Hacker News Reader

Comment by _vertigo | Hacker News Reader

Facebook is absolutely full to the brim with “crap content”. Crap content happens to be what drives engagement, so hosting crap content is a large part of Facebook’s business model.

You’re speaking with a pretty authoritative tone there as though you’re absolutely sure that Facebook has had a change of heart and only wants to host quality content, and there’s no other reason why the pages were removed. Do you have some sort of proof for that, or are you just speculating? If you’re speculating, don’t you think it would be a good idea to match the tone of your post to your true amount of confidence in what you’re saying, so as not to misinform people who might read your comment?

View on HN

Please don't harangue another user like this. The site guidelines put it this way: "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Curious conversation requires a certain lightness of touch. You can still make your same point that way; actually it will work better that way.

He asked for proof. What part of this statement do you object to? Or is asking you this question not allowed as well because it's not curious enough?

> You’re speaking with a pretty authoritative tone there as though you’re absolutely sure that Facebook has had a change of heart and only wants to host quality content, and there’s no other reason why the pages were removed. Do you have some sort of proof for that, or are you just speculating?

Hilariously, I found myself wanting to downvote dang for criticizing this thoughtful cross examination. And more hilariously, I had upvoted both the parent comment and its grand parent.

What is objectionable about that post? The OP said "Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution" as if they were privy to some business decision that was not public knowledge. The reply simply asked them to substantiate it. I do not see any hostility in it.

To me the second paragraph reads like a classic internet cross-examination, barraging someone with questions in order to back them into admitting some misdeed. I can see how it could be read otherwise.

I can see how it could be read otherwise

Isn’t in the HN guidelines to “respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize”?

Sorry but I'm with _vertigo on this one. Maybe it could have been slightly more tactfully worded but I would not classify this a 'haranguing' and _vertigo makes a very salient point. There is no shortage of questionable material and businesses that are allowed to be monetized and advertise on Facebook. It seems that this particular company may have become too high profile and is being punished not for violating Facebook's vague terms of service but for the risk of bringing light to it and unwanted scrutiny.

I read the earlier comment as making aggressive, common-sense inteferences from 'facts' sprinkled through the original posting-- FB ended direct engagement with shared.com a long time ago, the shared.com ads were placed through 3d party contractors (maybe this is less exceptional than it sounds) and the OP says the reason he's sure FB was ok with the whole thing was shared.com's transparency about its business model ... which sounds like an admission it's low quality, that FB initiated communications about quality in the past, and that the OP was aware the shared.com content had implications for FB business standards. Those might be incorrect inferences, but they seem fair from the OP's marketing release.

An alternate hypothesis is that most of the spend referenced by OP is ancient and relevant only for old-time sake. Again. OP didn't say that exactly, but it's a fair thing to question based on how the OP wrote the posting and selected the relevant time period.

I would go so far as to say that "crap content" is Facebook's entire business model.

Hey now, my friends dogs and kids are very interesting! Or were when they used to go outside...

If they could, they would eliminate dog/kid photos entirely because they don't make money off that stuff. They just show you enough of your friends dogs and kids to keep you around to view the profit generating crap.

It works because many FB users (probably the vast majority) don't fact-check anything. I've lost count of the number of times I did and found it to be untrue.

> They just show you enough of your friends dogs and kids to keep you around to view the profit generating crap.

This was the realization that finally tipped me over into getting off Facebook.

I realized that every time I was posting pictures of my life to share with my friends, I was providing the bait that drew them in and forced them to watch ads and other drivel.

> If they could, they would eliminate dog/kid photos entirely because they don't make money off that stuff. They just show you enough of your friends dogs and kids to keep you around to view the profit generating crap.

Therefore it makes them money.

In the sense that bait on a hook fills a fish's belly.

No, in the sense that bait on a hook fills the fisherman's belly.

> don’t you think it would be a good idea to match the tone of your post to your true amount of confidence in what you’re saying, so as not to misinform people who might read your comment?

