Facebook has gained huge shares of advertising revenue once owned by said members of the media.
Like politicos aren't?
The problem we've allowed to happen with Twitter and et. al is the assumption that individuals in politics may be allowed to operate a "public" persona that then is used to change sentiment in the population using language and strong imagery...as has been done by "those who try to control" for thousands of years.
Gov has no business being on privatized social media, but perhaps they could build their own...
https://maxpolicy.substack.com/p/issue-45-why-everybody-hate...
I get that policing billions of users you just gave a voice to is hard but so is counting all those profits they bring. When corporation profits were at stake everybody threw money at solutions that instantly and automatically solve the issue to everyone's advantage but the users' - copyright infringement. Now we get the "policing is hard, man" discourse from one of the biggest companies in the world, with the biggest userbase in the world. Indeed, the solution to this problem may not be technical but they're still miking everything for profit while claiming it's hard to come up with a solution and people are rightfully skeptical of their stance and vilifying them.
Philosphize This episode: https://youtu.be/6QJYsSJGR8I
Except that the people that are "fleeing the mainstream media" are going to media sources (on the right, and the left) that are even more judgmental, and even more insulting.
That pretty much annihilates his argument.
Retreating into safe spaces (either on the right, or on the left) isn't the answer.
What does the Girardian analysis add? Is mimetic competition different than regular competition? Is a Girardian scapegoat different than a normal scapegoat?
ttfautohint may be able to resolve this issue; another solution would be to use either Source Serif Pro or Vollkorn for the body text (i.e. the class “wf-active”), which, like Gentium Book, have a traditional look to them, while rendering more nicely in Windows 10.
My workaround is to use Firefox’s document inspector to make the font a mixture of Bitstream Charter and Charis SIL, but reader mode is another workaround.
Should be fixed now.
Georgia has a very readable and slightly old fashioned look, is available everywhere (including Linux desktops once people legally add the Microsoft Core Fonts themselves) except on Android phones, but the substitute on Android phones looks quite nice too.
I still wonder if Gentium Book Basic (which, yes, looks great in PDF files; it is a beautiful font) can be salvaged on Windows devices if we run it through ttfautohint.
Now that Reddit does have a hate speech policy, I expect we'll start to see them in the same conversations.
Heck, "unsubscribe from all the default subs they're a cesspool" has been the going advice for at least a decade now. If that doesn't say lost cause I don't know what does.
The worst part is that it reverts back to the new UI.
Tweeter also isn't pretending to be a way to keep in touch with your friends while it actually acts like a propaganda machine. It's much more transparent in that you subscribe to the (propaganda or not) channels all by yourself.
And many users have complained about their tweets getting suppressed, inconsistent banning policies, etc.
Strange. It doesn't show tweets chronologically, so I don't understand what it's supposed to be. Certainly not original twitter.
But there has never been a boycott campaign that wasn't awfully selective, of course.
Probably because being consistent in one's suppose noble ideals would actually compromise one's own well-being, rather than simply not doing business with one giant corporation, of which there are many that do the same to choose from.
The press I see here on HN is that they profit off our privacy.
I haven't seen 'profiting off of hate'.
And, to address your new point about moderation being hard when you have billions of users: The thing about having billions of users, is that it gets you billions in revenue. In fact, revenue probably scales super-linearly with user count. Either way, the required-moderators-per-user actually decreases as you get more users because you can spread the fixed development costs of moderation tools (including ML models, obviously) over a larger number of revenue-generating users.
From your comment, your key point is apparently:
> just to mention the inconsistency with the blame solely being on Facebook itself
I don't think anyone is making the claim that it's "solely" a problem with Facebook. People are just pointing out and discussing mistakes that Facebook has made.
All of that said, Facebook is certainly doing better than they were a few years ago. For example, they now have people who can actually speak Burmese on their moderation team.[1] So that's a good start...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar...
> The disagreement centers on a chain letter that spread on Facebook Messenger in Myanmar in September. The messages warned Buddhist communities of an imminent Muslim attack. Meanwhile, Muslim populations received a separate message cautioning them of violence from militant Buddhist groups.
If you take that description to a smart, compassionate person who doesn't happen to know the 2015-2020 politics of Myanmar, they'll have no idea what the right moderation strategy is. (They're actually pretty likely to come up with a worse answer than Facebook, because the Burmese government is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, globally known from 1990 to 2015 as a brave fighter for freedom and human rights.) So this isn't just a matter of moderation tools; in order to moderate appropriately, Facebook has to be aware of all current human rights controversies in all countries. That's a high bar!
A whataboutism would be if you said “Facebook doesn’t do enough to stop mean but otherwise legal thoughts I disagree with” and someone replied “Ok, but Twitter is full of propaganda bots so that is worse!”
People use “whataboutism” to deflect from perfectly valid similarities they just wish not to discuss. It’s not the argument silver bullet it is used as.
One side is wrong and the other (your) side is right... sounds like game to me. You sure you are being genuine with this argument?
You aren’t seriously suggesting Facebook is a right wing platform are you?
Beyond a certain size, you really do have no choice but to have an editorial opinion. Even adherance to neutral tone is a choice.
It was a huge mistake to not require content filters on the phone network.
The media may be biased by their history with FB, but they deserve an huge part of this reputation.
Really? I see it all the time. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit. Even Instagram a lot lately. Perhaps your reading selection is a bit narrow?
let alone any media organization.
Sounds like you missed the whole "Fox News is the devil" thing that's been going on for close to 20 years on the internet. That only changed a few months ago when it stopped fawning over Mr. Trump. Now Newsmax (rightly or wrongly) is the internet's media whipping boy.
Regardless of how good their policies are (or aren't), it's vastly under-appreciated how difficult it is to enact policies when your users are measured in the billions and single moderation mistakes often get you a lot of heat and make you even more enemies. Meanwhile every government, special interest group, think tank, political party, and so on, are constantly pressuring you with large-scale public campaigns to change your policies in various ways to benefit them.
It's truly a mess that I hope we develop better frameworks for in the future, because the current one seems to be entering some pretty bad areas for everyone involved (And I mean everyone - even Facebook does not want to be the moderator here, because they realize it is an unwinnable position that makes them more enemies).