Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Facebook denies having '2 systems of justice' for users after WSJ report (foxbusiness.com)
39 points by hhs 7 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 21 comments





It seems they both denied and admitted to it at the same time, with twisted wording.

Has anyone come up with a decentralized social media platform yet? I wonder if it's even possible without it devolving in to a complete cesspool even worse than the centralized cesspools.


Yes, but you can't post about it on Facebook: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28493823

People keep bringing up decentralized platforms but there is no indication that won't have the exact same problem. Imagine your node is getting spammed by a high traffic node run by a popular set of users, and then it seems you could easily start to drift towards the same solutions where you have a different set of rules for those nodes. It would be nice if someone could suggest which novel approaches that a decentralized platform could take towards solving this problem. "Decentralization" is commonly brought up as a solution to this but in my experience federated solutions like Mastodon are on the whole, extremely similar to Twitter and Facebook, just done on a smaller scale. Part-time node operators there may be even more likely to apply a double standard because it's a lot easier than trying to act fair and put honest moderation efforts towards a node that is abusing the network and spamming. So if I missed something, please mention it.

Example of smaller network not necessarily being more fair/honest would be ~any subreddit. Try and have an honest discussion in many hive mind subs and get banned/deleted for suggesting Grass Is Green.

Yes, it's called use other social media. Tons of forums still out there. By it's very nature you cannot centrally connect decentralized services.

The idea of replacing Twitter/Facebook is comical given context of how much they pay in personnel and algorithms to remove illigal or otherwise explicit content. At this scale it's demonstrated that control is required.



I think mastodon can work for social media.

I don’t see it as getting rid of moderation, I see it as unbundling moderation from the network. Like why can’t I use Twitter or Facebook but select from a wide variety of moderation overlays.

If I don’t like Trump or anti-vaxx stuff, I can pick a moderation service that bans that content. And vice versa if that’s my cup of tea. Nobody has to see stuff they don’t enjoy, but you’re not censoring the people who do like that content.

Like the network focus on being the network possible in a way that’s agnostic to the content layer. Then give people freedom of choice to pick what suits them best.


We need less echo-chambers, not more

If you don’t like Trump or anti-vaxx stuff, how about you just ignore it?

Muting it altogether can only make things worse as it will confine you in your "safe" but out of touch personal reality.

This to me is the biggest issue in the recent censorship efforts across all big social media platforms.


>Muting it altogether can only make things worse as it will confine you in your "safe" but out of touch personal reality.

How do you get to that conclusion? If you're one to believe one way or another so decidedly that you will no longer listen to reason and fact, you're not going to blindly come across some post on social that makes you suddenly question everything. In fact, you'll probably become incensed with how there are suddenly things that conflict with what you believe instead of being force fed from social's algos. You'll probably assume there is a conspiracy out to get you to look at stuff you don't want to see instead of a firehose of like minded content.


>you're not going to blindly come across some post on social that makes you suddenly question everything

Deprogramming takes a long time, it doesn't happen all at once or with a eureka moment. Political discourse and the nature of politics is programming at its core. How else can we explain decades and decades of broken promises and total deferment to the lobbyists and highest bidders?


>How else can we explain decades and decades of broken promises and total deferment to the lobbyists and highest bidders?

You just said it. Money.


Algorithms pick up on what you engage with and what you ignore. Echo chambers are almost inevitable whether you're actively pushing something away from your feed or scrolling right on by.

Muting is ignoring. The people out of touch with reality are those posting the anti vaxx trump is Jesus propaganda. Do I have to let everyone lacking basic critical thinking skills into my feed? It's not about being "safe", it's that I don't have time to continually see disproven BS.

twisted wording it always is their end : everything FB-related is twisted [ref CA-scandal]

Peakd.com

Flote.app


It makes sense they would moderate certain accounts differently. Controversial accounts will get reported because people don't like what's posted, even if the content is perfectly legitimate. I'm sure "Doug the Pug" is constantly reported as animal abuse, for instance [0].

The real issue is that these accounts should be scrutinized even more than "regular" users, not less.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_the_Pug


Oh, well Facebook denied it. Case closed. We all trust Facebook right guys?

Guys?


Facebook serves absolutely zero social purpose any more.

All of the things it ostensibly can do are done better and with less baggage by other apps.

Ironic given its "exclusive to Harvard emails" roots.


dating apps have two systems though, most of them were bought out by a huge media tycoon.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: