Gay men and lesbian women less likely to be employed in a leadership position - <AUTHOR> http://exactlyscience.com/archives/11604.html <comment><USER2> Help me understand this test that they did.

So, they have taken a group of homosexuals, without any history of leadership, and asked a group to rate how they would do as CEO based on voice only. The group answered based on sound alone that those individuals were not CEO material.

Well, I wouldn't pass as a CEO either and I don't have a, I quote, "'gay- sounding' voice".

The leaders I have know -- both male and female -- had huge charismatic voices. They had presence. They spoke in a room full of people and their voice would pick up. They would get attention right away.

How is the lack of this voice linked to discrimination against the gay community?

For this study to have any values in my eyes they would need to test actual CEOs. Actual people in leadership positions.

<comment><USER3> They took men and women who were both gay and straight and demonstrated a bias in expected leadership ability based on perceived sexual orientation. They are not comparing charisma, the voice selected where selected specifically to have a high likelyhood of being attributed as gay or straight.

Arguing that a difference in outcome from this is because CEOs all sound charismatic and that they are able to pick up attention of a crowd better when there is a demonstrated bias between the two when the difference involved is specifically whether a voice is perceived as gay or straight implies that gay speakers are less likely to have those characteristics. Which is exactly what the paper's conclusion is, a bias against people who are perceived as gay for leadership positions based on their voice.

        We investigated this issue in four studies (overall N = 276), conducted in Italian language,
        in which heterosexual listeners were exposed to single-sentence voice samples of gay/lesbian
        and heterosexual speakers. In all four studies, listeners were found to make gender-typical
        inferences about traits and preferences of heterosexual speakers, but gender-atypical inferences
        about those of gay or lesbian speakers. Behavioral intention measures showed that listeners
        considered lesbian and gay speakers as less suitable for a leadership position, and male
        (but not female) listeners took distance from gay speakers. Together, this research demonstrates
        that having a gay/lesbian rather than heterosexual-sounding voice has tangible consequences for
        stereotyping and discrimination.

<comment><USER4> I think the sexuality bit is getting shoehorned in here, though. I'd want to see evidence that the study used charismatic, "big" voices that were judged as both straight and gay and _still_ show that there is a bias against those perceived as gay.

Not only that but especially for CEO, hiring decisions are not made in a vacuum like this. Were the participants given mock resumes and career history? In an actual hiring process, again especially for CEO, the folks on Board responsible almost certainly would be familiar with the candidates' previous work, and probably know them already.

<comment><USER3> Being familiar with the client introduces another area of potential bias, removing that allows us to compare the specific variable being tested for.

I'm not entirely sure why the big voices thing is important. It's not like they were saying all the voices had low favourability or that what were perceived as gay voices had low favourability, they were demonstrating a _difference_ between the two groups based on that one variable. Whether they were all high up the rankings or all low down the rankings is irrelevant, you just need them to be all within the same band. It's the difference that is what is being tested for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would like to see this study replicated in different areas throughout the United States and the world. I suspect that different regions will produce different results based purely upon cultural norms of a given society in an area. To make the blanket statement that this is true is not acceptable to me.

"Studies show eggs are good for you"

</comment><comment><USER6> Gay men are more likely to be shorter: [http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/2010/03/03/shorter-men- mor...](http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/2010/03/03/shorter-men-more-likely- to-be-gay/24152/) Lesbians are more likely to be obese: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal- eye/wp/2014/09/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal- eye/wp/2014/09/02/why-the-federal-government-spent-3-million-to-study-lesbian- obesity/)

Whether you like it or not, both of those will be factors in influencing who gets put into leadership positions.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if there is study into biases around cultural interests too, e.g. if a male applies for a leadership position and lists "dance" as his primary hobby or interest, whether implicit cultural biases or assumptions play a role as well.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Participants were not informed of the sexual orientation of the person but > allowed to freely guess from the voice or face of the individual.

> 'gay- sounding' voice

Jesus, it's batshit-insane to me that people still think like this.

<comment><USER9> It's awful. I know plenty of straight guys who have a "gay-sounding" voice, and I'm gay but people tell me I sound "straight", which at least in my experience means this is all complete nonsense.

What they really mean is that if someone _thinks_ you're gay or lesbian then you're likely to suffer from homophobic discrimination.

While a reminder of that is probably useful for the world at large, it's not new to anybody who identifies outside the straight cisgender categories. Or actually, anybody who is straight and cis who somebody has decided "looks gay".

<comment><USER10> > What they really mean is that if someone thinks you're gay or lesbian then > you're likely to suffer from homophobic discrimination.

Discrimination is always based on characteristics as percieved by the one doing the discrimination.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook says it owns rights to the name 'book' - <AUTHOR> http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/08/facebook-says-it-owns-rights-to-the-name-book.html

<comment><USER2> Teachbook is a social ("networking") site for teachers. Their defense is not that there's no overlap, but that they're so small Facebook shouldn't care --- which is exactly _not_ how trademark works.

This headline is sensationalistic. Facebook isn't claiming it owns "book". It's saying, don't make social networking sites named xxxBook. That may be overly aggressive, but it isn't _crazy_ , and if you start DoctorBook (the social networking site for doctors), you can't tell me you're not doing it with eyes open to the chance Facebook will make you change the name.

What'd they expect Facebook to think about this? Is Facebook expected to be OK with Plumberbook and Contractorbook and Lawbook (the social networking site for lawyers) too?

<comment><USER3> They don't have to be "ok" with it; the question is does their trademark extend to names that are "sort of like" their name FaceBook. I don't think so.

<comment><USER2> You should read up on trademark law. They aren't going out on a limb. Look up Trademark Dilution.

I'm not saying they're right, though; I'm just saying they're not crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Their claim, from the article:

 _"If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for 'online community/networking services' or 'social networking services,'" Facebook argued in the lawsuit. "That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook Marks."_

Honestly, that sounds reasonable to me. They're not claiming they own trademarks to all uses of "book," but to uses in the context of online social networks.

They use the word because it was a play on the name and idea of a "yearbook." While TeachBook could claim the "book" part of their name has to do with learning from books, I wouldn't believe such a claim. It looks to me like they put "book" in their name to tell other people "we're similar to FaceBook." That's exactly the sort of thing trademarks protect against.

<comment><USER3> It comes down to trademark law. Can you trademark a class of names? Or just one at a time.

<comment><USER2> It's not as simple as that. Trademark isn't as clear-cut as copyright. In some cases, you have to have a famous mark (like Facebook, Starbucks, eBay, and Victoria's Secret). Sometimes, you have to be able to present evidence of confusion; in other cases, you have to be able to demonstrate that the infringing use is directly tarnishing your own brand.

It is simply not the case that any Internet squatter can decide "I'm going to own the word Bedsheet, because nobody's thought to trademark it yet!" and then go troll anyone who uses a bedding image in their name. You have to actually build a valuable brand first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This doesn't bode well for my incubating startup - Bookface.</comment>


On Cellular Automation - <AUTHOR> http://functionspace.org/topic/23

<comment><USER2> I've checked back to this site a few times since the OP first put it on HN, I think it's coming along nicely, well done. It looks like you have listened to the feedback you received and the design is really appealing.

One question - Do you have a release date for the algorithms group yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> The algorithms group is going to be active coming Tuesday :)</comment></comment>


There are no ideas - <AUTHOR> http://berislav.lopac.net/post/3580278793/there-are-no-ideas

<comment><USER2> What a bunch of pseudo-philosophical BS. There are such things as ideas. They are the basis on which the products you mention are built out of.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the standard approach to IP clauses in employment contracts? - <AUTHOR>

As one of the many students starting to consider offers for after graduation, I have some questions about the industry standards regarding certain clauses I've seen in a few contracts. (I'm considering various consulting positions, but am also an active developer on multiple open-source projects.)
These IP clauses usually say something to the effect of "Any and all writings, inventions, improvements, processes, procedures, and/or techniques which I may make, conceive, discover or develop, during the term of employment with <firm> ...  shall be the sole and exclusive property of <firm>."
Is this normal / Do people normally submit to this? The projects I'm involved in are GPL (which should mean tough-luck for the employer), but I don't want to give up any ideas/projects I might have in the near future.<p>Can anyone give me some insight? <comment><USER2> Don't sign it unless you mean it. I wouldn't. If that clause is enforceable (which varies by state), the copyright to your code is assigned to your employer as soon as you write it, so you have no right to contribute it to the GPL project. If you don't have that right but contribute anyway, the project would be infringing on your employer's copyrights. Not a great situation to put them in.

IANAL

</comment><comment><USER3> You should make sure the clause protects your right to work on side projects on your own time, using your own equipment, without having to assign it to the employer. Most clauses will have this built-in; if yours doesn't, you should contact a lawyer to get the correct language for your state / jurisdiction. Most employers would consider this reasonable, and this is / was the default language in my current employment contract.</comment>


Q&A with Andrew Mason - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/06/andrew-mason/ <comment><USER2> > "It's okay to not have an opinion about everything."

Though I may be misunderstanding, I interpret this as meaning: it's OK not to come to a conclusion about everything.

Take the moon landing for example. Most everyone has heard it expressed that there is a possibility it did or did not happen. Most everyone has a conclusion that they associate with.

Personally, I prefer to avoid becoming emotionally invested in something completely outside of me, and am happy to leave my synapses open-ended. Since there is very little practical relevance, there is very little consequence of my inaction, and I can get back to processing more important decisions.

He may simply be advocating we stop talking every once in a while, too.

<comment><USER3> My guess is that he means something more like what's discussed in this essay, "The Sliding Scale of Giving a Fuck": [http://blog.capwatkins.com/the-sliding- scale-of-giving-a-fuc...](http://blog.capwatkins.com/the-sliding-scale-of- giving-a-fuck)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It almost seems like an exaggeration to call this an interview — it's more like a short Q&A akin to the ones that they have with celebrities near the backs of gossip magazines. (I read them at the dentist, okay?)

<comment><USER4> Absolutely. This is only interesting (and that is a generous description) because of _who_ is being interviewed, not what is being said. Surprised YC would post something like this, because it is much more towards celebrity worship than providing value to the readers. Exactly the opposite something like a PG essay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Despite the fact that that's the title, it's a quote from the interview that sees no other context or discussion in the interview itself (the interviewer doesn't follow up about it at all!), so a better title in this case might be "Interview with Andrew Mason".

<comment><USER6> Thanks! We updated the submission title.</comment></comment>


The Cryopreservation of Kim Suozzi - <AUTHOR> http://www.alcor.org/blog/?p=2716

<comment><USER2> What is the process for cryopreservation? What happens if Alcor goes broke?</comment>


The Crime of Speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/crime-speech <comment><USER2> > Studying the judicial history of these laws, you quickly realize that law > enforcement only applies them after it's identified the journalist or > protestor that it wants to arrest. The pattern is that authorities will find > the offending speech and then choose the law that can be interpreted to most > closely address it. The system results in a rule by law rather than rule of > law: the goal is to arrest, try, and punish the individual—the law is merely > a tool used to reach an already predetermined conviction.

Thanks for the reminder about how laws against "offensive speech" will be used in practice.

<comment><USER3> Not just laws against "offensive speech". The report mentions how in Tunisia you've got fabrication of charges founded upon marijuana possession. In November 2015 there were 516 activists (out of over 2000) arrested for the alleged consumption of cannabis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In South Africa free speech is also progressively being stifled through new laws, whos purpose is said to punish racism and hate speech, but is actually being used to support the governing party in silencing dissidents and critics.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35235102](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- africa-35235102)

"A spokesman for the ANC chief whip's office, Moloto Mothapo, told the BBC that current legislation was insufficient to tackle racism."

"We haven't had a single person imprisoned for racism despite many instances of racism. We don't believe it addresses the crime of racism," he said." (he means the current laws)

"Elsewhere glorification of Nazism and denial of Holocaust is a crime and perpetrators are tried and sentenced to a prison term," it added.

<comment><USER5> Likely those laws were never intended to actually do anything about racism. Racism was used as the boogeyman to justify expanding government powers to allow arresting of the "other". It's a growing trend in many nations around the world, using an exaggerated social issue to expand power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> An artist was given 6 months prison sentence in Sweden: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish- artist-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/swedish-artist- sentenced-racist-art-dan-park)

Similar things happen in France, Germany, Austria etc. It's usually for challenging anti-racist dogmas. In Germany, it can be for making fun of a foreign leader.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is exactly the same stuff going on in Thailand. Post something on Facebook the gov doesn't like and receive a 6 years[1] to 60 years[2] prison sentence. The new cybercrime billed was just announced with harsh penalties for posting anything that embarasses anybody or damages the image of the country. The junta doesn't give any cares at all anymore and just abducts people who say anything they don't like[3]. You would think that western governments would at least pretend to be strong against this kind of thing.

[1] [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/thai-man-jailed- years-...](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/thai-man-jailed-years- facebook-posts-160121064455972.html)

[2] [https://advox.globalvoices.org/2016/01/25/meet-the-thai- face...](https://advox.globalvoices.org/2016/01/25/meet-the-thai-facebook- user-sentenced-to-60-years-in-prison-for-insulting-the-monarchy/)

[3] [http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/950073/regime- wield...](http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/950073/regime-wields- section-44-to-arrest-10-for-political-posts)</comment>


Show HN: Group/as - Social Network Grouping made easy (Google+) - <AUTHOR> http://group.as/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey All, I am the creator of Group/as, a site that was made to try to be the central place for all of these 'circle' lists being made on Google+.

As far as I know it is the only community driven site of its kind. It has gained a bit of traction these last couple of weeks and has just been updated to allow visitors to create custom groups.

It is still a little rough and has some way to go but I would love some feedback and would appreciate any suggestions.</comment>


The Next Bechdel Test - <AUTHOR> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/next-bechdel/ <comment><USER2> I would like to see such a set of metrics designed with a more statistical approach. The Bechdel test offers a simple but general metric for deciding whether a woman has played a non-superficial role in a movie. I think generality should be maintained in future tests, with a goal for a tendency toward equality across the industry, rather than equality within individual movies.

Take the term '50 percent' for example. If at least 50 percent of characters in a film must be female, then the target average across all movie characters is a female majority. While I'm not against movies with a female majority cast, there are also other films I would like to see that may have a male majority cast for historical reasons, that may not be net-negative toward women. War movies, perhaps.

Perhaps metrics should have weightings relative to the value of a given position. Approximate equality across crew still has significant value even if the cast is all-male.

