zlacker

[return to "Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content"]
1. firest+H2[view] [source] 2024-08-27 10:29:18
>>southe+(OP)
It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration.

Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US?

Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19?

We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work.

If we try the Reddit route, then we could have incredible bias in moderated communities.

What about fitting the StackOverflow model to social media?

Another route is how X provides for the Community Notes feature. Would that have worked? Is Community Notes still susceptible to the same bias?

◧◩
2. GeekyB+c6[view] [source] 2024-08-27 11:12:32
>>firest+H2
The problem with Covid censorship (a problem not limited to Facebook) was that Covid was an airborne virus, and the arbiters of allowable speech decided that the truth about Covid was "misinformation" that needed to be suppressed.

How many additional people died because the mitigations we put into place were targeted at a virus with a droplet based spread (like the flu) but not effective against a virus with an airborne spread (like the measles)?

◧◩◪
3. mandma+48[view] [source] 2024-08-27 11:27:37
>>GeekyB+c6
Not just that.

Knowledgeable academics who argued that the costs of lockdowns in schools would far outweigh any possible benefit were suppressed by non-scientists.

All talk of vaccine side effects was labelled misinformation and suppressed, even when accompanied with legitimate and accepted studies.

Etc.

The only common thread between all the possible examples of censorship - from side effects to lockdown effectiveness to the lab-leak theory to the US role in funding GOF research at the WIV - seemed to be that unless you spoke the narrative of the day then you were dangerous to society. Fully unpacking the irony there would take a book.

Many books have been written about this kind of censorship, because suppressing conversation like this never leads anywhere good. It's an enduring and central theme of damn-near all the top dystopian fiction.

◧◩◪◨
4. chasd0+B9[view] [source] 2024-08-27 11:39:05
>>mandma+48
It was even here in HN a community of pretty normal people. Remember the discussions of Sweden’s approach to lockdowns? Any mention of it and you were shouted down and blood was surely going to run in the streets of Sweden by dawn the next day. I lost a lot of faith in the HN community then.

The pandemic and the compliance and the us vs. them mentality really opened by eyes. It’s how terrible things happen, people will just do what their told by some perceived authority no matter what.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lupusr+Ro[view] [source] 2024-08-27 13:40:06
>>chasd0+B9
HN, to it's credit, at least permitted dissent without systematic bans for going against whatever was the officially blessed narrative of the day.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. idunno+Cu1[view] [source] 2024-08-27 19:10:27
>>lupusr+Ro
How would you know that? My account was banned.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. lupusr+9Q1[view] [source] 2024-08-27 20:57:29
>>idunno+Cu1
I dissented regularly and vehemently and was not banned on HN.
[go to top]