[HN Gopher] Facebook says it was wrong to ban Canadian MP's Chri... ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook says it was wrong to ban Canadian MP's Christmas message Author : smsm42 Score : 136 points Date : 2021-12-23 20:05 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (reclaimthenet.org) (TXT) w3m dump (reclaimthenet.org) | freitasm wrote: | No one is going to comment on the website hosting this story? | | While not disupting the story itself, perhaps linking to a non- | partisan source would've been best. | munk-a wrote: | The site is definitely quite sketchy looking - but this article | is fine and perfectly reasonable so I don't know if we really | need to comment on the website itself. If the website were | adding unnecessary spin then maybe it'd be of note but it | didn't. | Brian_K_White wrote: | It is always correct to consider the source of any message. | | The mere truth of a _statement_ is often not even 50% of the | _message_ since every statement is framed and the frame is | highly manipulable. | chrisco255 wrote: | Do you have an objective source that confirms that truth is | actually a 50/50 ratio between message and framing? Where | did you hear that from? | | The truth of a statement is somewhat subjective but it's | not helpful to be pedantic. | | I understand that authoritative media sources often frame | stories in abhorrent ways and I have tuned out the media in | general as a result. However, if I hear a plausible, | factual statement from even a source I abhor, I can filter | through the framing to find the truth in the statement. In | today's world, I think it's an essential skill. | | Did Facebook accidentally ban an innocuous message? Seems | plausible. Is Facebook known to engage in arbitrary | flagging of content? Yes. Does this speak to the | problematic nature of algorithmic fact-checking and | moderation, a general theme of our era? Yes. Then it's | worth discussing and it doesn't matter what source brought | it to our attention. | gnabgib wrote: | Perhaps this one is better? https://nationalpost.com/news/mp- | mark-strahls-merry-christma... | | You can find a link from his main website[0] to his | instagram[1] and twitter[2] posts mentioning the issue, but | given the context they're perhaps bad choices | | [0]: https://www.markstrahl.com/new-page/ [1]: | https://www.instagram.com/markstrahlmp/ [2]: | https://twitter.com/markstrahl | [deleted] | john_moscow wrote: | Here's a twit from the MP himself if you don't believe it: | https://twitter.com/markstrahl/status/1473394902390222850 | | That said, I don't think there are many non-partisan sources | left. The shift from paid physical issues limited by the | physical page count to limitless online space with free access | killed it. Each source now tries to generate as much low- | quality clickbait as possible, and predictably picks topics | that would resonate well with their audience's confirmation | bias, turning a blind eye on anything outside the picture. | | This applies to both sides of the political spectrum. "Left" | sources won't publish anything criticizing censorship, "right" | sources won't say anything against Trump. If you want an | objective picture, you need to piece it yourself from both | sides. | smsm42 wrote: | If you're not disputing the story itself - then what exactly is | the problem? If you don't like the rest of the content on the | site, nobody forces you to read it - and unlike many other | sites, this one is pretty clean and doesn't bother the reader | with a ton of irrelevant ads. I think refusing to read any site | that is not part of your ideological bubble is a big mistake. | Everybody has their opinions, if they're not deliberately lying | to you, it's completely fine to listen to them and make your | own conclusions, even if you end up disagreeing with their | opinions. | walrus01 wrote: | The website hosting this appears to be basically the same idea | as Newsmax or Breitbart. Not exactly actual journalism. | | Also, the MP in question is quite far right, and is well known | for things like the following: | | https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=mark+stra... | jaywalk wrote: | Do you have any issues with the article itself, or are you | only interested in attacking the website and the subject of | the article? | sillysaurusx wrote: | What exactly is the problem with this site? Political flamewar | is offtopic, and your comment reads as "this is a conservative | news outlet, so watch out." | | I was curious and clicked around. The site recommends using DDG | as a search engine. There was a time that this wasn't a fringe | idea. | | Either the story is true and fairly represented, or it's false | or misleading. If it's the latter, it's best to point it out. | walrus01 wrote: | > What exactly is the problem with this site? | | it appears to have a large number of articles on it about how | terrible "vaccine passports" are and how they're an | outragious infringement on civil rights, so it's verging into | outright coronavirus conspiracy stuff that contradicts | factual science and reality. | | as "alternative" social networks, linked from an index page | off its home page, it also recommends well known far- | right/alt-right/fascist hangouts gab, parler and mewe. | sgjohnson wrote: | So in your opinion, merely opposing vaccine