time. Perhaps Mark simply needs to do that to silence criticism of its platform?

That's still the same survivor bias as saying, "I don't see it on Facebook, thus it doesn't exist".

Twitter has traditionally given world leaders (like the president) a pass on their community guidelines that bind every other Twitter user. Twitter is now slowly correcting that, but it's only becoming visible with world leaders who had previously received a pass.

Considering that politicians / law-makers / the state are allowed to use violence to enforce laws, it's an absurd policy to say that Trump can't threaten violence on twitter.

> Facebook does a great job at removing violent content.

Is this before or after Facebook let a genocide in Myanmar be planned in their platform?

After.

I would like the free speech absolutists in these Facebook threads to answer for this. Seriously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com