Alternatively, rather than defining a metric in terms of some arbitrary definition of 'equal' (which becomes increasingly difficult as you add more minorities), perhaps a more useful metric would be defined in terms of 'away from unequal'. The Bechdel test already does this for female cast. Similar things can be done for crew. Similar things can even be done for the story.</comment>


Graphene Transistors: "one atom thick" - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7352464.stm <comment><USER2> Graphene is an amazing material but I think it suffers from the same problems as nanotube electronics - it's very hard to get the nanotubes to be positioned where you want them and connected in the topology that you wish. Geim's group has in the past used "exfoliated" graphene (basically the graphene is just peeled off with a bulk sample with scotch tape) And made some amazing discoveries that connect solid state physics to relativistic quantum field theory because of graphene's unique band structure. But for making electronic devices where you would want to pattern ~10^6 transistors, the exfoliation process is very hard to control and seems unlikely to scale well. When someone can produce a graphene sample the size of IC die call me. Still it does seem to have a lot of theoretical advantages over silicon, GaAs et. al. (especially the possibility of ballistic conduction)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is neat stuff. Coincidentally, I just submitted my undergraduate thesis today, on the topic of carbon nanotube transistors. Our devices use multi- walled nanotubes, which are ~50nm in diameter. These things look to be an order of magnitude smaller than that.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why are mainstream press science articles always so sensationalist?

<comment><USER5> Presumably because they mostly get the information first-hand and maybe people close to that source. Of course the people who have spent the last 5 years of their lives working on this stuff will hope that it is a major breakthrough. Plus, journalists seem to have a habit of intepreting tentative predictions as fact.

<comment><USER6> Will hope that it is a major breakthrough, or will say it is a major breakthrough in order to get more funding. One problem is that in science there are (for the most part) no major breakthroughs, but a lot of very small breakthroughs which when put together make up a major one. But journalists are not interested in that, they just want to report the apple falling on Newton's head - which is not accurate most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This looks very interesting. I'm far from knowledgeable in this area, but I'd think radiation-created transient errors would be a serious problem with something this small.

</comment><comment><USER8> So does this make Manchester the "Graphene Valley?"</comment>


Facebook announces policy changes ahead of 2020 elections - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112048980882521 <comment><USER3> Not sure if I have data to back this up but my theory around political turmoil and echo chambers is as follows:

\- Before widespread internet use, say year 2000, all communities were local. News were local + nation wide, people still focused on their physical proximity of 20 miles that affected them the most. Today, none of my friends read local news. Local news outlets are being bankrupted left and right.

\- Anonymity on the internet. People can say whatever they want without attaching their name, face and self-pride. This creates extremely unproductive conversations without consequences. Platforms such as Twitter propel this behavior to new heights. When it was local, you'd lose friends for being unpleasant, you'd lose credibility in your community for being inflammatory.

\- Foreign interference - when internet use was not widespread, it was difficult to infiltrate a foreign election campaign and interfere with it.

\- Data collection and manipulation - Targeted newsfeeds that feed these echo chambers could not possibly reach critical mass before the internet. Echo chambers were physical places to go to - Hells Angels or joining the Evangelical Christian church. No such limits exist now.

\- Scale - The internet allows unprecedented scale to operate on. Echo chambers reverb into unimaginable self-resonance. Joe Rogan can say something and _millions_ could hear it. +1M subscriber channels on YouTube span thousands. That was practically impossible unless you were on national TV.

The internet has lot of positives (free voice, commerce, sharing of ideas, services, etc.) and its drawbacks are now surfacing. I want to go back to 90's when we had healthy debates between republicans and democrats. We were one country. One voice. And people debated about issues and not about other people's clans.

We wanted internet to be the left/middle of the Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights [1] but ended up creating something thats not too far from the right side of the canvas. Total chaos and loss of decency and respect for each other.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch#/media/File:T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch#/media/File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg)

<comment><USER4> If you'd asked teenage me in the 90s if the internet I loved then was going to turn into this, I'd have thrown my computer in the trash. As a convenience tool its grown leaps and bounds, but as a "place" it's turned into a terrible neighborhood.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, also as a teenager in the 90s I distinctly remember thinking that the internet was going to make everyone smarter. The world's information at our fingertips! It'll unlock a new golden age for the entire globe!

Oh, how naive...

<comment><USER6> I always get sad when I think of the techno-optimism of the 90s and the early net. I think it actually was still present well into the 00s, which were a golden age in their own way (blogs, forums, communities). Then mainstream facebook hit like a ton of bricks..

<comment><USER7> Facebook is AOL 2.0. AOL was equivalently vapid - and often just as toxic - <USER2> the 90s.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I remember joining KKK chatrooms on AOL as a kid and spamming them with "White Chowder! White Chowder!". Good times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is the one sentence that is going to come back to haunt Mark: "To clarify one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that incites violence or suppresses voting."

In the next 6 months, there will surely be a post or series of posts from one or many politicians where their choice of what is deemed "inciting violence or suppressing voting" will be, mildly put, controversial. These situations are not clear cut, and Facebook will be in the unenviable position of having to decide what is a political "truth" in a fraught political environment.

<comment><USER10> This already happened on Twitter, where Trump said "There will never be an 'Autonomous Zone' in Washington, D.C., as long as I'm your President. If they try they will be met with serious force!" and he was warned for "inciting violence". Presumably, this post about law enforcement using violence against unlawful behavior would just be deleted on Facebook under this new policy.

To read Facebook's policy literally, police departments warning about unlawful behavior would be "inciting violence" because they of course have the monopoly of violence behind them. Even posting the law, and saying that someone is violating it, would be "inciting violence" under Twitter's definition. They don't draw any distinction between lawful and unlawful violence, and every law on the books, whether it's re-selling loose cigarettes or catching too many fish, carries the threat of an officer with a gun using force against the alleged violator.

This is all an interesting thought experiment but in practice, I'm sure this policy will be used to punish people the moderation team doesn't like, and will be ignored for people that they do like.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely. I'll note that nobody reposting Beto's "we're going to take your AR-15s!" line was blocked, even though I'm pretty sure Beto wasn't planning on sending social workers to do the confiscation.

I'm not one of those "taxation is theft" people, but the state's monopoly on violence is a real thing, and violence is implicit in every government law. When Warren proposed to create a wealth tax, implicit in that assertion is that the government would collect it from people by force if necessary.

Facebook's policy on violence, applied to government speakers, is like people who eat meat being squeamish about hunting. Where do you think your food comes from? Likewise, what do you think is the basis for all these things you think the government should make people do?

<comment><USER12> At no point was there ever a threat of force from Beto, especially not with armed police.

Maybe you should read up on how the Australian government handled gun control: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#2017_Nati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia#2017_National_Firearms_Amnesty)

Hint: their campaign poster said "Now's the time to hand it in without penalty".

You're comparing two very different things here - disingenuously. One in which the president _literally threatens force_, the other which says the government will take ownership of guns.

<comment><USER10> And what if you didn't hand it in at that time -- if you didn't comply with the law? The answer is that you would be subject to arrest and imprisonment for up to 14 years: [https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part3/...](https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part3/div2/sec36)

<comment><USER13> I think there's a large difference between threatening arrest and threatening direct violence. For one thing, arrests ostensibly may lead to review and double-checking of the case with lawyers and judges and the chance to defend yourself. Mistaken or invalid arrests may be undone. Direct violence can not be reviewed and then taken back.

<comment><USER10> If someone threatens you with arrest, they are threatening to send a group of armed men to your house. If you don't let them in, they will break down your door. If you don't let them physically restrain you with handcuffs, they will grab you and perform pain compliance holds, pepper spray you, or tase you, then chain you up with handcuffs or other restraints. If you resist to the point where you threaten their life, they will shoot you. Then they will physically remove you from your home and put you in a cell. Is this not violence?

<comment><USER13> With this logic, there's no difference between "our cops will enforce speed limits by pulling people over or sending fines to later" and "our cops will immediately beat or shoot anyone on-sight that [the cops say] are breaking the speed limit".

In the first case, if I choose not to resist (which I definitely won't if I believe I'm in the right _and_ I trust the review/court system), there's much less risk of direct bodily harm, permanent injury, or death, even if I get jailed. If violence happens during the arrest, presumably that will be considered unusual and the cops will be at risk of being in trouble from that, so they have an incentive to not be violent. In the first case, if I'm wrongfully accused, I get to have my day in court, have a professional represent me, and present my evidence to a judge before anything more irreversible happens to me than losing some time. In the second case, I have no recourse if a cop abuses their power because they're reckless or have it out for me specifically. In the second case, it's already established that direct violence is expected, and because it won't be seen as unusual, the cops have little need to restrain themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sigh, I guess I am one of those lonely voices that says let em say whatever they want. FB should be little less than a dumb platform for anyone to run their mouth.

<comment><USER15> One question for the many people that believe Facebook should be a completely unmoderated communication channel is... Why are you active on Hackernews? Hackernews has a variety of community and moderator driven censorship tools, and does not encourage free speech in this manner. Would you call for a completely unmoderated Hackernews, maybe with local down votes and upvotes? Eventually the system could serve as a per user spam and filtering system, but arguably that's still censorship because an individually trained AI is still hiding and removing content. Or.. alternatively is Hackernews ok because if you have showdead on you can generally see the full set of content on HN?

<comment><USER16> My personal opinion is that HN community voting and active moderators are a solid, definite net negative for me. I would indeed be happier if neither of those elements were present. Voting pulls conversation strongly to the mediocre center of the bell curve, and moderators only work if they're willing to strongly profess their own biases.

But it's what's here, so it's what I read. Though I rarely read the comments any more, it's mostly a link site for me at this point.

<comment><USER13> If you removed the voting and moderators, then the site culture would rapidly change. It wouldn't surprise me if it rapidly approached the culture of other tech sites with similar systems. If that's fine with you, then you could use those sites instead now.

<comment><USER16> I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My mom got conned into giving away her credit card info and allowing someone to install remote software on her PC the other week (btw I emailed Satya Nadella with my _thoughts_ and he awesomely forwarded it to someone to look into more - my thoughts were briefly.. why do I have to travel home to fix this...).

My mom is in her 70s. People like that (a) vote (b) believe in whatever is on Facebook.

That's the risk of under-moderated social networks. Under 40 crowd + anyone on HN tbh is not the risk.

<comment><USER18> Short of not allowing people to install arbitrary software on Windows (which is what Apple does with iOS and tech people are usually upset about that) what would the CEO of Microsoft do in that regard?

The same thing happened to my grandma and my response was to remove her admin account and only let her log in as an unprivileged account. Microsoft already gives you to the tools to stop these kinds of attacks.

<comment><USER17> Totally yeah. One idea is maybe like a "library / public" mode where you can't install software very easily. My mom really just uses email, a browser and Microsoft Word.

It's a big enough issue for Microsoft that they have a dedicated page: [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/concern/scam](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/concern/scam)

Was just encouraging other approaches to it too for that demographic.

<comment> spaced-out Isn't that the same as being logged in with a user account, vs. an admin account?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can't figure out why Facebook attracts so much negative attention. Facebook does a great job at removing violent content. The most hateful content I see on the Internet is on Twitter. The violence and hysteria are so much I'm thinking of deleting that platform.

<comment><USER20> Facebook is frequently the target of the traditional media because these outlets have been largely shut out in favor of conservative sites. Take a look at the most popular news posts for 6/19 and 6/24:

[https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1275852495215042562](https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1275852495215042562)

[https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1274014164487294976](https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1274014164487294976)

It seems like Facebook's most active user base is conservative leaning.

<comment><USER21> Does 'best performing' filter out interaction from bots? Bot traffic could lead one to assuming this content is more popular than it actually is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You can say a lot of things about Zuckerberg, but boy does he have a difficult job.

The next time some one comes to me and say "I have a cool new idea for a new social network"...

Edit: I'll tell them to use mysql, it's a good choice for a database.

</comment><comment><USER23> "To clarify one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that incites violence or suppresses voting. Even if a politician or government official says it, if we determine that content may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote, we will take that content down. Similarly, there are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I'm announcing here today."

To me, this is the most interesting development. It'll be interesting to see where the line gets drawn in practice on what constitutes voter suppression and/or speech that could lead to violence. The bigger question is whether we should be entrusting Facebook to draw that line in the first place.

<comment><USER24> No, we should not trust Facebook to draw the line.

<comment><USER25> Why shouldn't Facebook draw the line on their own platform?

<comment><USER26> Because at this point facebook is so big as to be able to manipulate the votes. Corporations stop getting free passes of free speech suppression when they become monopolies.

<comment><USER25> Facebook isn't a monopoly. they aren't the only social media platform, nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics. What definition of monopoly are you using here? Also, what does "free passes of free speech suppression" even mean? Your language here is emotional and clearly carries its own bias.

"manipulating votes" implies vote tampering or some kind other kind of fraud, when what I think you mean is "manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal. And "free speech suppression" appears to mean moderation, but Facebook and _all other platforms_ moderate their content under whatever arbitrary means they choose _all the time,_ notwithstanding being legally require to "suppress" content already deemed illegal.

This isn't an entirely black and white matter, because moderation and, to some degree, manipulation are aspects of free speech. If Facebook doesn't have the right to set their own terms of service and moderate content under those terms, then who does is for them? The government? Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?

<comment><USER26> Every person I encounter has a Facebook. Even my ~100 years old grandma has one. Not sure what other social media has the same presence in the life of people. Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter are not even close and quite niche in the grand scheme of things.

>nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics.

Of course there are niche websites for some people, doesn't take away from how big Facebook is. Perhaps not technically a monopoly, but their influence is real and there should be barriers so it's not abused.

>"manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal.

Yeah of course, law has had trouble adjusting to the omnipresence of Internet for a while now.

>Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?

The government should not restrict free speech as much as Facebook is allowed to right now. Some laws prevent some sorts of extreme speech, e.g. hate speech, but I'd rather society come to a consensus on what's out of bounds than some corp choose them to cater to advertisers/their bottom line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Here are some examples of statements / content, I am curious as to whether they would be considered inciting violence:

\- "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents"

\- "How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?"

\- (A parody or fictionalized depiction of a politician being murdered - decapitated or shot.)

\- "I could take him behind the gym. That's what I wish"

\- "Throw milkshakes at them. It's only a milkshake"

\- Op-Ed by politician entitled "Send in the Military"

\- "Come and take it" (pointing to their gun)

It seems as if it's upto the platform to decide when they can be charitable in the interpretation and when they will err on the side of caution. Given the demographics of Facebook, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes the way I'd expect it to.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think the root problem is that both political parties portray the other party as an existential threat to our country. Personally I think this is absurd: our country (USA) is strong enough to survive either the republicans or democrats in control of both houses or Congress and the White House. No, the country will not crash and burn depending on which party the elites and corporate news media happens to put in power.

When the Cold War ended, we (the US) lost our Worthy Rival (in the sense discussed in the book The Infinite Game). During the Cold War, both political parties agreed to get along because of an external rival. We now have several Worthy Rivals but fail to realize that, so as a country we have nothing to rally around except for an inaccurate belief in American Exceptualism.

I am hopeful that all of the problems (political, COVID 19, economy, and racism) that we face might unite the country.

As for Facebook acting in our public interest: I will believe it if it ever actually happens.

<comment><USER29> I genuinely want to agree with you. I want to be an optimist. But this it outrageously naive. And here's the proof in one completely in-context quote:

> I am hopeful that all of the problems (political, COVID 19, economy, and > racism) that we face might unite the country.

Literally, (LITERALLY), one of our political parties is spending its energy at the moment denying that the final three problems exist, and blaming the controversies about them on the first, explaining how it's all the fault of the other party.

I mean, we actually do have politicians in this country who want to see solutions to that stuff. You should consider voting for them instead of tut- tutting them for not being centrist enough.

