
Facebook announces policy changes ahead of 2020 elections - DarkContinent
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112048980882521
======
systemvoltage
Not sure if I have data to back this up but my theory around political turmoil
and echo chambers is as follows:

\- Before widespread internet use, say year 2000, all communities were local.
News were local + nation wide, people still focused on their physical
proximity of 20 miles that affected them the most. Today, none of my friends
read local news. Local news outlets are being bankrupted left and right.

\- Anonymity on the internet. People can say whatever they want without
attaching their name, face and self-pride. This creates extremely unproductive
conversations without consequences. Platforms such as Twitter propel this
behavior to new heights. When it was local, you'd lose friends for being
unpleasant, you'd lose credibility in your community for being inflammatory.

\- Foreign interference - when internet use was not widespread, it was
difficult to infiltrate a foreign election campaign and interfere with it.

\- Data collection and manipulation - Targeted newsfeeds that feed these echo
chambers could not possibly reach critical mass before the internet. Echo
chambers were physical places to go to - Hells Angels or joining the
Evangelical Christian church. No such limits exist now.

\- Scale - The internet allows unprecedented scale to operate on. Echo
chambers reverb into unimaginable self-resonance. Joe Rogan can say something
and _millions_ could hear it. +1M subscriber channels on YouTube span
thousands. That was practically impossible unless you were on national TV.

The internet has lot of positives (free voice, commerce, sharing of ideas,
services, etc.) and its drawbacks are now surfacing. I want to go back to 90's
when we had healthy debates between republicans and democrats. We were one
country. One voice. And people debated about issues and not about other
people's clans.

We wanted internet to be the left/middle of the Bosch's The Garden of Earthly
Delights [1] but ended up creating something thats not too far from the right
side of the canvas. Total chaos and loss of decency and respect for each
other.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch#/media/File:T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch#/media/File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg)

~~~
libraryatnight
If you'd asked teenage me in the 90s if the internet I loved then was going to
turn into this, I'd have thrown my computer in the trash. As a convenience
tool its grown leaps and bounds, but as a "place" it's turned into a terrible
neighborhood.

~~~
Reedx
Yeah, also as a teenager in the 90s I distinctly remember thinking that the
internet was going to make everyone smarter. The world's information at our
fingertips! It'll unlock a new golden age for the entire globe!

Oh, how naive...

~~~
andrepd
I always get sad when I think of the techno-optimism of the 90s and the early
net. I think it actually was still present well into the 00s, which were a
golden age in their own way (blogs, forums, communities). Then mainstream
facebook hit like a ton of bricks..

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Facebook is AOL 2.0. AOL was equivalently vapid - and often just as toxic - in
the 90s.

~~~
ianwalter
Yes, I remember joining KKK chatrooms on AOL as a kid and spamming them with
"White Chowder! White Chowder!". Good times.

------
bmmayer1
This is the one sentence that is going to come back to haunt Mark: "To clarify
one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that incites
violence or suppresses voting."

In the next 6 months, there will surely be a post or series of posts from one
or many politicians where their choice of what is deemed "inciting violence or
suppressing voting" will be, mildly put, controversial. These situations are
not clear cut, and Facebook will be in the unenviable position of having to
decide what is a political "truth" in a fraught political environment.

~~~
analyte123
This already happened on Twitter, where Trump said "There will never be an
'Autonomous Zone' in Washington, D.C., as long as I'm your President. If they
try they will be met with serious force!" and he was warned for "inciting
violence". Presumably, this post about law enforcement using violence against
unlawful behavior would just be deleted on Facebook under this new policy.

To read Facebook's policy literally, police departments warning about unlawful
behavior would be "inciting violence" because they of course have the monopoly
of violence behind them. Even posting the law, and saying that someone is
violating it, would be "inciting violence" under Twitter's definition. They
don't draw any distinction between lawful and unlawful violence, and every law
on the books, whether it's re-selling loose cigarettes or catching too many
fish, carries the threat of an officer with a gun using force against the
alleged violator.

This is all an interesting thought experiment but in practice, I'm sure this
policy will be used to punish people the moderation team doesn't like, and
will be ignored for people that they do like.

~~~
rayiner
Absolutely. I’ll note that nobody reposting Beto’s “we’re going to take your
AR-15s!” line was blocked, even though I’m pretty sure Beto wasn’t planning on
sending social workers to do the confiscation.

I’m not one of those “taxation is theft” people, but the state’s monopoly on
violence is a real thing, and violence is implicit in every government law.
When Warren proposed to create a wealth tax, implicit in that assertion is
that the government would collect it from people by force if necessary.

Facebook’s policy on violence, applied to government speakers, is like people
who eat meat being squeamish about hunting. Where do you think your food comes
from? Likewise, what do you think is the basis for all these things you think
the government should make people do?

~~~
tonyhb
At no point was there ever a threat of force from Beto, especially not with
armed police.

Maybe you should read up on how the Australian government handled gun control:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#2017_Nati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#2017_National_Firearms_Amnesty)

Hint: their campaign poster said "Now's the time to hand it in without
penalty".

You're comparing two very different things here - disingenuously. One in which
the president _literally threatens force_, the other which says the government
will take ownership of guns.

~~~
analyte123
And what if you didn't hand it in at that time -- if you didn't comply with
the law? The answer is that you would be subject to arrest and imprisonment
for up to 14 years:
[https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part3/...](https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part3/div2/sec36)

~~~
AgentME
I think there's a large difference between threatening arrest and threatening
direct violence. For one thing, arrests ostensibly may lead to review and
double-checking of the case with lawyers and judges and the chance to defend
yourself. Mistaken or invalid arrests may be undone. Direct violence can not
be reviewed and then taken back.

