1. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/10/business/cnn-poll-facebook/in...
Clearly the campaign against FB is to get Zuck to censor more, the media lackeys at CNN are on the case!
> zero regard for actual human happiness and societal well-being.
You said nothing actionable. "Actual human happiness." Lol. "Societal well-being" Whoa.
Have you compared their happiness output levels to other social media companies?
Where's the study that the societal well-being meters for Twitter are better than FB?
Form a clear criticism of what you want FB to do. I assume it has something to do with censoring dissent?
-- edit --
Cute, you linked a Wikipedia article about whataboutism. Linking to it doesn't make it relate to this though.
Please expand on your criticisms so we can debate them, everything you said is subjective and obscure so I'm trying to figure out what exactly you are taking issue with, hence the other social media services offered as a comparison. Do they do that too in your opinion? Is it Facebook only? Did you see them sacrificing babies? Do you want them to censor more?
Comparisons are how you find contradictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
(look I can do that too!)
-- edit --
Them: Facebook is bad You: What about Twitter and TikTok ?
I'm pointing out that you are not refuting their point while still defending Facebook.
It seems you believe social medias are the way they are because that's all they can be.
It shows a lack of imagination and understanding of how they influence each others rather than compete to the benefit of users and society.
I believe social media behemoths have been biased in their moderation / censorship and they should make their mod logs public.
That's a specific criticism and suggestion. What is your specific criticism and suggestion?
Crying whataboutism is a cop-out, you only replied to my comparisons. I said much more, including questions trying to drill their point out of them.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I don't understand accusations of whataboutism. They oftentimes seem hypocritical: accusing someone of whataboutism is as relevant (and therefore, by its own logic, as rhetorically valid) as the thing it seeks to criticize.
Why is exposing double standards and hypocrisies via a relevant example not a valid form of argumentation?
Is it a bias if it is a representative sample of coverage of the company from around the web?
Are there positive stories about the company being posted that somehow don’t make it to HN? I never, ever come across anything positive about the company - HN or elsewhere.
What’s the positive angle that we are missing?
For example, in the US >20% of people are unwilling to take a covid vaccine, citing reasons ranging from fear of unknown side effects, to intentional government orchestrated mass steralization, to nanobots controlling their minds. I doubt more than 5% of the HN crowd is anti-vaccine, and those that are probably stick to the more realistic objections (side effects).
On the other hand, rationality is basically thrown out the window during discussions about FB (and to a lesser extent other big companies). All of a sudden, large conspiracies with thousands of people keeping silent for years are possible, impossibly sophisticated mind control technology exists, pure-evil or amoral actors pull on hidden strings to control society, etc.
In reality, people aren't interested in those posts, so nobody upvotes them and they die. Also most content like that would be created by FB itself, and even I don't want to read self-aggrandizing crap.
Somewhat related: I remember seeing some stats where ~25% of Americans thought there's a 10% change you die if you get Covid...
Alternatively, news about FB is overwhelmingly negative, possibly because they actually are that bad.
If you go down the to stories: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=facebook
it's virtually all either FB doing something unethical or someone taking action against FB (because they're unethical).
For this thread, though, I'm not sure the negative slant is enough to explain it. There is a ton of negative on most every topic.
Privacy, algorithmization of feeds, etc. are important to me but I’m much more afraid of opinions being seeded now, which get turned into votes, which determines the people we elect, which in turns determines the type of policies we enact, which then plays out in 5-20 years, when I’m still alive and also the people who come after me.
For example, we have to deal with the TSA now because of a series of many unfortunate events that transpired since WW1. You can’t go back and undo certain mistakes.
Facebook is unfortunately where a lot of people seem to get their news and that is scary. Primary sources should be people’s news sources.
If not, why not?
I get a general fear of social media. And I am not trying to give anyone a pass. I don't see a distinction, though.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-algorithm-sex-drugs-mino...
NYTimes would never do a serious negative story about Tiktok because it goes against their political bias. It matches exactly with HN's bias. Here is a praise-worthy Tiktok story that boggles the mind: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/10/arts/TIK-TOK....
It is all partisan and not very objective. I think all social media is terrible for the society.
I mean... refusing to look at things you don't like or don't fit your narrative/content bubble is pretty much the reason Facebook exists. Stands to reason it applies to HN too.
For the most part, HN does a great job of criticism and opposing viewpoints when it comes to technical topics. But for political viewpoints, it is a cohesive, tightly bound and impenetrable monoculture primarily echoing Silicon Valley zeitgeist.
So why would any Facebook employees volunteer to be part of that? If you say anything neutral or even positive about Facebook as a non-employee your comment will attract rapid downvotes here. Imagine commenting as an employee on the inside of the company.
FWIW, I know several people at FB who also comment on HN. They have no interest in discussing FB on HN because we all know exactly how the discussion will go regardless of the veracity of any claims or content.