<comment><USER30> I will continue tut-tutting politicians that are not centrist enough. Pandering to extreme perspectives strikes me as representing the interests of fewer people.

<comment><USER29> What specific positions does the democratic party hold that you consider to be extreme and unrepresentative of a majority of the electorate?

<comment><USER30> Probably the same reservations I have for any political party. A political party is not there to represent me. I can do that well enough on my own with my vote. I only need political parties to provide candidates and put pressure on other political parties.

<comment><USER29> That's still not specific. You said you want to tut-tutt the Democratic party for not being centrist enough and for holding extreme positions. Which ones?

<comment><USER30> I never mentioned any party. I refuse to vote along party lines.

<comment><USER29> And I never demanded you do. I did ask, however, what the "extreme perspectives" you meant upthread were in the context of democrats. And I note you still haven't answered.

At least one reason might be because democrats aren't actually as extreme as you feel like you're Supposed To Think. You might consider voting for some if you look at their positions instead of jumping in to complain about their "extreme perspectives".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Wow those Facebook comments on the post... nobody on any side is happy. Is moderation an un-winnable position?

<comment><USER32> I'll take that one! Sure it is. It's a web of interlocking double binds that squeeze you like a python squeezes a rat.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind) – a concept, btw, that Gregory Bateson came up with to explain what makes people go crazy.

<comment><USER33> AOL used to charge by the hour, and discovered an unintended side effect when they switched to flat-rate pricing. Mods in the ancien regime had been compensated by getting free online time, but under the new system, that became worthless, and there was a wave of mods quitting because somewhere-around- minimum-wage had been sufficient compensation for the double binds before, but they weren't about to volunteer to deal with the worst of forums.

<comment><USER32> I just saw this. That's fascinating. Is it written about online?

<comment><USER33> [https://www.wired.com/1999/10/volunteers/](https://www.wired.com/1999/10/volunteers/) "Everything changed in December of 1996, when AOL moved to a flat-rate pricing system: unlimited access for $19.95 a month. Gone were the profits from hours spent in chat. Worse, chatty members clogged AOL's servers and threatened to crash the system. Gone too were many of the volunteers. Without the hundreds of dollars worth of free hours, more than half left."

<comment><USER32> Just saw this now. Will check it out. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> We all know what no content moderation spirals down into, and that content moderation is a very hard problem to address ("solve" is definitely the wrong word IMO). I am torn between the idea that a company should be able decide how they want to moderate their own platform, and the contradictory feeling that I don't trust them.

Thinking about the idea of legislation to prevent platforms from all moderation doesn't feel right to me personally, so to those that do hold that opinion I am curious:

1\. If we can't even regulate ISP's as dumb pipe utilities, then how would it be possible to do it with social media platforms? Would it be contradictory to legislate platforms this way while _not_ also applying the same logic to ISP's?

2\. Emerging social media platforms that specifically don't moderate, or decide to moderate _differently_, are in a unique position to benefit from the many users who don't like the major platforms' moderation practices. If these competing platforms suddenly gain in popularity, would there still be a need for regulation if users have a real choice?

<comment><USER35> We are in a bind. More than ever we need trustworthy authorities to help us navigate the world's information as no one, no matter how educated or smart, can be expected to parse through the ocean of information we now have access to every day.

Unfortunately it has become obvious that no such authorities exist. The President lies. The Governors lie. The NYT lies. The WHO lies. CNN lies. Fox lies. The smart, young, well healed people that run tech lie (though for our own good, of course). Your Facebook feed lies. Not just little lies and not just a few. Big lies, multitudes of them, lies used as levers, attempting to advance conflicting and rarely benign agendas. There is a furious cacophony of bullshit, every day, from every channel, trying to sell us things that are neither good nor true.

If there is any unifying experience these days in America is confusion. No one knows what is going on, no one knows what the truth really is, we just react to whatever meme manages to get past our jaded weariness. The old ways to make sense of the world no longer work.

We need Journalism. Real Journalism, not the putrid husk of it we have today but the kind of Journalism that the political class fears and that the people trust. I cannot think of anything more important right now. Nothing will be fixed in this country until we have our eyes and ears back.

<comment><USER36> > Unfortunately it has become obvious that no such authorities exist. The > President lies. The Governors lie. The NYT lies. The WHO lies. CNN lies. Fox > lies.

So, just like it's always been?

> The old ways to make sense of the world no longer work.

What were those old ways? From what I recall, the "old ways" was to believe lies fed to you, which caused all kinds of problems - not very different from today. Lies about women, gays, people of other races, people of other religions, people of other ethnicities, people of certain professions, etc. Looking at history through perhaps a tinted lens, these were all common problems in the "old days" \- the only difference is that now it's a bit harder to hide them. To an extent, some of the tumult you see today is due to people realizing that being lied to was common and the norm, coupled with the ability to have a platform to counter what they perceive as lies. That a lot of this "countering" is likely as misinformed as the original lies is sad, but not surprising. I cannot say, though, that accepting lies from authority as people generally did in the past was "better".

> If there is any unifying experience these days in America is confusion. No > one knows what is going on, no one knows what the truth really is, we just > react to whatever meme manages to get past our jaded weariness. The old ways > to make sense of the world no longer work.

I think we're in agreement about what is going on. My stance is that I don't think "the old ways to make sense of the world" was good - especially not when you were on the receiving end of things, and pretty much all of society around you acted as if the problems didn't exist, or dismissively justified them.

> We need Journalism. Real Journalism

We've always had it, and still do, or we've never had it, and never will, depending on how you view the glass.

Journalism, in the traditional sense, has its place, but will never "solve" this problem. There never has been a model of journalism that satisfies all of:

1\. Covers a wide variety of topics well

2\. Can find "bias-free" funding (i.e. nonreliance on ads, etc).

You'll get instances of journalism that do a really good job by having a very narrow focus (e.g. Pro Publica), or you'll get stuff like the NYT (which as you said "lies").

We definitely need journalism, but we'll never solve the problem just with it. I don't think we'll ever "solve" this problem, given that in our thousands of years of history, we never solved it.

<comment><USER35> The old ways of making sense of the world consisted, for the most part, of listening to institutions and people whose integrity, though not perfect, was far greater than it is today. CNN wasn't always the hyper-partisan POS it is today. The NYT used be a real newspaper. Same for the Post. There has not been a Walter Cronkite for decades.

I think its self-evident that journalism has changed, dramatically and for the worst as the Internet became widespread, and we have nothing to replace it with. This is happening at a time when information has been weaponized to an exquisite level with most of us not even aware we are under attack. So, no, I do not think this is business as usual, and while I agree good Journalism is not sufficient to solve our problems I do believe it is a necessary first step.

I think the funding problem is real, but solvable. There is a great hunger out there for honest reporting and there are plenty of people with both the resources and the integrity to help bootstrap a credible effort.

<comment><USER36> > CNN wasn't always the hyper-partisan POS it is today. The NYT used be a real > newspaper. Same for the Post. There has not been a Walter Cronkite for > decades.

If you can come up with a way/study that has a good way of measuring the quality of an outlet, and showing the changes across time, I'll be willing to accept it. At the moment, I do not recall any of these to have been credible. I cannot speak for the Post, but NYT was definitely worthy of distrust in the 90's, as was CNN.

I think you and I are measuring things via a different metric/scale. Mine is simply "Do they lie/mislead often _enough_ for me not to trust them?", which is different from "How often do they mislead?" You would be correct in pointing out that my stance is more binary, but it's because _past a certain point, it doesn 't matter how much more distrustful an outlet is!_ If the lies/manipulation were rare, it makes sense to look at the frequency. But I do not see a point in differentiating "lies once a day" and "lies twice a day". While the latter seems 2x worse, the former is bad enough to disregard it.