~~~
analyte123
If someone threatens you with arrest, they are threatening to send a group of
armed men to your house. If you don't let them in, they will break down your
door. If you don't let them physically restrain you with handcuffs, they will
grab you and perform pain compliance holds, pepper spray you, or tase you,
then chain you up with handcuffs or other restraints. If you resist to the
point where you threaten their life, they will shoot you. Then they will
physically remove you from your home and put you in a cell. Is this not
violence?

~~~
AgentME
With this logic, there's no difference between "our cops will enforce speed
limits by pulling people over or sending fines to later" and "our cops will
immediately beat or shoot anyone on-sight that [the cops say] are breaking the
speed limit".

In the first case, if I choose not to resist (which I definitely won't if I
believe I'm in the right _and_ I trust the review/court system), there's much
less risk of direct bodily harm, permanent injury, or death, even if I get
jailed. If violence happens during the arrest, presumably that will be
considered unusual and the cops will be at risk of being in trouble from that,
so they have an incentive to not be violent. In the first case, if I'm
wrongfully accused, I get to have my day in court, have a professional
represent me, and present my evidence to a judge before anything more
irreversible happens to me than losing some time. In the second case, I have
no recourse if a cop abuses their power because they're reckless or have it
out for me specifically. In the second case, it's already established that
direct violence is expected, and because it won't be seen as unusual, the cops
have little need to restrain themselves.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
Sigh, I guess I am one of those lonely voices that says let em say whatever
they want. FB should be little less than a dumb platform for anyone to run
their mouth.

~~~
Impossible
One question for the many people that believe Facebook should be a completely
unmoderated communication channel is... Why are you active on Hackernews?
Hackernews has a variety of community and moderator driven censorship tools,
and does not encourage free speech in this manner. Would you call for a
completely unmoderated Hackernews, maybe with local down votes and upvotes?
Eventually the system could serve as a per user spam and filtering system, but
arguably that's still censorship because an individually trained AI is still
hiding and removing content. Or.. alternatively is Hackernews ok because if
you have showdead on you can generally see the full set of content on HN?

~~~
TigeriusKirk
My personal opinion is that HN community voting and active moderators are a
solid, definite net negative for me. I would indeed be happier if neither of
those elements were present. Voting pulls conversation strongly to the
mediocre center of the bell curve, and moderators only work if they're willing
to strongly profess their own biases.

But it's what's here, so it's what I read. Though I rarely read the comments
any more, it's mostly a link site for me at this point.

~~~
AgentME
If you removed the voting and moderators, then the site culture would rapidly
change. It wouldn't surprise me if it rapidly approached the culture of other
tech sites with similar systems. If that's fine with you, then you could use
those sites instead now.

~~~
TigeriusKirk
I do.

------
tmsh
My mom got conned into giving away her credit card info and allowing someone
to install remote software on her PC the other week (btw I emailed Satya
Nadella with my _thoughts_ and he awesomely forwarded it to someone to look
into more - my thoughts were briefly.. why do I have to travel home to fix
this...).

My mom is in her 70s. People like that (a) vote (b) believe in whatever is on
Facebook.

That's the risk of under-moderated social networks. Under 40 crowd + anyone on
HN tbh is not the risk.

~~~
freehunter
Short of not allowing people to install arbitrary software on Windows (which
is what Apple does with iOS and tech people are usually upset about that) what
would the CEO of Microsoft do in that regard?

The same thing happened to my grandma and my response was to remove her admin
account and only let her log in as an unprivileged account. Microsoft already
gives you to the tools to stop these kinds of attacks.

~~~
tmsh
Totally yeah. One idea is maybe like a "library / public" mode where you can't
install software very easily. My mom really just uses email, a browser and
Microsoft Word.

It's a big enough issue for Microsoft that they have a dedicated page:
[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/concern/scam](https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/concern/scam)

Was just encouraging other approaches to it too for that demographic.

~~~
spaced-out
Isn't that the same as being logged in with a user account, vs. an admin
account?

------
justinzollars
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.

~~~
Firebrand
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/1275852495215042562)

[https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1274014164487294976](https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1274014164487294976)

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

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Does 'best performing' filter out interaction from bots? Bot traffic could
lead one to assuming this content is more popular than it actually is.

------
foxfired
You can say a lot of things about Zuckerberg, but boy does he have a difficult
job.

The next time some one comes to me and say "I have a cool new idea for a new
social network"...

Edit: I'll tell them to use mysql, it's a good choice for a database.

------
nknealk
"To clarify one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that
incites violence or suppresses voting. Even if a politician or government
official says it, if we determine that content may lead to violence or deprive
people of their right to vote, we will take that content down. Similarly,
there are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I'm announcing
here today."

To me, this is the most interesting development. It'll be interesting to see
where the line gets drawn in practice on what constitutes voter suppression
and/or speech that could lead to violence. The bigger question is whether we
should be entrusting Facebook to draw that line in the first place.

~~~
GloriousKoji
No, we should not trust Facebook to draw the line.

~~~
krapp
Why shouldn't Facebook draw the line on their own platform?

~~~
totony
Because at this point facebook is so big as to be able to manipulate the
votes. Corporations stop getting free passes of free speech suppression when
they become monopolies.

~~~
krapp
Facebook isn't a monopoly. they aren't the only social media platform, nor are
they even the most popular among certain demographics. What definition of
monopoly are you using here? Also, what does "free passes of free speech
suppression" even mean? Your language here is emotional and clearly carries
its own bias.

"manipulating votes" implies vote tampering or some kind other kind of fraud,
when what I think you mean is "manipulating voters," which isn't always
illegal. And "free speech suppression" appears to mean moderation, but
Facebook and _all other platforms_ moderate their content under whatever
arbitrary means they choose _all the time,_ notwithstanding being legally
require to "suppress" content already deemed illegal.

This isn't an entirely black and white matter, because moderation and, to some
degree, manipulation are aspects of free speech. If Facebook doesn't have the
right to set their own terms of service and moderate content under those
terms, then who does is for them? The government? Is having the government
restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?

~~~
totony
Every person I encounter has a Facebook. Even my ~100 years old grandma has
one. Not sure what other social media has the same presence in the life of
people. Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter are not even close and quite niche in the grand
scheme of things.

>nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics.

Of course there are niche websites for some people, doesn't take away from how
big Facebook is. Perhaps not technically a monopoly, but their influence is
real and there should be barriers so it's not abused.

>"manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal.

Yeah of course, law has had trouble adjusting to the omnipresence of Internet
for a while now.

>Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having
corporations do it?

The government should not restrict free speech as much as Facebook is allowed
to right now. Some laws prevent some sorts of extreme speech, e.g. hate
speech, but I'd rather society come to a consensus on what's out of bounds
than some corp choose them to cater to advertisers/their bottom line.

------
fareesh
Here are some examples of statements / content, I am curious as to whether
they would be considered inciting violence:

\- "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see
anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a
gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on
them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to
get the children connected to their parents"

\- "How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?"

\- (A parody or fictionalized depiction of a politician being murdered -
decapitated or shot.)

\- "I could take him behind the gym. That's what I wish"

\- "Throw milkshakes at them. It's only a milkshake"

\- Op-Ed by politician entitled "Send in the Military"

\- "Come and take it" (pointing to their gun)

It seems as if it's upto the platform to decide when they can be charitable in
the interpretation and when they will err on the side of caution. Given the
demographics of Facebook, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes the way I'd
expect it to.

------
mark_l_watson
I think the root problem is that both political parties portray the other
party as an existential threat to our country. Personally I think this is
absurd: our country (USA) is strong enough to survive either the republicans
or democrats in control of both houses or Congress and the White House. No,
the country will not crash and burn depending on which party the elites and
corporate news media happens to put in power.

When the Cold War ended, we (the US) lost our Worthy Rival (in the sense
discussed in the book The Infinite Game). During the Cold War, both political
parties agreed to get along because of an external rival. We now have several
Worthy Rivals but fail to realize that, so as a country we have nothing to
rally around except for an inaccurate belief in American Exceptualism.

I am hopeful that all of the problems (political, COVID 19, economy, and
racism) that we face might unite the country.

As for Facebook acting in our public interest: I will believe it if it ever
actually happens.

~~~
newacct583
I genuinely want to agree with you. I want to be an optimist. But this it
outrageously naive. And here's the proof in one completely in-context quote:

> I am hopeful that all of the problems (political, COVID 19, economy, and
> racism) that we face might unite the country.

Literally, (LITERALLY), one of our political parties is spending its energy at
the moment denying that the final three problems exist, and blaming the
controversies about them on the first, explaining how it's all the fault of
the other party.

I mean, we actually do have politicians in this country who want to see
solutions to that stuff. You should consider voting for them instead of tut-
tutting them for not being centrist enough.

~~~
austincheney
I will continue tut-tutting politicians that are not centrist enough.
Pandering to extreme perspectives strikes me as representing the interests of
fewer people.

~~~
newacct583
What specific positions does the democratic party hold that you consider to be
extreme and unrepresentative of a majority of the electorate?

~~~
austincheney
Probably the same reservations I have for any political party. A political
party is not there to represent me. I can do that well enough on my own with
my vote. I only need political parties to provide candidates and put pressure
on other political parties.

~~~
newacct583
That's still not specific. You said you want to tut-tutt the Democratic party
for not being centrist enough and for holding extreme positions. Which ones?

~~~
austincheney
I never mentioned any party. I refuse to vote along party lines.

~~~
newacct583
And I never demanded you do. I did ask, however, what the "extreme
perspectives" you meant upthread were in the context of democrats. And I note
you still haven't answered.

At least one reason might be because democrats aren't actually as extreme as
you feel like you're Supposed To Think. You might consider voting for some if
you look at their positions instead of jumping in to complain about their
"extreme perspectives".

------
chillacy
Wow those Facebook comments on the post... nobody on any side is happy. Is
moderation an un-winnable position?

~~~
dang
I'll take that one! Sure it is. It's a web of interlocking double binds that
squeeze you like a python squeezes a rat.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)
– a concept, btw, that Gregory Bateson came up with to explain what makes
people go crazy.

~~~
082349872349872
AOL used to charge by the hour, and discovered an unintended side effect when
they switched to flat-rate pricing. Mods in the ancien regime had been
compensated by getting free online time, but under the new system, that became
worthless, and there was a wave of mods quitting because somewhere-around-
minimum-wage had been sufficient compensation for the double binds before, but
they weren't about to volunteer to deal with the worst of forums.

~~~
dang
I just saw this. That's fascinating. Is it written about online?

~~~
082349872349872
[https://www.wired.com/1999/10/volunteers/](https://www.wired.com/1999/10/volunteers/)
"Everything changed in December of 1996, when AOL moved to a flat-rate pricing
system: unlimited access for $19.95 a month. Gone were the profits from hours
spent in chat. Worse, chatty members clogged AOL's servers and threatened to
crash the system. Gone too were many of the volunteers. Without the hundreds
of dollars worth of free hours, more than half left."

~~~
dang
Just saw this now. Will check it out. Thanks!

------
glitcher
We all know what no content moderation spirals down into, and that content
moderation is a very hard problem to address ("solve" is definitely the wrong
word IMO). I am torn between the idea that a company should be able decide how
they want to moderate their own platform, and the contradictory feeling that I
don't trust them.

Thinking about the idea of legislation to prevent platforms from all
moderation doesn't feel right to me personally, so to those that do hold that
opinion I am curious:

1\. If we can't even regulate ISP's as dumb pipe utilities, then how would it
be possible to do it with social media platforms? Would it be contradictory to
legislate platforms this way while _not_ also applying the same logic to
ISP's?

2\. Emerging social media platforms that specifically don't moderate, or
decide to moderate _differently_, are in a unique position to benefit from the
many users who don't like the major platforms' moderation practices. If these
competing platforms suddenly gain in popularity, would there still be a need
for regulation if users have a real choice?

~~~
zarkov99
We are in a bind. More than ever we need trustworthy authorities to help us
navigate the world's information as no one, no matter how educated or smart,
can be expected to parse through the ocean of information we now have access
to every day.

Unfortunately it has become obvious that no such authorities exist. The
President lies. The Governors lie. The NYT lies. The WHO lies. CNN lies. Fox
lies. The smart, young, well healed people that run tech lie (though for our
own good, of course). Your Facebook feed lies. Not just little lies and not
just a few. Big lies, multitudes of them, lies used as levers, attempting to
advance conflicting and rarely benign agendas. There is a furious cacophony of
bullshit, every day, from every channel, trying to sell us things that are
neither good nor true.

If there is any unifying experience these days in America is confusion. No one
knows what is going on, no one knows what the truth really is, we just react
to whatever meme manages to get past our jaded weariness. The old ways to make
sense of the world no longer work.

We need Journalism. Real Journalism, not the putrid husk of it we have today
but the kind of Journalism that the political class fears and that the people
trust. I cannot think of anything more important right now. Nothing will be
fixed in this country until we have our eyes and ears back.

~~~
BeetleB
> Unfortunately it has become obvious that no such authorities exist. The
> President lies. The Governors lie. The NYT lies. The WHO lies. CNN lies. Fox
> lies.

So, just like it's always been?

> The old ways to make sense of the world no longer work.

What were those old ways? From what I recall, the "old ways" was to believe
lies fed to you, which caused all kinds of problems - not very different from
today. Lies about women, gays, people of other races, people of other
religions, people of other ethnicities, people of certain professions, etc.
Looking at history through perhaps a tinted lens, these were all common
problems in the "old days" \- the only difference is that now it's a bit
harder to hide them. To an extent, some of the tumult you see today is due to
people realizing that being lied to was common and the norm, coupled with the
ability to have a platform to counter what they perceive as lies. That a lot
of this "countering" is likely as misinformed as the original lies is sad, but
not surprising. I cannot say, though, that accepting lies from authority as
people generally did in the past was "better".

> If there is any unifying experience these days in America is confusion. No
> one knows what is going on, no one knows what the truth really is, we just
> react to whatever meme manages to get past our jaded weariness. The old ways
> to make sense of the world no longer work.

I think we're in agreement about what is going on. My stance is that I don't
think "the old ways to make sense of the world" was good - especially not when
you were on the receiving end of things, and pretty much all of society around
you acted as if the problems didn't exist, or dismissively justified them.

> We need Journalism. Real Journalism

We've always had it, and still do, or we've never had it, and never will,
depending on how you view the glass.

Journalism, in the traditional sense, has its place, but will never "solve"
this problem. There never has been a model of journalism that satisfies all
of:

1\. Covers a wide variety of topics well

2\. Can find "bias-free" funding (i.e. nonreliance on ads, etc).

You'll get instances of journalism that do a really good job by having a very
narrow focus (e.g. Pro Publica), or you'll get stuff like the NYT (which as
you said "lies").

We definitely need journalism, but we'll never solve the problem just with it.
I don't think we'll ever "solve" this problem, given that in our thousands of
years of history, we never solved it.

~~~
zarkov99
The old ways of making sense of the world consisted, for the most part, of
listening to institutions and people whose integrity, though not perfect, was
far greater than it is today. CNN wasn't always the hyper-partisan POS it is
today. The NYT used be a real newspaper. Same for the Post. There has not been
a Walter Cronkite for decades.

I think its self-evident that journalism has changed, dramatically and for the
worst as the Internet became widespread, and we have nothing to replace it
with. This is happening at a time when information has been weaponized to an
exquisite level with most of us not even aware we are under attack. So, no, I
do not think this is business as usual, and while I agree good Journalism is
not sufficient to solve our problems I do believe it is a necessary first
step.

I think the funding problem is real, but solvable. There is a great hunger out
there for honest reporting and there are plenty of people with both the
resources and the integrity to help bootstrap a credible effort.

~~~
BeetleB
> CNN wasn't always the hyper-partisan POS it is today. The NYT used be a real
> newspaper. Same for the Post. There has not been a Walter Cronkite for
> decades.

If you can come up with a way/study that has a good way of measuring the
quality of an outlet, and showing the changes across time, I'll be willing to
accept it. At the moment, I do not recall any of these to have been credible.
I cannot speak for the Post, but NYT was definitely worthy of distrust in the
90's, as was CNN.

I think you and I are measuring things via a different metric/scale. Mine is
simply "Do they lie/mislead often _enough_ for me not to trust them?", which
is different from "How often do they mislead?" You would be correct in
pointing out that my stance is more binary, but it's because _past a certain
point, it doesn 't matter how much more distrustful an outlet is!_ If the
lies/manipulation were rare, it makes sense to look at the frequency. But I do
not see a point in differentiating "lies once a day" and "lies twice a day".
While the latter seems 2x worse, the former is bad enough to disregard it.

In that sense, the NYT was untrustworthy in the 90's, as was CNN. Whether they
are worse now is kind of irrelevant.

> There has not been a Walter Cronkite for decades.

There are, and always have been, fantastic journalists. They definitely exist
today. The question to ask is: If Walter Cronkite started out today, and was
as good as he used to be, would people trust him?

> I think its self-evident that journalism has changed, dramatically and for
> the worst as the Internet became widespread, and we have nothing to replace
> it with. This is happening at a time when information has been weaponized to
> an exquisite level with most of us not even aware we are under attack.

The loss in revenue has definitely impacted news outlets because of the
Internet. However, information being weaponized really is not that different
today. The only thing that has changed is that there are more actors involved.
Much of the thrash today is simply because more people have the power to
counter the misinformation of the past.

Things are bad now, but I really do not want to return to the days where
people trusted Time and Newsweek. I am happy people do not trust them. Those
were not good days, and the misinformation then was probably as costly
(globally) as it is now.

> There is a great hunger out there for honest reporting and there are plenty
> of people with both the resources and the integrity to help bootstrap a
> credible effort.

The people have spoken with their dollars, and it is clear they are not
willing to pay for it. Gifts from rich people does well for the "narrow"
journalism I spoke of, but is simply not enough for the wider scale that is
needed.

~~~
zarkov99
Would you accept "trust in the media" as one such measure of decline? If so
here: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-
re...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-
recover-2016-low.aspx)

Maybe we can get past that issue though. I understand your point to be that
Journalism was never credible and that therefore we are not really any worse
off than we have ever been. I disagree, but maybe it does not matter all that
much, my main point is that more than ever we desperately need something like
good Journalism, whether good Journalism ever existed or not.

Information has been weaponized before, sure, but the volume, sophistication,
low cost and precision of the manipulation is unprecedented. The difference in
degree is so great that it has become a difference of kind and the only
defense we have at the moment is cynicism.

As to people paying for proper Journalism, we also used to say no one would
pay for electric cars or for music. Maybe we just need better products.

~~~
ativzzz
Interesting article, and of course we don't know the reason for decrease in
trust. Is it because the media is lying more, or because the people have
better access to information and thus are realizing the lies of the media?
That's probably impossible to measure.

And interesting that

> Democrats' Trust in Media Highest in Past 20 Years

While Republican has gone down. I wonder how much effect Donald Trump saying
"Fake news" on Twitter all the time has on people's perception, versus what
they would think if he wasn't saying that.

~~~
zarkov99
> Democrats' Trust in Media Highest in Past 20 Years

Confirmation bias is a real thing.

------
lucasmullens
Pretty strange that Facebook tries aggressively to get you to sign up to
Facebook just for viewing this post. There's a giant modal with a huge picture
of Mark's face telling you to "See more of Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook".

You'd think they'd disable that for critical announcements like this.

~~~
aendruk
Yeah it's pretty jarring to have this suddenly stare you down while trying to
read.

[https://i.imgur.com/2f8hLqs.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2f8hLqs.jpg)

~~~
genr8
This is what happened to my browser immediately after clicking that link,
closing it, and opening a new window.

[https://i.imgur.com/3O60uZJ.png](https://i.imgur.com/3O60uZJ.png)

Brand new behavior to freak me out...

------
georgeecollins
Sheryl Sanberg: We don't respond to boycotts! We are guided by our principles.
Mark Zuckerberg: Today we announce we are changing our policies.

Funny how that works.

------
mattbillenstein
The great power of the internet is that the best factual information is a just
a few clicks away.

The problem with social media is that the worst information - the conspiracy
theories, the shoddy advertising, the pyramid schemes - is literally zero
clicks away; in fact, it's put in front of people for fractions of a cent.

~~~
catsdanxe
We wouldn't want those harmful conspiracy theories being discussed. We need
more moderation to keep them out!

~~~
scollet
I'm sure there is a normal distribution of people who really have no
credentials to investigate conspiracies, to take the term at its core
definition.

Journalists and whistleblowers? Tongue-in-cheek digs at implausible
circumstances?

Sure.

Everything below the curve is harmful and lacks a critical understanding of
events outside their front door.

I don't think this is a tech problem. I think this is cultural.

------
unexaminedlife
My basic takeaway from all of this is MOSTLY that society isn't (on its own)
capable of a real democracy. YET. I'm optimistic though. I do agree in general
that we don't want any single "arbiter of truth", but given that too many
citizens are being duped by objectively inaccurate news in far too large
numbers, I think there's probably a comfortable middle ground we'll all be
relatively comfortable with until humans no longer need this "oversight".

------
ck2
I still can't wrap my mind around the idea in 2020 we have a super powerful
worldwide internet accessible to most with everyone able to make their own
website yet millions upon millions insist on congregation on just one or two
sites and giving them some kind of imaginary power over everyone.

Just zero out facebook in HOSTS and you are free, it really is that simple,
everything else is just a contrived argument.

~~~
keyme
I wish that were true, but it isn't. In some places, facebook has a monopoly
on all human communication. For instance, in my country, if you're not on
whatsapp you're effectively unreachable.

------
SethTro
This is very likely in response to the Stop Hate For Profit campaign[1], it
has been picking up steam the last week with a bunch of major brands[2] (REI,
Coca-Cola, Unilever) saying they're going to pause FB's cash cow, ads, for a
month. So Zuckerberg was forced to respond.

Pressure (internal and external) on the tech giants can force them to change.

