Hacker News Reader

Comment by hgs3 | Hacker News Reader

I have not conflated censorship and libel. The article this topic links to is about moderation and I disagree with silencing speech. There is no need for the uncharitable interpretation.

The Facebook staff do not sit around picking and choosing which messages they'll broadcast, nor should they. If you find a message disagreeable, then be upset with the one who wrote it. Do not shoot the messenger [1].

I would like real change to come about as a result of a well educated society, not by silencing speech, blaming technology or the messenger.

Respectfully, your contrived examples of genocide and Nazi's read as ramblings. Please logically and concisely make your points without invoking Godwin's law [2] or the spiritual equivalent. If you disagree with my perspective, then that's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

View on HN

Facebook has armies of employees tweaking algorithms to determine what should and shouldn't be broadcasted, it's bizarre to suggest otherwise. At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like, which is why FB is filled with so many deranged anger addicts, fertile ground for far right actors like Matt Walsh.

Their examples aren't contrived, you just lack the fortitude to admit your views have no grounding in reality.

Algorithms are not a substitute for a human and Facebook is not the only means of broadcasting messages. If there is a problem, then address the root cause: ask why someone felt compelled to write hate.

Every person with Internet access should have equal access to its wealth of information. Why do some people spend their time on Facebook becoming "deranged anger addicts" instead of educating themselves on Khan Academy?

Also, assuming what I think ("I bet when you see ...") and attacking me personally (questioning my "fortitude") is not a good look. If your points are sound, then let them stand on their own without the personal attacks.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think we both want the same end result, but there is a difference in our approach: I'd rather address the root cause (bottom-up) instead of the symptoms working back to the root (top-down).

> At one stage they weighted angry responses to a post as being worth five times more than a like ...

Do not blame Facebook for this. Ask yourself why they did this. Hint: you've already said the answer, but did not commit.

They weighted it because Facebook execs wanted engagement, and didn't care what that engagement was.

A college friend reaching out after five years? Engagement. Your stacker finding you after years of evading them? Engagement. A daughter wishing her mother a happy birthday? Engagement. Matt Walsh telling his audience that all trans people are inherently vile sexual predators? Engagement.

Even if you can reason with individuals, that means nothing on someone like Matt Walshes scale. Even if 98% of people disagree with him, that is still a successful result for him as he has millions of devoted followers who will champion his causes.

We very obviously do not want the same results, you are suggesting solutions you know don't work.

Engagement is correct, but why does Facebook need engagement? It's so people stay on their website. Why does Facebook need people to stay on their website? It's because they need to show them ads. Why does Facebook need to show ads? It's because Facebook earns money by showing them. Why does Facebook need money? It's because Facebook is a business and a business needs income. Why do businesses need income? What follows is an exercise for you.

I understand that addressing root causes is difficult which is why quick and easy solutions are tempting. However, addressing the symptoms doesn't solve the problem. I would rather address root causes because in doing so I believe the symptoms will be addressed. It's fine to disagree with my problem solving approach, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

We're going around in circles, so this is the last post I'll do on the matter, but I hope you appreciate the irony of advocating for a bottom-up approach when you can't even convince the two people you've been speaking with to agree.

Biased conclusion as you could also conclude that two people were not enough to sell the top-down approach.

Respectfully, my allusions to genocide were not ramblings or tortured examples.

Facebook is alleged to have, and has been sued for, facilitating the messaging that aided and drastically accelerated organized mass murder [in direct contravention of their own stated guidelines]. My comparisons to both Nazi and Rwandan messaging examples was in was not an example of Godwin's Law; it is at the heart of the legal cases against Facebook.

Please take a look at this article[0], which makes the connections explicitly clear, explains why Facebook's moderation may be liable under international law, and provides links to cases in which people have been held guilty of war crimes for inciting genocide on the radio, not actually murdering people themselves.

[0] https://www.abc.net.au/religion/facebook-complicity-in-the-r...

I realize I mistakenly responded to @Devasta thinking it was yourself [1]. You should read that response first as it was (mostly) intended for you.

Playing the blame game is politics 101 so of course laws will reflect that.

It is clear to me that @Devasta and yourself are more interested in addressing symptoms rather than identifying root causes. I would rather address root causes because in doing so I believe the symptoms will be addressed. We will have to agree to disagree.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36548445

Reply on news.ycombinator.com