passports is | "conspiracy theory stuff that contradicts factual science | and reality"? | walrus01 wrote: | yes, because the spread of coronavirus by unvaccinated | persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact. | additionally, the hospitalization rate and death rate for | unvaccinated persons vs vaccinated persons. and further, | the severity of case and death outcome rate per capita of | infections for breakthrough-of-vaccinated persons with | covid19 in hospital, vs same per capita of unvaccinated | persons in hospital. | smsm42 wrote: | The spread of coronavirus by vaccinated persons in groups | in indoor spaces is a scientific fact too. So what? The | debate is not about that, it's about whether prescribing | certain medical procedure by state coercion, and limiting | the civil rights of persons who choose not to undergo | this procedure is a proper policy and whether the laws of | the land allow the government to do that. | | It's a legitimate debate which has nothing to do with | "conspiracies" - you don't need any conspiracies to find | reasonable argument on both sides of the debate. If you | don't like the side that that particular site is on and | disagree with their arguments - fine, but that doesn't | mean they are lying about other factual things (they are | not). There's a huge distance between disagreeing and | refusing to even listen to other side's arguments, and | even worse - refusing to listen to anything from somebody | that once had an opinion you disagree with - this is no | way for a society to function. | sgjohnson wrote: | None of which has got anything at all to do with vaccine | passports. | walrus01 wrote: | the logical conclusion would be that effective existence, | enforcement and peoples' cooperation with vaccine | passports will prevent unvaccinated persons from | gathering in groups indoors and further spreading | covid19, so the relevance is quite clear. | veeti wrote: | The actual conclusion from European countries such as the | Netherlands, Finland, etc. is that vaccine passports are | not sufficient to cull the spread or reduce load on the | healthcare system. Back to lockdowns it is. | smsm42 wrote: | Putting everybody in solitary confinement would also | prevent persons from gathering in groups and further | spreading covid19. Obviously, nobody (so far) is | advocating this. So you can appreciate the difference | between measuring a policy only on single metric of | efficiency, and comprehensively weighting overall costs | and benefits. Not every efficient policy is legal, moral | or acceptable. | qaq wrote: | Why ? Something can be good for certain outcome e.g. | reduce infection rate, hospitalization rate and yet | infringe on civil rights. Those are orthogonal concerns. | choward wrote: | I find it ironic that you're trying to censor the site | that's calling out censorship merely because they have a | few things you disagree with. | walrus01 wrote: | I don't recall where I said they should be censored, | they're sure free to run an http daemon and publish | whatever the heck they want. Other persons such as myself | are also free to disparage them and disregard what they | publish. | tempnow987 wrote: | My local scientists said masks did nothing (then licked | their lips to turn a page). I kept on wearing my N95 mask. | | Then I was told that the vent made the N95 ineffective. | Obviously wrong, I was certainly protected, and as a source | control compared to folks wearing thin mesh or surgical | masks (usually with nose out) no doubt far more reliable. | Scientists wrong again. | | Then I was told we couldn't go to to three mile beach with | my children (deserted at 9AM when we went even during non- | covid times). This had an ocean breeze onshore, huge | quantities of fresh air (and sun). Supposedly it was safer | to crowd into a grocery store with others. Count me | skeptical again. | | Then we are told that only the CDC can test for COVID. | Count me skeptical. | | Then we are told that antibody tests need to have full | computer connected to an iphone and pay for a medical | consult to use at home. Seriously? This great threat, and | you can't do a test like a pregnancy strip at home? | Thankfully they are backing off this now - scientists wrong | again. | | We are told that inflation is transitory, it's just | misinformation that it might stick around a bit. | | After the administration goes out of its way to block | fossil fuel production in the US, they announce an | investigation of oil companies for failing to keep prices | low. Again, these are the "experts" in markets at the FTC. | | If these scientists demanding vaccine passports spent even | a FRACTION of the trillions put into this COVID (now | Omicron) stuff between lockdowns and interventions into | something as simple as healthy diet, exercise and | socialization - what would be the outcomes? | | I'm vaxed and boosted, but the blind obedience to these | "scientists" and "experts" is totally ridiculous, | especially the non-hard science epidemiologists - is | absolutely silly. | | I would not count this as their shining moment. Half the | time the politicians ordering us off the beaches are | squeezed in rooms with their staff and lobbyists hatching | another political effort of one sort or another. | | The words "misinformation" have become a near joke. | e0a74c