Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> ...but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like.

That's far too simplistic of a take. Facebook and social media amplifying partisan shit-stirrers and misinformation over more sober voices should be seen as a serious issue, regardless of your ideological commitments.



In my town there is a shizophrenic lady with a lot of weird signs, which partly are non readable partly outright dangerous should anyone believe that. If she is around, she defenitly is the most noticeable person.

Yet we don't need to censor her, people can decide themself how much they read into this.

The idea to mass censor mentally challenged people likely only increases their hate and gives them confirmation for their believes and even worse hides them from possible help.

It's not the missinformation that is the issue IMO but the people who just follow it without fact checking.


Who at Facebook do you trust to decide who is a "sober voice" that will be artificially promoted after the organically popular are censored?

What is this person's qualifications?

How can they be held to account when they inevitably get it wrong?

Where will the highly-transparent write-up detailing this decision making be published?

Before these Q's are answered I don't want FB touching their algorithms at all.




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

Search: