Hacker News Reader

Comment by redslazer | Hacker News Reader

The events in the US are appalling! On one hand I am glad that FB and Twitter are taking these steps but on the other I am deeply uncomfortable.

One of the things FB is removing is “ Calls for protests — even peaceful ones — if they violate the curfew in DC”. Not many years ago we as lauded the ability of social media to galvanise protest against tyrannical regimes (eg the Arab Springs). Currently FB is removing calls to protests against decisions we agree with but what happens when we need to protest again things that we do not agree with? Does FB become the arbiter of what we are allowed to protest and what not?

View on HN

The removal of calls for post-curfew peaceful protests in DC seems like a move that will galvanize the right against FB, given that they didn’t do this six months ago when Democrats were protesting. They weren’t rushing the Capitol back then, but this removal notice isn’t limited to that.

Perhaps FB is not afraid of being defanged (pun intended) by Republicans, since they won’t control the House, Senate, or White House.

> The removal of calls for post-curfew peaceful protests in DC seems like a move that will galvanize the right against FB, given that they didn’t do this six months ago when Democrats were protesting. They weren’t rushing the Capitol back then, but this removal notice isn’t limited to that.

No, those Antifa protests mere months ago were rushing the White House. But that's OK because Trump. [0] [1] [2]

How is one supposed to process such brazen hypocrisy?

Edit: Since I've been flagged for this comment, I'm adding links to video of the violence and destruction in front of the White House seven months ago. Don't remember these people being called "insurgents".

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KeITz_JYQE [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CERQjWhIIfY [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOl2nHMDO7E

> They weren’t rushing the Capitol back then, but this removal notice isn’t limited to that.

Antifa and BLM protestors were attacking Federal property in DC. They were tearing down Federal statues and publicly threatening to stage attacks on monuments.

Facebook is openly taking political sides. They're doing it now because Trump is essentially out of office, so Zuckerberg can safely expire his pact with Trump for FB to attempt to remain neutral.

>Does FB become the arbiter of what we are allowed to protest and what not?

no, they become the arbiter of what you are allowed to do on facebook. there exists a whole world outside of facebook, they only control their product.

And we are criticizing Facebook's product. What's the value of a social platform if you can't socialize.

if your criticism of facebook is based on an assumption that it's not possible to use any alternative to facebook, i'm calling that criticism invalid.

Organizing insurrection isn't socializing.

I fear FB is trying to "thread the needle" a bit too finely here. In the process, they are becoming arbiters of content. I feel like a little kid in school being told what's good for me. There's a healthy skepticism of our public officials that should be encouraged. Many of their fact checks delve into opinion and are more complex than simply true/false/or missing context.

Facebook et al. should have looked at "fact checking" as a product, rather than a (voluntary) regulatory compliance measure.

There's a pretty straight line for them to deliver value through it via crowd sourcing, in a way they're uniquely positioned to.

Instead, the current implementation is basically a Section 230 PR stunt to deflect public outrage ('Sure we have terrible things on our platform, but see, they have a warning!').

It's more than just a nuisance though. It comes off as arrogance to their users and a big brother feel to it. Not sure crowd sourcing would be any better, because it would involve people "ganging up" on each other and would be inflammatory. Fact-checking involves somebody's own search for truth. There's an independence to searching things out, feeling along for sources you trust. Trust isn't gained by a simple textbox warning.

I think that generally people are in favour of so called "fact" checking, if the results of that fact checking align with their beliefs. As a silly analogy, how about a road that gave you a thumbs up when you had the right of way? The platform is an authority, and we like authority to echo our own beliefs.

ah, yes, not always easy to tell the difference between fact and opinion.

There are other platforms and other means. In hindsight I’m not sure that social media is such a godsend for popular uprising. They had popular uprising before social media, and we will have them post social media. The popular uprisings we have seen that are fueled by social media to me seem they either deteriorated into devastation (a la the Arab spring), or never went anywhere (a la Occupy Wall Street).

I think we undervalue the amount of mobilization during the BLM protests that happened out side of social media, e.g. simple pamphlets, word of mouth, words on the radio, printed words, static ads and propaganda, etc.

> Not many years ago we as lauded the ability of social media to galvanise protest against tyrannical regimes (eg the Arab Springs).

We're pushing a decade from when these were now, and everything since then demonstrates malicious actors (be they state or private) quickly turned the tables and got the upper hand on the use of social media.

We need to stop holding up things that happened (and largely failed, but that's not the fault of social media) nearly a decade ago as evidence we shouldn't change things now. These networks are changing and developing fast, the Facebook of today is wildly different to the Facebook of 2011.

If the end result is Facebook is no longer an avenue for anyone to organise on, so be it. They've shown they're unable to properly moderate and handle that power.

Maybe part of the difference is that the “agree with” isn’t just a matter of opinion it’s a matter of governing democratic law? As in, maybe if it were trumpers staging a successful coup and people protesting the undemocratic expression of authoritarianism there would be more permission to flout rules.

> the Arab Springs

That's a can of worms.

What part of "protests that violate the curfew" is not clear?

You can't exactly violate a curfew with a protest. Because the right to protest trumps the right of the government to dictate your movements.

How many protests violated the curfew in Portland and Seattle over the summer? Were people allowed to organize those on FB?

Do you think that the Arab Spring protests were not in violation of curfew?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com