wrote: | > The site recommends using DDG as a search engine. There was | a time that this wasn't a fringe idea. | | Is that considered fringe now? Has it been appropriated by | some radicalized group in the US? | jaywalk wrote: | Distrusting massive corporations is a far-right opinion | now, apparently. | Ostrogodsky wrote: | The brainwash the powerful social media companies have | done to the masses in the last 10 years it is a thing of | beauty. Criminal and immoral beauty. | | Now supporting Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, behemoths | which represent the excess of capitalism is considered | hip, cool and progressive. | e0a74c wrote: | > Now supporting Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, behemoths | which represent the excess of capitalism is considered | hip, cool and progressive. | | Isn't that great though? If it's now hip and cool, even | the dumb/vain people will do the right thing (albeit for | the wrong reasons) which should ultimately strengthen the | alternatives to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. | axiosgunnar wrote: | If you are too big, you should be broken up | khazhoux wrote: | In what way was the incorrect algorithmic take-down of the MP's | Christmas message due to the size of FB? | josephcsible wrote: | If Facebook were forcibly broken into several federated | social networks, then ones that kept making "mistakes" like | this one would lose all of their users to ones that didn't. | khazhoux wrote: | If DOJ broke up FB, it would be split along business units. | There is no possible outcome in which the core FB product | would be split into "several federated social networks," | which is a different technology and business altogether. | annoyingnoob wrote: | The 'censorship' narrative is wrong and tired. FB/Meta has no | obligation to carry your speech. Thank God, FB/Meta is not the | government and can administer their privately owned systems any | way they want and you do not have to like that. You do not have | to use FB/Meta. | dahfizz wrote: | To be pedantic, Facebook definitely does have the capability of | censorship: | | > Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that | are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in | imposing their personal political or moral values on others. | Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as | private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is | unconstitutional.[1] | | Facebook has enough power over communication at large to | effectively suppress speech should they choose. Censorship does | not have to be perpetrated by governments. Hence the terms | self-censorship and corporate-censorship[2]. | | What people really mean when they talk about censorship is | first amendment rights. Here, you are correct. The first | amendment protects against government censorship only - nothing | Facebook does could infringe your first amendment rights. | | [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship | annoyingnoob wrote: | And what of Facebooks own rights? Why would your rights come | before Facebook's rights? | josephcsible wrote: | If you think Facebook is supposed to have rights, then are | you also okay with the Citizens United decision? The answer | to whether companies should have the same rights as people | should just be "yes" or "no", not "well, yes when it | benefits me but no when it doesn't". | jaywalk wrote: | Facebook enjoys vast legal protections that (arguably) | preclude them from this type of censorship. They are | constantly fighting to make sure that (arguably) doesn't | start to turn into something more concrete. | dahfizz wrote: | I was making a very pedantic argument. It can | simultaneously be true that Facebook is guilty of | censorship, and they are in the legal / moral right by | doing so. I have complex feelings on the topic, but that | most accurately describes my position. | | I'm not saying Facebook is infringing my rights (I | explicitly meant to say the opposite). But I do feel | strongly that they are guilty of censorship, in the literal | sense. | josephcsible wrote: | > It can simultaneously be true that Facebook is guilty | of censorship, and they are in the legal / moral right by | doing so. | | They might be in the legal right, sure. But you're | _never_ in the moral right if you 're guilty of | censorship. | josephcsible wrote: | > The first amendment protects against government censorship | only - nothing Facebook does could infringe your first | amendment rights. | | This is true, but remember that there's a lot of terrible | things that the Constitution doesn't prohibit, e.g., murder. | The fact that something isn't Constitutionally prohibited | doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it. | BrazzVuvuzela wrote: | > _What people really mean when they talk about censorship is | first amendment rights._ | | I don't agree. The snarky and smug _" nuh uh, cuz it wasn't | the government"_ responses [often maliciously] _assume_ that | complaints about censorship are talking about the first | amendment, but I think people are generally aware that | censorship can come from corporations too and their concerns | are not limited to apparent violations of the first amendment | specifically but are concerned with the more general | _principle_ of free speech (which predates