In that sense, the NYT was untrustworthy in the 90's, as was CNN. Whether they are worse now is kind of irrelevant.

> There has not been a Walter Cronkite for decades.

There are, and always have been, fantastic journalists. They definitely exist today. The question to ask is: If Walter Cronkite started out today, and was as good as he used to be, would people trust him?

> I think its self-evident that journalism has changed, dramatically and for > the worst as the Internet became widespread, and we have nothing to replace > it with. This is happening at a time when information has been weaponized to > an exquisite level with most of us not even aware we are under attack.

The loss in revenue has definitely impacted news outlets because of the Internet. However, information being weaponized really is not that different today. The only thing that has changed is that there are more actors involved. Much of the thrash today is simply because more people have the power to counter the misinformation of the past.

Things are bad now, but I really do not want to return to the days where people trusted Time and Newsweek. I am happy people do not trust them. Those were not good days, and the misinformation then was probably as costly (globally) as it is now.

> There is a great hunger out there for honest reporting and there are plenty > of people with both the resources and the integrity to help bootstrap a > credible effort.

The people have spoken with their dollars, and it is clear they are not willing to pay for it. Gifts from rich people does well for the "narrow" journalism I spoke of, but is simply not enough for the wider scale that is needed.

<comment><USER35> Would you accept "trust in the media" as one such measure of decline? If so here: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues- re...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues- recover-2016-low.aspx)

Maybe we can get past that issue though. I understand your point to be that Journalism was never credible and that therefore we are not really any worse off than we have ever been. I disagree, but maybe it does not matter all that much, my main point is that more than ever we desperately need something like good Journalism, whether good Journalism ever existed or not.

Information has been weaponized before, sure, but the volume, sophistication, low cost and precision of the manipulation is unprecedented. The difference in degree is so great that it has become a difference of kind and the only defense we have at the moment is cynicism.

As to people paying for proper Journalism, we also used to say no one would pay for electric cars or for music. Maybe we just need better products.

<comment><USER37> Interesting article, and of course we don't know the reason for decrease in trust. Is it because the media is lying more, or because the people have better access to information and thus are realizing the lies of the media? That's probably impossible to measure.

And interesting that

> Democrats' Trust in Media Highest in Past 20 Years

While Republican has gone down. I wonder how much effect Donald Trump saying "Fake news" on Twitter all the time has on people's perception, versus what they would think if he wasn't saying that.

<comment><USER35> > Democrats' Trust in Media Highest in Past 20 Years

Confirmation bias is a real thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Pretty strange that Facebook tries aggressively to get you to sign up to Facebook just for viewing this post. There's a giant modal with a huge picture of Mark's face telling you to "See more of Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook".

You'd think they'd disable that for critical announcements like this.

<comment><USER39> Yeah it's pretty jarring to have this suddenly stare you down while trying to read.

[https://i.imgur.com/2f8hLqs.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2f8hLqs.jpg)

<comment><USER40> This is what happened to my browser immediately after clicking that link, closing it, and opening a new window.

[https://i.imgur.com/3O60uZJ.png](https://i.imgur.com/3O60uZJ.png)

Brand new behavior to freak me out...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Sheryl Sanberg: We don't respond to boycotts! We are guided by our principles. Mark Zuckerberg: Today we announce we are changing our policies.

Funny how that works.

</comment><comment><USER42> The great power of the internet is that the best factual information is a just a few clicks away.

The problem with social media is that the worst information - the conspiracy theories, the shoddy advertising, the pyramid schemes - is literally zero clicks away; in fact, it's put in front of people for fractions of a cent.

<comment><USER43> We wouldn't want those harmful conspiracy theories being discussed. We need more moderation to keep them out!

<comment><USER44> I'm sure there is a normal distribution of people who really have no credentials to investigate conspiracies, to take the term at its core definition.

Journalists and whistleblowers? Tongue-in-cheek digs at implausible circumstances?

Sure.

Everything below the curve is harmful and lacks a critical understanding of events outside their front door.

I don't think this is a tech problem. I think this is cultural.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> My basic takeaway from all of this is MOSTLY that society isn't (on its own) capable of a real democracy. YET. I'm optimistic though. I do agree in general that we don't want any single "arbiter of truth", but given that too many citizens are being duped by objectively inaccurate news in far too large numbers, I think there's probably a comfortable middle ground we'll all be relatively comfortable with until humans no longer need this "oversight".

</comment><comment><USER46> I still can't wrap my mind around the idea in 2020 we have a super powerful worldwide internet accessible to most with everyone able to make their own website yet millions upon millions insist on congregation on just one or two sites and giving them some kind of imaginary power over everyone.

Just zero out facebook in HOSTS and you are free, it really is that simple, everything else is just a contrived argument.

<comment><USER47> I wish that were true, but it isn't. In some places, facebook has a monopoly on all human communication. For instance, in my country, if you're not on whatsapp you're effectively unreachable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> This is very likely in response to the Stop Hate For Profit campaign[1], it has been picking up steam the last week with a bunch of major brands[2] (REI, Coca-Cola, Unilever) saying they're going to pause FB's cash cow, ads, for a month. So Zuckerberg was forced to respond.

Pressure (internal and external) on the tech giants can force them to change.

[1] [https://www.stophateforprofit.org/demand- change](https://www.stophateforprofit.org/demand-change) [2] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/26/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/26/facebook- policies-hate-speech-advertisers-unilever)

</comment><comment><USER49> Many positive steps here, but still no change on allowing political ads that make knowingly false claims, or am I missing something?

</comment><comment><USER50> Facebook is now playing damage control as sentiment of people have shifted or they must have probably noticed some drop in activity, KPI or usage due to their recent stance. There is probably more going on behind the curtains, huge organization generally don't wake up one day and decide to change course.

<comment><USER51> Stock price dropping over 8% today is one metric.

<comment><USER52> thats not related

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I see everybody commenting on the substance of the post: which is good. Seeing the post as a stand-alone, almost ahistorical, statement.

But I'm wondering the strategic part, the this-moment-in-politics, may be part of why we're seeing this now, too.

For a while Trump seemed pretty indestructible. FaceBook could hover in between Trump and his opposition, stick to the middle ground.

Now it looks like Trump is down by some pretty serious digits, and Biden is up. This would be the right time to maneuver for a Biden Presidency, before it looks obviously self-serving.

By doing this now, if Trump loses, FaceBook will be closer to the post-Trump middle. It's certainly better than being stranded with a bunch of terrible alt-right press and Congressional investigations, with Trump unable to offer any governmental protection.

While you never know - Trump could win! - the Trump-is-leaving-so-prepare-for- post-Trump-times scenario is looking more probable by the day.

For the average person, "who knows" and "anything could happen" may be good enough. It isn't for megacorps. So when the betting odds change, they change with them.

Remember, Zuckerberg is a guy who bet big on Insta as the future beyond FaceBook, 6-10 years into the future. It only makes sense that he'd seriously think about 4 months into the future, to consider the impact on his business. And adjust accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER54> One of the many issues with the big platforms (like Facebook) is that the founders and owners are incapable of thinking that the service is no longer a net good and should be shut down. There is never a big enough problem that cannot be tweaked insignificance.

</comment><comment><USER55> Because of its US roots, FB makes concessions etc about US elections, but for the remaining countries in the world - FB doesn't care.

FB announced their last electoral reforms _after India finished its last elections, where FB was majorly used with little to no checks_.