[1] [https://www.stophateforprofit.org/demand-
change](https://www.stophateforprofit.org/demand-change) [2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/26/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/26/facebook-
policies-hate-speech-advertisers-unilever)

------
joshpadnick
Many positive steps here, but still no change on allowing political ads that
make knowingly false claims, or am I missing something?

------
akshayB
Facebook is now playing damage control as sentiment of people have shifted or
they must have probably noticed some drop in activity, KPI or usage due to
their recent stance. There is probably more going on behind the curtains, huge
organization generally don't wake up one day and decide to change course.

~~~
SandB0x
Stock price dropping over 8% today is one metric.

~~~
dominotw
thats not related

------
julianeon
I see everybody commenting on the substance of the post: which is good. Seeing
the post as a stand-alone, almost ahistorical, statement.

But I'm wondering the strategic part, the this-moment-in-politics, may be part
of why we're seeing this now, too.

For a while Trump seemed pretty indestructible. FaceBook could hover in
between Trump and his opposition, stick to the middle ground.

Now it looks like Trump is down by some pretty serious digits, and Biden is
up. This would be the right time to maneuver for a Biden Presidency, before it
looks obviously self-serving.

By doing this now, if Trump loses, FaceBook will be closer to the post-Trump
middle. It's certainly better than being stranded with a bunch of terrible
alt-right press and Congressional investigations, with Trump unable to offer
any governmental protection.

While you never know - Trump could win! - the Trump-is-leaving-so-prepare-for-
post-Trump-times scenario is looking more probable by the day.

For the average person, "who knows" and "anything could happen" may be good
enough. It isn't for megacorps. So when the betting odds change, they change
with them.

Remember, Zuckerberg is a guy who bet big on Insta as the future beyond
FaceBook, 6-10 years into the future. It only makes sense that he'd seriously
think about 4 months into the future, to consider the impact on his business.
And adjust accordingly.

------
truculent
One of the many issues with the big platforms (like Facebook) is that the
founders and owners are incapable of thinking that the service is no longer a
net good and should be shut down. There is never a big enough problem that
cannot be tweaked insignificance.

------
captn3m0
Because of its US roots, FB makes concessions etc about US elections, but for
the remaining countries in the world - FB doesn't care.

FB announced their last electoral reforms _after India finished its last
elections, where FB was majorly used with little to no checks_.

------
adamsea
The crazy part is that it’s an unnaccoubtable company making these decisions
around managing speech - decisions with will have a significant and tangible
impact on the 2020 presidential election.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some sort of mechanism for a community to
collectively decide what the rules should be, and then make sure they are
followed?

It might be a messy process but hopefully this would be a slowly self-
correcting mechanism.

Then the broader community could ensure that the companies and other entities
that are a part of it follow the rules which have been collectively and
democratically agreed on.

I feel like there’s a word for this sort of thing, and it’s on the tip of my
tongue ....

Hint: the word is (democratic) government.

------
ImaCake
Lots of discussion about censorship here. I would like to ask a slightly off-
topic question: Does China have the same kind of social discord that America
has? Chinese online communities are subject to considerable censorship and
moderation. Does that help prevent the spread of insane ideas and
conspiracies?

Why is this worth thinking about: People who look to a more moderated future
for our social networks might look to China to see if such moderation is
effective. The downside is obvious; the state can promote insane conspiracy
theories using the same moderation tools. But we could at least see if
moderation on such a scale works at all.

~~~
cowpig
Your question implies a false equivalence between forum moderation and a
state-controlled propaganda machine.

~~~
ImaCake
Sorry that was not my intention. But your answer is useful for how I should be
thinking about this anyway, so thankyou :)

How would a nation like the USA go about encouraging more healthy forms of
moderation to suppress insane memes but not suppress important political
debate? The follow on from this would be; what nations already do this? and
what are the outcomes?

------
ChrisCinelli
I would argue that edge rank reinforce personal and group biases and let you
see more of what you interacted with.

Believes (false or true) start with an event that leaves an imprint in you and
later you start "seeing" only what goes along you believe and minimizing or
ignoring what is against your believes.

So if edge rank would feed you more of what you interacted with your view
would become more and more extreme.

If edge rank is aware of your context and your social graph, it will also feed
you more and more what your social circle consumes and produces.

We can see what is going on in the whole world but we are still made by our
local reality.

------
xenospn
Twist: "Someone" starts a new, right-wing social network that is endorsed by
Trump, pumped by Fox News and secretly funded by Mark. The My Pillow Guy and
all his friends take their ad dollars there where they are greeted by all the
people who are currently crying that Facebook and Twitter are being
"tyrannical" for censoring their racist posts.

6 Months from now after the election is done, Facebook quietly absorbs it and
life goes on.

~~~
basch
might be coming true.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/25/as-
twit...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/25/as-twitter-
labels-trump-tweets-some-republicans-flock-to-new-social-media-
site/#355b355e78c8)

[https://parler.com/auth/access](https://parler.com/auth/access)

Although separate spheres for different groupthinks sounds even worse that
forcing people who dont get along to use the same tools. We will finish
evolving into the dark matter people Scott Alexander called us.

------
TedShiller
So it was all about the money, after all? I thought it was about principles.
Funny how fast things change as soon as money comes into the equation.

------
s1mon
I love how this post is about the US elections, but fails to mention anything
until the fourth paragraph ("...largest voting information campaign in
American history..."). Facebook is one of the largest worldwide platforms, yet
this announcement just assumes that we all know that it's about the USA (I say
this as US citizen). It's so provincial.

------
Mc_Big_G
The true evil from facebook isn't the posts that incite violence. It's the
posts that are flat-out fake, complete lies and/or present something
completely out of context. These are the tools that Trump, right-wingers and
white supremacists use to fool their supporters and trigger their seratonin
generators through fearmongering. What is Facebook doing about THIS problem?
What are they doing to combat blatant untruths spread all over their network?
Zuckerberg's post does nothing to address this, the worst of problems. He's
hitting softballs.