the first | amendment.) | donny2018 wrote: | I'm curious what happens when a number of public speech | monopolies align their interests with certain political | group and implicitly blend with the government. I guess | this theoretical situation is totally legal, doesn't break | any amendments, but it kind of smells strange. | throwoutway wrote: | And this is what is slowly happening | tomohawk wrote: | In the 1960s, certain restaurants and other establishments | argued that they were private, and could choose who was allowed | to enter and do business there. | | They were making the same mistake you are - arguing that they | were not obligated to be even handed and non-discriminatory in | the services they offered. | vorpalhex wrote: | And you don't have to read our comments where we share our | anger at Facebook/Meta. | | Surely you don't think corporations can't be criticised? | annoyingnoob wrote: | Criticize all you want. But be prepared for criticism of your | own argument too. | | FB is completely within the law to manage their own platform. | If you don't like the law then change it. Maybe your comments | are misplaced. | vorpalhex wrote: | Nobody is saying what Facebook did is illegal. We are | simply saying that this is an obvious case of bad | censorship, in a long line of facebook being a subpar | censor, and that you should re-evaluate if you as a person | want to do business with facebook because they will simply | take down your posts wrongfully with no real appeals | process unless you are famous. | annoyingnoob wrote: | I don't use Facebook, which is maybe why I don't care how | they manage their service and also why it seems clear to | me that there are other social media platforms, other web | sites, I could make my own web site, hell I could send | letters in the mail. Suffice to say a single message | being deleted on Facebook is not censorship of the | individual that had this issue. | LocalH wrote: | It is censorship, though. Not government censorship, but don't | you think that one day in the future, once these non-government | censorship systems are in place, that a corrupt or evil | government could abuse those systems and make them defacto | government censorship systems (we're already partway down the | slope with things like CSAM and copyright monitoring, although | the former is especially heinous and so censorship of that type | of content is desired). | | Not every provider of user-generated content should have to | abide by these rules, because the damage that can be done by a | relatively small forum or website is usually minimal (although | see sites like Kiwi Farms that may not technically _directly_ | encourage harassment but where it is nonetheless often | perpetrated by sadistic individuals who participate in their | forums), whereas the damage that can be done by a Facebook or a | Google is much, _much_ greater. | themaninthedark wrote: | >Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, | or other information. This may be done on the basis that such | material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or | "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, | private institutions and other controlling bodies. Governments | and private organizations may engage in censorship. | | There is nothing that presupposes that the entity has the | obligation to carry your message. Just that the entity removes | your message on the grounds that they do not like the material. | | This comes up every time someone mentions that X(a private | party) censors something. Yes, X is not the government. Yes, it | is still censorship. If undertaken by the entity on it's own, | it may not be illegal. If the entity had government influence | in it's decision, than it may be. | | There are some here that argue that the status quo is fine and | others that argue that we need to change our laws and | regulations to protect individuals from more privet enterprise | censorship. That is where the debate is, not whether or not | censorship exists. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | Did you even read the article? | gpm wrote: | The comment you replied to seems like a direct reply to the | article to me, which starts with the first quote below and | goes on to quote the politician saying the second one .... | | > If you're tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the | erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net. | | > this is a glaring example of censorship and overreach by | tech giant companies who control so much of the online | space." | JacobThreeThree wrote: | >If you're tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the | erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net. | | That's the website slogan, not part of the article. | | If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > That's the website slogan, not part of the article. | | Yes. | | > If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship. | | Maybe if they reversed it with a time machine. | swlp21 wrote: | I'm struggling to understand your reasoning : | | > If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship. | | Using a different example, I wanted to eat in a local | restaurant [a privately owned company providing a public | service entirely on their own terms] but I was refused | entry because I am black and their "policies" [which is | the reason I am given] prohibit entry to black people. I | call attention to the situation by standing outside with | a placard saying this restaurant treated me in a | discriminatory way because I am black. The restaurant | manager then comes to me and says, sorry that was a | mistake caused by the 'patron classifier' [i.e. some | vague entity that implies no actual person is at fault | anywhere], and I can come in now. | | So, do I understand correctly that you would say the | restaurant is not operating any type of discriminatory | policy because it reversed the decision when attention | was publicly drawn to it? | | To me, that reasoning does not seem to make sense. Being | embarrassed into changing a decision does not stop your | original decision being wrong in the first place. It | simply means you want to stop attention being drawn to it | and hope I will stop making a fuss if you make an | exception for me on this occasion. You can continue | making that same [wrong] decision for everyone else that | is unable to complain and draw attention to their plight. | avhon1 wrote: | What makes you think annoyingnoob didn't read the article? | The MP in the article, Mark Strahl, is quoted referring to | this as "a glaring example of censorship", and annoyingnoob | appears to be saying that "censorship" is not the right | framework in which to criticize Facebook's actions. | JacobThreeThree wrote: | If it's a mistake that Facebook reversed, it's not | censorship. | smsm42 wrote: | One does not exclude the other. FB tried to censor him, | but turned out it wasn't what they wanted to censor, so | they removed the censorship. That happened because their | censorship mechanisms are highly automated and very badly | trained, so they have a huge amount of false positives. | Stratoscope wrote: | Oddly enough, your comment appears word for word in the HN | guidelines: | | > _Please don 't comment on whether someone read an article. | "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be | shortened to "The article mentions that."_ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | fsflover wrote: | > You do not have to use FB/Meta. | | Unfortunately there is a so-called "network effect", which | prevents quitting for many users. | [deleted] | [deleted] | kube-system wrote: | There are laws that _do_ impose obligations on some privately | owned systems regarding speech they must or must not carry. | Being "privately owned" is not an exception to these laws in | the US, let alone other jurisdictions. | | Regardless, rightful censorship is still accurately described | as such. | | And, this doesn't seem to be a story about censorship, IMO, | because it was clearly accidental. It's a story about bad ML. | dnissley wrote: | Yeah, but this narrative is just as wrong and tired as the | 'censorship' one. Companies are not obligated to carry your | speech on their platforms, but we can and should be able to | have a conversation about whether or not their methods of | moderation are sound / reasonable. | gillytech wrote: | No you're wrong. Section 230 determines a publisher from a | platform based on what they host on their service. If they | pick and choose what goes on their service they are a | publisher and lose their section 230 immunity. So it's not | true that they can "do whatever they want." | | And they do engage in censorship. See "Laptop from Hell" by | Miranda Devine | TheFreim wrote: | It clearly is censorship, it just happens to be legal | censorship. | bpodgursky wrote: | 1) It's still censorship, even if it's not government | censorship. The word applies. | | 2) It's perfectly fair, and a good idea, to call out a thing as | bad even if it's legal. | dheera wrote: | Exactly this. | | Starting about a month ago FB changed all their algorithms | and a lot of independent artists are seeing 50%+ reductions | in engagement across Instagram and Facebook. | | I have artistic hobby pursuits and can confirm. Many times | I'll post a piece of work and my friends won't even see it in | their feeds because FB is gatekeeping content between artists | and voluntary followers now, in favor of "influencer" content | from cash-cow accounts that don't produce any art of their | own. | | It's sickening to say the least. Yes it's legal _as of now_ | but we should really be having a discussion about whether it | should be okay to have a non-transparent gatekeeping | algorithm between people who mutually chose to follow each | other. | | Personally I'd prefer that if if someone voluntarily follows | someone, they should have a legal obligation to not hinder | any communication. That person chose to subscribe, and they | can choose to unsubscribe at any time. What they are doing is | tantamount to the USPS paging through your magazine | subscriptions and trashing some of them as the mailman feels | that day. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | It's crappy clearly, but I guess I am skeptical that it'd | be easy to fix with regulation, at least it'd certainly | take some very careful legislating to reign in. I suspect | it would founder on pretty much the same problem we started | with, FB's lawyers would say "we need to make money off | this circus Your Honor, so of course we stacked the deck; | if these rubes don't like it, they can always switch to | Ello, it's a free country." | gillytech wrote: | Might be easier if we repeal their section 230 | protections and then put the top FB/Meta brass in jail | for fraud. It would never happen but imposing this kind | of accountability will definitely make the power drunk | tech elites think twice. | annoyingnoob wrote: | If you can make Facebook say things you want them to say, can | Facebook make you say things that Facebook wants to say? | | Why does your speech come before Facebook's speech on | Facebook's private platform? | | Is auto-block a single post really censorship? Did they block | everything from this person? Did they stop this person from | similar speech elsewhere? | cblconfederate wrote: | The job of roman Censors was to supervise public morality. The | term censorship is appropriate | BitwiseFool wrote: | >"FB/Meta has no obligation to carry your speech" | | Why not? I believe it should, given its size. The phone company | has an obligation to carry my speech. Net Neutrality would | require ISPs to carry speech. There are a whole host of things | the government can compel "privately owned" systems/companies | to do. | | In these kinds of discussions, scale matters. There is a big | difference between compelling a company with a billion+ users | to act as a platform and forcing a small business to do the | same. | lanevorockz wrote: | "Mistakenly" | gillytech wrote: | There was a solution to all of this created back in the '90s. | It's called Section 230. It says that platforms that host content | aren't legally responsible for what people post on it. If the | platform picks and chooses what goes on its platform then it's a | publisher, not a platform. Thus it loses it's Section 230 | immunity. | | So Facebook either goes one way or the other but it can't have | both. | | Also, it seems that they are 100% ok with anti-white racism and | anti-Christian bigotry (as in banning a Christmas message) so | their own policies are not equally distributed socially. | WanderPanda wrote: | > There was a solution to all of this created back in the '90s. | It's called Section 230. It says that platforms that host | content aren't legally responsible for what people post on it. | If the platform picks and chooses what goes on its platform | then it's a publisher, not a platform. Thus it loses it's | Section 230 immunity. | | Wow that would be way to clean and beautiful of an solution to | be an option nowadays | pjc50 wrote: | Campaigning that Facebook should not be allowed to remove porn | or spam is a non-starter. And at most s230 is going to apply to | the US, not to Canada. | | > platform picks and chooses what goes on its platform | | That means _everything_ , not just the corner cases. | userbinator wrote: | _And at most s230 is going to apply to the US, not to | Canada._ | | Facebook is an American company. | waynecochran wrote: | I wish everybody here a "Merry Christmas" celebrating the birth | of Jesus Christ our God and Savior. | eesmith wrote: | On this day, Thor's Day, I wish everyone here a "Merry | Christmas" celebrating the Yule season. How appropriate to have | our saturnalia on Saturn's Day this year! | masterof0 wrote: | > our God and Savior *your God and Savior | hunter2_ wrote: | Funny thing about the plural first person pronouns | (we/us/our): it can mean several different things: | | 1. Me and them | | 2. Me and you | | 3. Me and you and them | | Your comment makes sense if GP meant 2 or 3, but if GP meant | 1 then you're each saying the same thing (well, if you'll let | your version be a plural second person, anyhow). | smsm42 wrote: | Some languages do have different pronouns for that, but | unfortunately Indo-European languages lack this capability. | It is called "clusivity". Outside IE languages, it seems to | be a pretty common thing. | masterof0 wrote: | Oh no, you are right, I was just pointing out that jeezuz | is not my lord nor my savior. | new_guy wrote: | > "Sometimes our automated review systems get things wrong." | | And by 'automated review systems' they mean non-English speaking | slave labourers in a third world sh*t hole getting paid pennies | per day. | | It's time for people to just stop using them, it's literally just | a website and not even a very good one. | | There's competitors out there with a hundred times the | functionality and usability. | josephcsible wrote: | "Just don't use it" doesn't apply to things with a network | effect. | sebow wrote: | This would have been a mistake if it was facebook's first rodeo, | it's not. | | For the last couple of years anything that used to be "Merry | Christmas" was actively suppresed on mainstream social | networks.Replaced with Happy holidays, whatever.A company | adjusting this is fine,obviously(you don't have to repeatedly | wish happy X, you just do it one time), however in the case of | individuals where it's more common that a person only says Merry | Christmas/Happy hanukkah/etc, we've repeatedly seen that such | messages get "lost".Again, it's not a mistake, but then again if | you point out that facebook actively engages in this behavior | through leaked documents, nobody bats an eye. | walrus01 wrote: | [deleted] | john_moscow wrote: | There's a fairly rational psychological explanation to it. When | people cannot achieve a certain goal for a while, they convince | themselves that the goal is