</comment><comment><USER56> The crazy part is that it's an unnaccoubtable company making these decisions around managing speech - decisions with will have a significant and tangible impact on the 2020 presidential election.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of mechanism for a community to collectively decide what the rules should be, and then make sure they are followed?

It might be a messy process but hopefully this would be a slowly self- correcting mechanism.

Then the broader community could ensure that the companies and other entities that are a part of it follow the rules which have been collectively and democratically agreed on.

I feel like there's a word for this sort of thing, and it's on the tip of my tongue ....

Hint: the word is (democratic) government.

</comment><comment><USER57> Lots of discussion about censorship here. I would like to ask a slightly off- topic question: Does China have the same kind of social discord that America has? Chinese online communities are subject to considerable censorship and moderation. Does that help prevent the spread of insane ideas and conspiracies?

Why is this worth thinking about: People who look to a more moderated future for our social networks might look to China to see if such moderation is effective. The downside is obvious; the state can promote insane conspiracy theories using the same moderation tools. But we could at least see if moderation on such a scale works at all.

<comment><USER58> Your question implies a false equivalence between forum moderation and a state-controlled propaganda machine.

<comment><USER57> Sorry that was not my intention. But your answer is useful for how I should be thinking about this anyway, so thankyou :)

How would a nation like the USA go about encouraging more healthy forms of moderation to suppress insane memes but not suppress important political debate? The follow on from this would be; what nations already do this? and what are the outcomes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I would argue that edge rank reinforce personal and group biases and let you see more of what you interacted with.

Believes (false or true) start with an event that leaves an imprint in you and later you start "seeing" only what goes along you believe and minimizing or ignoring what is against your believes.

So if edge rank would feed you more of what you interacted with your view would become more and more extreme.

If edge rank is aware of your context and your social graph, it will also feed you more and more what your social circle consumes and produces.

We can see what is going on in the whole world but we are still made by our local reality.

</comment><comment><USER60> Twist: "Someone" starts a new, right-wing social network that is endorsed by Trump, pumped by Fox News and secretly funded by Mark. The My Pillow Guy and all his friends take their ad dollars there where they are greeted by all the people who are currently crying that Facebook and Twitter are being "tyrannical" for censoring their racist posts.

6 Months from now after the election is done, Facebook quietly absorbs it and life goes on.

<comment><USER61> might be coming true.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/25/as- twit...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/25/as-twitter- labels-trump-tweets-some-republicans-flock-to-new-social-media- site/#355b355e78c8)

[https://parler.com/auth/access](https://parler.com/auth/access)

Although separate spheres for different groupthinks sounds even worse that forcing people who dont get along to use the same tools. We will finish evolving into the dark matter people Scott Alexander called us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> So it was all about the money, after all? I thought it was about principles. Funny how fast things change as soon as money comes into the equation.

</comment><comment><USER63> I love how this post is about the US elections, but fails to mention anything until the fourth paragraph ("...largest voting information campaign in American history..."). Facebook is one of the largest worldwide platforms, yet this announcement just assumes that we all know that it's about the USA (I say this as US citizen). It's so provincial.

</comment><comment><USER64> The true evil from facebook isn't the posts that incite violence. It's the posts that are flat-out fake, complete lies and/or present something completely out of context. These are the tools that Trump, right-wingers and white supremacists use to fool their supporters and trigger their seratonin generators through fearmongering. What is Facebook doing about THIS problem? What are they doing to combat blatant untruths spread all over their network? Zuckerberg's post does nothing to address this, the worst of problems. He's hitting softballs.

<comment><USER65> > What is Facebook doing about THIS problem?

What are bars and pubs doing to stop the telling of untruths in their environments? Nothing and nobody is pressuring them to do so.

Why is Facebook different because it's on the Internet?

<comment><USER66> There's a question of scale and context. If there was a bar that could (a) fit two billion people into it, (b) work hard to ensure they're the only bar in the world, (c) allow powerful political groups or even foreign countries to (d) use misinformation to sow conflict and violence in a way that was (e) invisible to any one individual in the bar, well in that case I would probably be wondering what was going to be done about this problem. However, I wouldn't trust the owners of the bar to do anything about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I don't understand why FB don't separate news from timeline into its own lane. They both can even be side by side in the UI.

This way, news algorithm can be treated differently than other non-political utilities. And there will be less people impacted by news (positively/negatively).

<comment><USER68> Because this would negatively affect their revenue?

<comment><USER59> Interesting idea but what is a new and what is not? What is a friend shares an article from the WSJ?

FB is people centric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> If these policy changes are just going into effect, they are not ahead of 2020 elections.

</comment><comment><USER70> Curios how would they define "hate speech". From the way Facebook works, wouldn't anyone be worried it would be exploited the moment the new policies are out and become a spamming ground?

</comment><comment><USER71> People will become their inner assholes if there are no consequences to their behavior as in real life you get thrown out of the neighborhood pub if you act like a doofus.

</comment><comment><USER72> Having to lick the boots of that overgrown child that has become President is getting embarrassing I guess. After all, Zuck wants to rule the world himself.

</comment><comment><USER73> Reading this on the new Facebook Dark Mode seems fitting.

</comment><comment><USER74> We need to start expanding the scope of our anti-trust laws so that internet communication channels go back to what they were meant to be: de-centralized.

The fact that the internet and web was designed to be decentralized and then somehow ended up being concentrated on 5 or 6 websites is a bug, not a feature.

I'm not proposing we just do this overnight though -- too much of the US economy and software sector is propped up by these companies to just yank it all out, but we need to head back to decentralization by revisiting our definition of monopolies as it applies to communication channels.

<comment><USER75> I don't believe the dominance of a small number of social media empires is due to anti-trust violations, specifically anit-competitive behavior. Instead, I believe these industries have incredibly strong network effects with the value of the platform growing faster than linear with the number of members.

If there were thousands of social media networks, each of roughly the same size, then content would be highly fragmented. If say your closest ten friends and family members in aggregate use seven different networks, then you'd have to belong to all seven and regularly interact with all seven to stay up to date with your community. A similar situation exists for following famous and influential people.

Further, as any single social network grows, it naturally acquires a moat in that with more members there is a larger reason for new members to join that network since there is a higher percentage of people of interest already on the social network in question. Over time we've seen this lead to dominant social networks over several generations of social media. E.g., Friendster -> MySpace -> Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> The timing of this announcement could have to do with the ad boycott.

</comment><comment><USER77> Policy updates everywhere but no enforcement and accountability.

<comment><USER78> [https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards- enforc...](https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement)

[https://www.oversightboard.com/](https://www.oversightboard.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I love how this asshole is clearly just trying to modify policy in reaction to what he thinks people wants, rather than doing the right thing from day one, because he obviously has no idea whatsoever how to do the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER80> I would have gone amz way and formed a sugar water company and a logistics company by now just to remind Coca Cola and Uniliver who they really are.

</comment><comment><USER81> Is this too little, too late?

</comment><comment><USER47> You can flag this comment away, but I'll say this anyway:

If America doesn't crack down on Google's, Facebook's and Twitter's ability to "moderate" (censor) content at their discretion (today!), Western democratic society will come to an end. Sooner rather than later.

These services are utilities, sometimes monopolies, and must be regulated as such.

<comment><USER82> I agree protecting opinions I personally might not agree with is important.

However, I see no value at all in protecting calls to violence or protecting speech that is intentionally designed to deceive or manipulate.

Additionally, attributing and contextualising information must be allowed.

Finally, many scientific matters are settled (such as that climate change exists, that there was systemic discrimination of PoCs even long after abolishment of slavery and that Earth is not flat).

Stating that those debates are settled and that trying to "reopen" them does not do any good must be allowed.

<comment><USER83> Who decides what's designed to deceive?