~~~
dingaling
> What is Facebook doing about THIS problem?

What are bars and pubs doing to stop the telling of untruths in their
environments? Nothing and nobody is pressuring them to do so.

Why is Facebook different because it's on the Internet?

~~~
hairofadog
There's a question of scale and context. If there was a bar that could (a) fit
two billion people into it, (b) work hard to ensure they're the only bar in
the world, (c) allow powerful political groups or even foreign countries to
(d) use misinformation to sow conflict and violence in a way that was (e)
invisible to any one individual in the bar, well in that case I would probably
be wondering what was going to be done about this problem. However, I wouldn't
trust the owners of the bar to do anything about it.

------
didip
I don't understand why FB don't separate news from timeline into its own lane.
They both can even be side by side in the UI.

This way, news algorithm can be treated differently than other non-political
utilities. And there will be less people impacted by news
(positively/negatively).

~~~
disease
Because this would negatively affect their revenue?

~~~
ChrisCinelli
Interesting idea but what is a new and what is not? What is a friend shares an
article from the WSJ?

FB is people centric.

------
freeopinion
If these policy changes are just going into effect, they are not ahead of 2020
elections.

------
ipiz0618
Curios how would they define "hate speech". From the way Facebook works,
wouldn't anyone be worried it would be exploited the moment the new policies
are out and become a spamming ground?

------
tibbydudeza
People will become their inner assholes if there are no consequences to their
behavior as in real life you get thrown out of the neighborhood pub if you act
like a doofus.

------
classified
Having to lick the boots of that overgrown child that has become President is
getting embarrassing I guess. After all, Zuck wants to rule the world himself.

------
nikodunk
Reading this on the new Facebook Dark Mode seems fitting.

------
lunaru
We need to start expanding the scope of our anti-trust laws so that internet
communication channels go back to what they were meant to be: de-centralized.

The fact that the internet and web was designed to be decentralized and then
somehow ended up being concentrated on 5 or 6 websites is a bug, not a
feature.

I'm not proposing we just do this overnight though -- too much of the US
economy and software sector is propped up by these companies to just yank it
all out, but we need to head back to decentralization by revisiting our
definition of monopolies as it applies to communication channels.

~~~
hagy
I don't believe the dominance of a small number of social media empires is due
to anti-trust violations, specifically anit-competitive behavior. Instead, I
believe these industries have incredibly strong network effects with the value
of the platform growing faster than linear with the number of members.

If there were thousands of social media networks, each of roughly the same
size, then content would be highly fragmented. If say your closest ten friends
and family members in aggregate use seven different networks, then you'd have
to belong to all seven and regularly interact with all seven to stay up to
date with your community. A similar situation exists for following famous and
influential people.

Further, as any single social network grows, it naturally acquires a moat in
that with more members there is a larger reason for new members to join that
network since there is a higher percentage of people of interest already on
the social network in question. Over time we've seen this lead to dominant
social networks over several generations of social media. E.g., Friendster ->
MySpace -> Facebook.

------
29athrowaway
The timing of this announcement could have to do with the ad boycott.

------
seesawtron
Policy updates everywhere but no enforcement and accountability.

~~~
gabipurcaru
[https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-
enforc...](https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement)

[https://www.oversightboard.com/](https://www.oversightboard.com/)

------
shallowthought
I love how this asshole is clearly just trying to modify policy in reaction to
what he thinks people wants, rather than doing the right thing from day one,
because he obviously has no idea whatsoever how to do the right thing.

------
AzzieElbab
I would have gone amz way and formed a sugar water company and a logistics
company by now just to remind Coca Cola and Uniliver who they really are.

------
j45
Is this too little, too late?

------
keyme
You can flag this comment away, but I'll say this anyway:

If America doesn't crack down on Google's, Facebook's and Twitter's ability to
"moderate" (censor) content at their discretion (today!), Western democratic
society will come to an end. Sooner rather than later.

These services are utilities, sometimes monopolies, and must be regulated as
such.

~~~
xg15
I agree protecting opinions I personally might not agree with is important.

However, I see no value at all in protecting calls to violence or protecting
speech that is intentionally designed to deceive or manipulate.

Additionally, attributing and contextualising information must be allowed.

Finally, many scientific matters are settled (such as that climate change
exists, that there was systemic discrimination of PoCs even long after
abolishment of slavery and that Earth is not flat).

Stating that those debates are settled and that trying to "reopen" them does
not do any good must be allowed.

~~~
Darmody
Who decides what's designed to deceive?

The right thinks the left is trying to manipulate people and the left thinks
the right is trying to manipulate people.

Also, why wouldn't I be able to talk against climate change? I know it's real
but that's besides the point I'm trying to make. Why should I be stripped of
that right? To me, it sounds like when you couldn't speak about religion or
have any kind of doubt. Not only it's bad because it pure censorship but it
creates a precedent to ban speech against what some people think it's settled.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" isn't deceptive. It's clearly a
call to violence. It is 100% unambiguous.

~~~
totony
Its in poor taste, but it's not your place to say that it has no value. That
post has a lot of political meaning and promotes strong police response to non
peaceful protests. People are just angry about the phrasing. This is far from
having no value imo.

~~~
xg15
"The phrasing" is a historical quote that is connotated with calls to violence
since the original social justice movement.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_looting_starts,_the...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_looting_starts,_the_shooting_starts)

~~~
totony
What are you implying, that it has no value because it advocates violence?