not worth it, or tainted in some | way. | | Christmas has been traditionally associated with family, kids, | happiness, seeing retired grandparents, etc. All these things | have been sliding out of reach for the middle class with no | reversal in sight. So this creates tension against people that | can still afford it, and a perception that these goals are | unfair and should not be pursued. | | This is to be expected - it's not like the journalists writing | the politically correct articles, HR people defining acceptable | language, or moderators deciding on what gets approved are paid | enough to afford what used to be a regular middle-class life 2 | decades ago. So they rebel against it by trying to stigmatize | it in the way they can. | | And it's not like you can blame them either - the human brain | is very adaptive at picking goals and means. If you take | personal prosperity through hard work out of question, people | will find other goals to pursue, it's just they will be much | more divisive... | CactusOnFire wrote: | This seems like an awfully abstract theory. | | I think it's simpler to say that "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy | Holidays" has become this point of contention because Merry | Christmas only applies to Christians, whereas Happy Holidays | does not. | | The divisive, bi-partisan nature of American politics has | just turned this small distinction into a fight. | driverdan wrote: | [citation needed] | smsm42 wrote: | This year, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah are almost a | month apart (Hanukkah started on Nov 28th). So you'd have to | either have Merry Christmas in November, or do it twice anyway | :) | josephcsible wrote: | Or you could say Happy Hanukkah at first and then switch to | Merry Christmas once Hanukkah is over. | walrus01 wrote: | based on the dates that retailers put out all the christmas | stuff immediately after halloween, it's apparent that | christmas has already gone retrograde by date far into | november already... | | there's stores around here with their whole aisle of | valentines day candy, gifts, red heart balloons etc already | stocked. | Stratoscope wrote: | A Jewish couple that I'm friends with takes a pragmatic | approach to this: they celebrate Hanukkah _and_ Christmas! | hunter2_ wrote: | It's possible that content-based suppression happens, but it's | also possible that the genericized phrase organically generates | more engagement by virtue of it being likeable to way more | people. If all your followers celebrate the same holiday then | it should be a wash but if huge chunks don't then it's purely | the numbers doing their thing. Even some who celebrate the | mentioned holiday might find the message exclusionary enough to | not engage (a woke feedback loop, you could say), further | burying it. | simplestats wrote: | I don't think they're talking about just getting the most | likes, or whatever but rather censorship via shadow-banning | or outright deleting posts. I have seen it happen, and | suspect there are those that work to "poison" the algorithms | to get them to shadow ban the political side the hacker | doesn't like. | BuildTheRobots wrote: | I agree entirely with your point, but I'd take it one step | further. Christmas for a lot of people (even those that do | celebrate) can be a very depressing and lonely time of the | year, even more so in these post covid times. I prefer a | generic "happy holidays" as it applies to more people, though | I've moved onto "happy solstice - the days are finally | getting longer (or about to)". I think that's a little bit of | positivity that it's actually worth reminding people of. | userbinator wrote: | Do you have some sources for further reading? That sounds | disturbingly Orwellian. | rightbyte wrote: | I don't like how those tin foil hats I used to laugh at were | just ahead of their time. Your TV spying on you or your phone | apps waging war against Christmas ... | iammru wrote: | All AI algorightms are "biased" by definition but FB biases are | too extreme. The best thing for FB is to be broken up. | walrus01 wrote: | "conservatives getting upset about the end results of a free | market and actions taken by private enterprise" | jfibron wrote: | iammru wrote: | Not only conversatives. Liberals are also upset about | vaccines misinformation, election fraud, etc. My point is | that you have to 'train' the AI models somehow. FB introduces | its own 'biases' on those models. They admitted this | 'mistake' only because it affected a Canadian MP, otherwise I | don't think they would have this for you or I. Their | 'discrimation' policies are too broad for an automated | system. FB exhorts too much power over information. | spunker540 wrote: | OP's point was probably that liberals upset about free | markets is expected, while conservatives upset about free | markets is rather more ironic | LadyCailin wrote: | I think the point they're highlighting is that this is a | "free market success story". The private company did what | it wanted (automated moderation), and ultimately the | removed post got reinstated anyways. | | Meaning it's hypocritical of conservatives to be offended | by this. Liberals are less for unregulated free markets, so | it isn't hypocritical of liberals to be for regulation or | whatever to prevent private companies from