Comment by autocorr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by autocorr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Taken out of context that quote would imply "we need even more serious censorship", but admits that deplatforming a certain world leader is a not a real solution and that these actions that should be taken:

> Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

> Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. [link to post on changing Facebook's timeline algorithm]

> Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

The first two are no-brainers. The third is alright, but I doubt re-weighting Facebook's timeline algorithm is going to put the genie back in the bottle. The fourth is useful but pretty generic at "do research on things".

"We need more than deplatforming" is the literal headline, and they support it in the post:

"Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken"

Note: More than. Additional. Also.

Wow, that quote is taken out of context. Let me try to break it down with reference to the context of the article:

> Changing these dangerous dynamics...

The "these dynamics" Mitchell speaks about are, the rampant use of the internet to:

1. Foment violence and hate.

2. Reinforce white supremacy.

3. Politicians (or anyone playing politics, really) exploiting the architecture of the internet to spread lies / hate / what-have-you.

> temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors

These, presumably, include:

1. Terrorists organizations like the Proud Boys.

2. Divisive, regressive, repressive figures like Donald Trump.

3. Institutions hell-bent on inciting hate, spreading disinformation, facilitating abuse, inculcating disharmony, encouraging violence, sowing mistrust, aiding conspiracies...

> Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken

Absolutely.

I see this policy stance as being no different to wanting the education system to not purport Racism; this isn't curtailing freedom of speech or any other freedom. It is purely an exercise in needing to do more than just deplatforming Racists: Not actively seek to create new ones!

I interpret the post as saying "banning people on Twitter won't solve our problem, transparency in advertising and social media algorithms will" because before your quote Mitchell (CEO of Mozilla) in the post says:

> But as reprehensible as the actions of Donald Trump are, the rampant use of the internet to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more than any one personality. Donald Trump is certainly not the first politician to exploit the architecture of the internet in this way, and he won’t be the last. We need solutions that don’t start after untold damage has been done.

And then lists several possible solutions that seem quite reasonable, and we should for sure push for the first two.

PS to anyone reading this exchange, at this point our comments are longer than the original blog post, you might as well just read the original instead of our out-of-order commentary. :)

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. [link to post on changing Facebook's timeline algorithm]

This is great, silencing disinformation... or maybe not.

On one march friday, facebook would silence the "conspiracy theorists" claiming you should wear a mask, because our 'experts' (and american too, and WHO and many others) said, that wearing a mask for covid is useless.

Then, on the next day, our government mandated masks and gloves in every indoor location (stores,...), and facebook would silence the people claiming masks are useless.

There is nothing "alright" about the third. It's basically an attempt to discredit non-mainstream journalists.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation

It’s horrifying that they think this is even possible. Some of the worst political divides are over which set of facts to emphasize (children in cages vs children separated from traffickers) or are speculation on ongoing events (Russian pee tape, Trump is a Russian asset, Russia stole the election, etc).

“Amplify factual voices” just sounds like more echo chamber bullshit where you follow your politically aligned fact sources like Twitter.

> “Amplify factual voices” just sounds like more echo chamber bullshit

No, it doesn't. Facts, which are a subset of universal truths, need to clearly outweigh falsehood. For example, you'd not find schools teach conspiracy theories like "Earth is flat", or "Global Warming is a hoax" for a reason. Fringe theories that rely on absurd reasoning and have no basis in actual facts must be curtailed, and under no circumstances do those theories deserve any amplication platform, definitely not one which operates at the scale like Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter.

I realise that what's a universal fact today needn't be a fact tomorrow, but we have got substantially better scientific and socio-political tools to verify and come to conclusions one way or other for many topics. It is only prudent to let fringe theories be fringe and not amplify them for more eyeballs and revenue.

Consuming nonsense does affect real people and has real world consequences.

> No, it doesn't. Facts, which are subset of universal truths, need to clearly outweigh falsehood.

Yes, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that both sides of the political spectrum base a bunch of bullshit based on sets of facts they deem important.

There is no set of facts that indicates wealth should be taxed or corporate rates should be cut. Each side trots out “facts” supporting their view but the conclusions are completely different.

So if one person says the ideal the tax rate is X% and another person says X+1% who is correct? One of them or neither? How do you decide certain things like that? Obviously at least one of them is spreading misinformation and is not a factual voice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com