EDIT: To be precise why I'd disagree with that, promoting self defense
advocates violence, but still has value to pretty much everyone. This is
controversial because of the current climate, but saying it has no value is
false.

------
paxys
Why insist on sharing important policy updates as a Facebook post, which is
clearly not meant for that purpose? That wall of text is completely
unreadable.

------
sys_64738
Why ever would I believe a word an ad man says?

------
throwawaysea
I am not happy with Facebook caving in to activist pressure from a small
number of vocal nonprofits and businesses that carry their own political
biases. This again is evidence that big tech favors certain worldviews,
ideologies, and political opinions over others. The notion of 'hate speech' is
flawed. It is a vague term with ever-expanding definitions and will ultimately
reduce the free exchange of ideas. Censorship, deplatforming, boycotts, and
other such actions will ultimately just lead to the balkanization of our
society.

As an example, consider the following paragraph from Zuck's post:

> Specifically, we're expanding our ads policy to prohibit claims that people
> from a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation,
> caste, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status are a
> threat to the physical safety, health or survival of others.

So what happens when people disagree on a current and controversial topic like
gender identity? This is certainly not a settled area of debate. For instance,
there are many who think early transitioning and surgeries can backfire, and
that children are not fit to make these decisions at a young age. Would such
discussion now be censored? More generally, will views that challenge
progressive orthodoxy just be banned on the grounds of ever-expanding and
variable definitions of hate speech?

Another example:

> We're also expanding our policies to better protect immigrants, migrants,
> refugees and asylum seekers from ads suggesting these groups are inferior or
> expressing contempt, dismissal or disgust directed at them.

What happens when you want to discuss the downsides of immigration and how it
affects your society? For instance, in Finland a disproportionate amount of
sexual violence is perpetrated by immigrants (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_Finland#Per...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_Finland#Perpetrators)).
This is a very common discussion topic in Finnish society and media
([https://www.foreigner.fi/articulo/moving-to-finland/crime-
is...](https://www.foreigner.fi/articulo/moving-to-finland/crime-is-the-topic-
most-associated-with-immigration-by-finnish-media/20191110185452003427.html)).
Would such discussion or advertisement in favor of changes to immigration
policies now be disallowed?

\----------

Even if Facebook only loosely enforces these new guidelines, having them at
all can have a chilling effect. It seems we can't trust Facebook to be a
neutral owner of such a ubiquitous and powerful platform. So much of society's
communication happens on Facebook (and Twitter and Google) that they are
really just the new digital public square and should not take sides. We need
alternative platforms that value free speech, a foundational part of our
society, rather than imposing the views of platform owners, their employees,
or a small number of vocal activists on the rest of the world.

~~~
atonse
This is all about ads.

So you want people to be able to post ads that say that people of certain
races are inferior? I don't understand.

This is not a free speech issue. This is a paid speech issue.

(I say this not as someone who wants to censor all kinds of stuff, I totally
understand your idea that all kinds of ideas should be able to be discussed,
but I do make that distinction)

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
>So you want to be able to post ads that say that people of certain races are
inferior? I don't understand.

OP clearly laid out their own examples, please don't go out of your way to
make one up so you have a strawman to attack.

~~~
atonse
That's not what my question is, perhaps I can reword it to sound less
inflammatory. My question is about the distinction between ads and
discussions.

OP asks "what happens if you want to discuss" – that phrase itself says "not
ads", so an irrelevant question, correct? I understand this is all about their
ad policy.

I hate to even sound like a facebook apologist, I deeply, deeply despise that
company and Mark Zuckerberg, and I know the only reason they'd change anything
is for money, and have absolutely no scruples whatsoever.

But at the end of the day, they're completely free to censor whatever they
want. They're not the public sphere.

------
lazyjones
Nice attempt to distract from the recent Project Veritas documentary showing
how FB manipulates content and suppresses conservatives.

~~~
senderista
"Project Veritas...manipulates content"

~~~
lazyjones
Sure.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHzz9aWO8HA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHzz9aWO8HA)

------
nie100sowny
1\. Providing Authoritative Information on Voting During the Pandemic

We hear it all the time (especially in Europe):

\- irresponsible people would not secure their retirement so the state needs
to force them to do it,

\- irresponsible people would not fasten the seatbelt so law must force them
to do so,

\- irresponsible people would not vaccinate their children etc.

But when elections are coming, all these irresponsible people will wisely
choose the best president, after detailed investigation of the economical
treaties. Pure absurd.

I like the idea of Fredrich Hayek - everyone votes only once in the whole life
at age between 40 and 45 years. (Assuming the cadence is 5 years). Only
interested ones.

------
vbo
This again comes off as empty PR speak. "We're taking this seriously, trust
us" with no acknowledgment of anything being broken to begin with. The more
meaningful work at this point is not growing or preserving Facebook's inertia
- I know, heresy - but fixing an architecture that has become toxic.

------
bobobob420
A lot of comments that add to the discussion (unlike this one tehee) that are
grey :(

Censorship of speech is not okay! No matter what!

Also I just want to add that imo Twitter is vastly more toxic than Facebook! I
do not see it get as much hate as the zuck does tho...(not saying he does or
not deserve the hate) just think there is better marketing of Jack Dorsey

~~~
sfj
> Censorship of speech is not okay! No matter what!

If someone handed you a a stack of flyers and told you to post it everywhere,
would it be ok to not do this and just throw it away? If someone on Facebook
types in a message and hits post, would it not be acceptable for them to not
send that data to anyone that connects to them, and instead just delete it?