doing this or | that. | khazhoux wrote: | > FB biases are too extreme. The best thing for FB is to be | broken up. | | That's a _non sequitur_. Breaking up FB will not de-bias "the | algorithm". We'd have one company doing VR, one doing phone | calls, one doing image sharing, and finally a company running | the old social network with the exact same recommendation and | content-moderation system. | gillytech wrote: | ... and one Zuckerberg controlling all of them. | missedthecue wrote: | Exactly. I don't understand how forcing a spin off of | Instagram or however you want to organize the breakup | resolves any of the problems HN has with FB. | | Instagram would still be run by the same people, owned by the | same people, and run with largely the same goals (profit, | expansion, etc...) | iammru wrote: | You'll have a Metaverse company controlling what you | experience based on your social network and all your | preferences. | thathndude wrote: | I share a similar sentiment/observation. I am OK with the world | where the occasional mistake occurs with algorithms. But when | things like this continually happen with Facebook algorithm, it | feels as though they are trying to outsource too much but | should involve humans to computers. | | In short, their tools tend to be overly restrictive, airing on | the side of rejecting. I'm not sure thats right | josephcsible wrote: | If he weren't well-known enough for this to be news, there's a | good chance this "mistake" would never have been corrected. | walrus01 wrote: | Strahl is well known in the metro Vancouver area / Fraser | Valley as one of the furthest-right MPs in the Conservative | party. His home riding is the same as the bible belt. | | It also happens to have the greatest number of "PPC" (far- | right/fringe political party with no seats) supporters in the | Vancouver/Lower Mainland area. | | If he were an American politician, he would be Sam Brownback, | Rick Santorum or similar. | | I think this is a case of somebody looking to dramatize their | plight as an "oppressed" conservative Christian minority. | cure wrote: | Maybe the FB algorithm takes past posts into account? His | account has probably been a fountain of misinformation and | hate, and now he sends one innocuous message and is surprised | it gets blocked. Yawn. | smsm42 wrote: | I think what you're looking for is called "social score" | and the place you're looking for where they do things this | way is China. | sorenn111 wrote: | I mean, this is not a good look from Facebook for the | "oppressed conservative Christian minority" to be a false | narrative. | walrus01 wrote: | rightbyte wrote: | I don't see the hypocrisy. | | If I watch a bad movie and tell my friends it was bad | they wont say "it is their right to make bad movies why | do you want to ban it". | | You can be anti-gov intervention and still complain about | stuff to warn others. | smsm42 wrote: | I wouldn't cite this as an example of "oppression", but it's | certainly a prominent egg on Facebook's collective face. With | their resources, one would think they could make a model do | better than label "Merry Christmas" as "discriminatory | message". Unless they just don't care - and then conservative | Christian minority has a valid basis for complaints. | userbinator wrote: | This is one instance of someone with a clear political | affiliation; the question is whether it would happen to someone | on the other side, or with little discernable political | affiliation. | warent wrote: | Facebook sucks and I never use them. That being said, Facebook | moderators who manually review reports are routinely | traumatized and diagnosed with PTSD, and Facebook catches fire | for that. | | So I don't see how this can go both ways. How can we ask | Facebook to automate this system and flame them for it not | being thorough enough, and then simultaneously flame them for | implementing the thorough system of human review? As much as | the company sucks, this seems like a no win scenario that isn't | fair even to a reasonable company. | rocqua wrote: | Might there be an option of 'put money down, demand a review | before arbitrage, get your money back if you win' solution? | | The money should filter out spammers. The price should cover | the actual costs to defend against DOS. The biggest issue | would be that bad actors could get insight into how Facebook | detects. But maybe more openness here would be good! | CamelCaseName wrote: | I feel like scammers would just put in stolen credit cards, | then FB would get hit with fraudulent charges. | alpha_squared wrote: | I don't think this should be automated, but I also think | there aren't enough resources provided for moderation. It's a | thankless job that requires supporting resources (like | therapy). However, it's treated purely as a cost-center to | optimize. | mulmen wrote: | Sounds like Facebook is more trouble than it's worth. | rapind wrote: | Sounds like an unsustainable business model. Why should we | care? Set the rules / laws that are good for society at large | and let them figure out how to make a profit or fail IMO. | | When it comes to big tech I keep seeing people try to solve | their problems for them. We should just legislate. If they | can't make it work someone else will fill the gaps. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-23 23:00 UTC)