IMO, this should be part of the HN guidelines. HN would certainly be a better place if everyone followed this rule.

I stand by what I posted. I'm allowed to be authoritative as I want in my opinions and what I deem to be a personal analysis of what is a subjective issue. If you aren't in agreement with my assertions, you are free to click the down arrow to the left of the post.

Although I usually ignore responses like in the GP, I like what you wrote here. It implicitly names the unfair rhetorical attack (effectively the kind of strawman that treats you as if you spoke authoritatively, when you were clearly giving your opinion). But yeah, with the right audience you don't have to respond at all, we'll know wassup.

But he did speak authoritatively, "Facebook decided..."

Facebook didn't decide anything as far as we know, he's presenting his opinions as facts, they aren't.

Absolutely. I just mentally add “in my opinion” to everything I read and its liberating; I think way few people do it. More people should see the good wife.

People (myself included) read these comments like a debugger — “How can that be?! I triple checked my ‘brain base’... that’s wrong, must fix”

That's not actually what the down arrow is for.

Citation please.

> Downvoting should not be used for simple disagreement.

Used to be part of the guidelines. Seems as though they've removed it.

You're allowed to be anything you want. It's a free country. But 2c worth of advice - representing speculative things as high-confidence erodes your credibility. Unless you have some insight or information that everyone else here doesn't, you're really just full of it.

"Facebook decided they don't want to be a part of this type of content distribution" - That is not stated as an implied opinion, it is stated as a fact with absolutely nothing to back it up. Certainly Facebook is just as filled with this kind of low-quality content today as it was yesterday or three months ago. There is just nothing to support your speculation that this is part of some movement by Facebook to improve quality of content.

> representing speculative things as high-confidence erodes your credibility

I wish you were right, but I actually think most of the time the exact opposite is true: appearing highly-confident about speculative things makes someone seem more credible, rather than less.

Right up until something you say gets proven to be wrong.

The higher confidence you presented your wrong statement, the higher the hit to your credibility will be.

I very much want this to be true but it seems you’ll do fine if you can confidently spew off another explanation.

https://religiondispatches.org/a-year-after-the-non-apocalyp...

You could become the leader of the free world, even.

I thought the down arrow was supposed to be used to indicate that a post is of low quality or that it doesn't conform to guidelines, not to express disagreement; and that disagreement was meant to be expressed by posting arguments

Everyone votes by their own rules. There's no official guidelines on how to use the voting buttons.

Your comment inspired me to submit https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25636267

It seems more common these days to use it on HN to express disagreement. That wasn't the case years ago.

I suspect it has to do with the reddit / youtube generation becoming adults. Polite disagreement seems to be on the way out.

That theory makes sense, though it's unfortunate, IMHO. Personally, I'd prefer for comments to rank higher based on quality (irrespective of which way they lean) than hivemind inclinations. Seek well-roundedness and all that.

If I suspect something is flamebait (ie, responses are not discussion I think belongs on HN as it's redundant/religious/reactive) and the content's value doesn't exceed that flamebait characteristic, I'll downvote.

ie, I downvote things that I feel have an aggregate S/N degradation multiplier.

I kinda miss /.'s moderation qualifiers.

Polite disagreement will often result in downvotes for oneself though. I think this is the problem?

With all due respect, as someone who has been participating in online communities since the days of FidoNet, I don't think people have really changed. There's just more people, which itself drives up the opportunity for disagreement.

And some of the most disagreeable people on my social media are old farts, too :)

That’s not what the down arrow is for. This is what I’m getting at.

Instead of treating the comment section as a dumping ground for your purely speculative opinions masquerading as authoritative takes, and pushing the burden of nuance onto readers by asking them to downvote if they disagree, I think one should clearly state their opinions in an intellectually honest way. Then there is no need for downvoting if others disagree.

You are misinforming the HN audience by making it sound like you know why FB took their action. In a way you are distributing crap content here.

Please don't respond with this sort of indignation even when the feeling is justified. It takes the discussion way off topic and encourages worse from others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com