6 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23702169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23702169 Case in point, here's a HackerNews link to an article by Nick Clegg

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23702169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23702169 Case in point, here's a HackerNews link to an article by Nick Clegg, the former British Lib-Dem party leader now FB VP of Global Affairs and Communications, using AdAge to impart some semblance of legitimacy. The article's headline is complete BS: "Facebook Does Not Benefit from Hate" my ass. They benefit from hate speech every damn day that shit's on their site, because eyeballs == $$. The article ends with the ridiculous notion that "We may never be able to prevent hate from appearing on Facebook entirely, but we are getting better at stopping it all the time." A company with the resources of Facebook can do practically anything it wants. If hate speech was look at with the same level of disgust as child porn, would the above statement still hold true? And getting better all the time? By what measure?

jfengel 6y ago
Oh, it was that Nick Clegg. The one who destroyed the Lib-Dem party by voting the Tory party into power, without getting anything meaningful in return. I thought perhaps the name was a coincidence.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Yeah, he should have insisted on a different voting system as a condition of coalition, instead of the referendum.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Given that the referendum failed by a 2:1 margin, I don't think he'd have been any more popular even if they had gotten their alternative voting system. Maybe it's one of those things that voters would have liked once they had experience with it, but if Clegg thought it was something voters were clamoring for, he was very wrong.
    - jen20 6y ago
      Clegg's mistake was agreeing to "alternative vote" being an option instead of a proper system of proportional representation which would have made a victory like Johnson's in late 2019 near impossible (though not impossible, as the Scottish system _designed_ to keep the SNP out of power showed). In terms of moderating an otherwise horrific bunch of people (see every action since 2015), Clegg and the Liberal Democrats did a reasonable job. Do not read this as a defence of his employment at Facebook, where he has shown himself to be for sale to the highest bidder at any available opportunity.
devalgo 6y ago
>If hate speech was look at with the same level of disgust as child porn, would the above statement still hold true? Of course this is a slippery slope where you rely on Facebook defining what hate speech is. It may seem fine to you now but there's no reason to think Facebook won't in the future start defining things you typically like to say as hate speech.
- m0zg 6y ago
  I have this vague suspicion that OP would change their opinion immediately after FB starts banning people for "hate speech" directed at Donald Trump and the party they do not align with, which is highly prevalent on FB. Hate speech is hate speech, am I right OP? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Zuck should try it, just to show what that'd look like. Edit: this really ticked someone off - they went through my posts and downvoted _thirteen_ comments. How's that for "hate speech"? Keep going, bud, I don't care.
  - girvo 6y ago
    Hate speech doesn’t apply to the President of the United States, and you have to truly twist the meaning to get it to apply to your political affiliations. You’re not born with those, to make an oversimplified argument.
    - m0zg 6y ago
      So if I were to, hypothetically, call for Nancy Pelosi to be hanged in public or shot, would it, or would it not be "hate speech" in your opinion? Should it or should it not be allowed? Is it OK, for example, to chant "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"? Is it OK to suggest to "kill all cops"? Is it OK to say that "all cops are bastards"? Because it would literally take you seconds to find examples of such things on FB or twitter.
      - sharkjacobs 6y ago
        Your point is falling flat because you don't understand the definition of the term you're talking about. "hate speech" isn't just speech which communicates the speaker's hatred of something. "hate speech" is "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] [1]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-spe...
catalogia 6y ago
> They benefit from hate speech every damn day that shit's on their site, because eyeballs == $$. I don't think that considers the opportunity cost.

jfengel 6y ago

Oh, it was that Nick Clegg. The one who destroyed the Lib-Dem party by voting the Tory party into power, without getting anything meaningful in return. I thought perhaps the name was a coincidence.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Yeah, he should have insisted on a different voting system as a condition of coalition, instead of the referendum.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Given that the referendum failed by a 2:1 margin, I don't think he'd have been any more popular even if they had gotten their alternative voting system. Maybe it's one of those things that voters would have liked once they had experience with it, but if Clegg thought it was something voters were clamoring for, he was very wrong.
  - jen20 6y ago
    Clegg's mistake was agreeing to "alternative vote" being an option instead of a proper system of proportional representation which would have made a victory like Johnson's in late 2019 near impossible (though not impossible, as the Scottish system _designed_ to keep the SNP out of power showed). In terms of moderating an otherwise horrific bunch of people (see every action since 2015), Clegg and the Liberal Democrats did a reasonable job. Do not read this as a defence of his employment at Facebook, where he has shown himself to be for sale to the highest bidder at any available opportunity.

devalgo 6y ago

>If hate speech was look at with the same level of disgust as child porn, would the above statement still hold true? Of course this is a slippery slope where you rely on Facebook defining what hate speech is. It may seem fine to you now but there's no reason to think Facebook won't in the future start defining things you typically like to say as hate speech.

m0zg 6y ago
I have this vague suspicion that OP would change their opinion immediately after FB starts banning people for "hate speech" directed at Donald Trump and the party they do not align with, which is highly prevalent on FB. Hate speech is hate speech, am I right OP? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Zuck should try it, just to show what that'd look like. Edit: this really ticked someone off - they went through my posts and downvoted _thirteen_ comments. How's that for "hate speech"? Keep going, bud, I don't care.
- girvo 6y ago
  Hate speech doesn’t apply to the President of the United States, and you have to truly twist the meaning to get it to apply to your political affiliations. You’re not born with those, to make an oversimplified argument.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    So if I were to, hypothetically, call for Nancy Pelosi to be hanged in public or shot, would it, or would it not be "hate speech" in your opinion? Should it or should it not be allowed? Is it OK, for example, to chant "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon"? Is it OK to suggest to "kill all cops"? Is it OK to say that "all cops are bastards"? Because it would literally take you seconds to find examples of such things on FB or twitter.
    - sharkjacobs 6y ago
      Your point is falling flat because you don't understand the definition of the term you're talking about. "hate speech" isn't just speech which communicates the speaker's hatred of something. "hate speech" is "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] [1]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-spe...

catalogia 6y ago

> They benefit from hate speech every damn day that shit's on their site, because eyeballs == $$. I don't think that considers the opportunity cost.