The right thinks the left is trying to manipulate people and the left thinks the right is trying to manipulate people.

Also, why wouldn't I be able to talk against climate change? I know it's real but that's besides the point I'm trying to make. Why should I be stripped of that right? To me, it sounds like when you couldn't speak about religion or have any kind of doubt. Not only it's bad because it pure censorship but it creates a precedent to ban speech against what some people think it's settled.

<comment><USER21> "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" isn't deceptive. It's clearly a call to violence. It is 100% unambiguous.

<comment><USER26> Its in poor taste, but it's not your place to say that it has no value. That post has a lot of political meaning and promotes strong police response to non peaceful protests. People are just angry about the phrasing. This is far from having no value imo.

<comment><USER82> "The phrasing" is a historical quote that is connotated with calls to violence since the original social justice movement.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_looting_starts,_the...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_looting_starts,_the_shooting_starts)

<comment><USER26> What are you implying, that it has no value because it advocates violence?

EDIT: To be precise why I'd disagree with that, promoting self defense advocates violence, but still has value to pretty much everyone. This is controversial because of the current climate, but saying it has no value is false.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Why insist on sharing important policy updates as a Facebook post, which is clearly not meant for that purpose? That wall of text is completely unreadable.

</comment><comment><USER85> Why ever would I believe a word an ad man says?

</comment><comment><USER86> I am not happy with Facebook caving in to activist pressure from a small number of vocal nonprofits and businesses that carry their own political biases. This again is evidence that big tech favors certain worldviews, ideologies, and political opinions over others. The notion of 'hate speech' is flawed. It is a vague term with ever-expanding definitions and will ultimately reduce the free exchange of ideas. Censorship, deplatforming, boycotts, and other such actions will ultimately just lead to the balkanization of our society.

As an example, consider the following paragraph from Zuck's post:

> Specifically, we're expanding our ads policy to prohibit claims that people > from a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, > caste, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status are a > threat to the physical safety, health or survival of others.

So what happens when people disagree on a current and controversial topic like gender identity? This is certainly not a settled area of debate. For instance, there are many who think early transitioning and surgeries can backfire, and that children are not fit to make these decisions at a young age. Would such discussion now be censored? More generally, will views that challenge progressive orthodoxy just be banned on the grounds of ever-expanding and variable definitions of hate speech?

Another example:

> We're also expanding our policies to better protect immigrants, migrants, > refugees and asylum seekers from ads suggesting these groups are inferior or > expressing contempt, dismissal or disgust directed at them.

What happens when you want to discuss the downsides of immigration and how it affects your society? For instance, in Finland a disproportionate amount of sexual violence is perpetrated by immigrants (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_Finland#Per...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_Finland#Perpetrators)). This is a very common discussion topic in Finnish society and media ([https://www.foreigner.fi/articulo/moving-to-finland/crime- is...](https://www.foreigner.fi/articulo/moving-to-finland/crime-is-the-topic- most-associated-with-immigration-by-finnish-media/20191110185452003427.html)). Would such discussion or advertisement in favor of changes to immigration policies now be disallowed?

\</comment><comment>----

Even if Facebook only loosely enforces these new guidelines, having them at all can have a chilling effect. It seems we can't trust Facebook to be a neutral owner of such a ubiquitous and powerful platform. So much of society's communication happens on Facebook (and Twitter and Google) that they are really just the new digital public square and should not take sides. We need alternative platforms that value free speech, a foundational part of our society, rather than imposing the views of platform owners, their employees, or a small number of vocal activists on the rest of the world.

<comment><USER87> This is all about ads.

So you want people to be able to post ads that say that people of certain races are inferior? I don't understand.

This is not a free speech issue. This is a paid speech issue.

(I say this not as someone who wants to censor all kinds of stuff, I totally understand your idea that all kinds of ideas should be able to be discussed, but I do make that distinction)

<comment><USER88> >So you want to be able to post ads that say that people of certain races are inferior? I don't understand.

OP clearly laid out their own examples, please don't go out of your way to make one up so you have a strawman to attack.

<comment><USER87> That's not what my question is, perhaps I can reword it to sound less inflammatory. My question is about the distinction between ads and discussions.

OP asks "what happens if you want to discuss" – that phrase itself says "not ads", so an irrelevant question, correct? I understand this is all about their ad policy.

I hate to even sound like a facebook apologist, I deeply, deeply despise that company and Mark Zuckerberg, and I know the only reason they'd change anything is for money, and have absolutely no scruples whatsoever.

But at the end of the day, they're completely free to censor whatever they want. They're not the public sphere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Nice attempt to distract from the recent Project Veritas documentary showing how FB manipulates content and suppresses conservatives.

<comment><USER90> "Project Veritas...manipulates content"

<comment><USER89> Sure. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHzz9aWO8HA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHzz9aWO8HA)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> 1\. Providing Authoritative Information on Voting During the Pandemic

We hear it all the time (especially in Europe):

\- irresponsible people would not secure their retirement so the state needs to force them to do it,

\- irresponsible people would not fasten the seatbelt so law must force them to do so,

\- irresponsible people would not vaccinate their children etc.

But when elections are coming, all these irresponsible people will wisely choose the best president, after detailed investigation of the economical treaties. Pure absurd.

I like the idea of Fredrich Hayek - everyone votes only once in the whole life at age between 40 and 45 years. (Assuming the cadence is 5 years). Only interested ones.

</comment><comment><USER92> This again comes off as empty PR speak. "We're taking this seriously, trust us" with no acknowledgment of anything being broken to begin with. The more meaningful work at this point is not growing or preserving Facebook's inertia - I know, heresy - but fixing an architecture that has become toxic.

</comment><comment><USER93> A lot of comments that add to the discussion (unlike this one tehee) that are grey :(

Censorship of speech is not okay! No matter what!

Also I just want to add that imo Twitter is vastly more toxic than Facebook! I do not see it get as much hate as the zuck does tho...(not saying he does or not deserve the hate) just think there is better marketing of Jack Dorsey

<comment><USER94> > Censorship of speech is not okay! No matter what!

If someone handed you a a stack of flyers and told you to post it everywhere, would it be ok to not do this and just throw it away? If someone on Facebook types in a message and hits post, would it not be acceptable for them to not send that data to anyone that connects to them, and instead just delete it?</comment></comment>


Where to find an API that gives latest pricing of beauty/cosmatics? - <AUTHOR> I need an API that can gives the latest promotion info of some cosmetic sites, such as https://www.maccosmetics.com/ , https://www.sephora.com/ , https://www.gilt.com/ , https://amazon.com and others.    Appreciate your help, guys!<p>----<p>Yeah sure. I tried to look up the front-end codes of every sites. They are all different. Using this hardcore way of decoding frontpage codes, I barely can't get the latest pricing info of a determained products. Because I don't know when the new product pricing will be updated. Or I can get the pricing by an endless loop program on that determained web page. But some promotions comes with promotion/discount codes. Without a trusty info source, an endless-loop program is useless.   That's why I need an API which gives latest pricing info. Maybe someone did it before. <comment><USER2> Very interesting question, I 2nd the motion..thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah sure. Question updated.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: My boss just got fired - <AUTHOR>

So, I took this job a couple of months ago in large part because of who I was going to be working with; three weeks in, the other guy in the SF office that could code well left. I stayed and took on a lot of his responsibilities.
Then, a few weeks ago, our ad ops person left. Now I fill her role as well.
I finally get into this and start to get used to my workload, and now my boss is let go.
I have some options; I can start up a company again and try to make that work; I could probably be poached to another company for more pay, or I can stay where I am and take advantage of the  vacancy my boss left.
I honestly don't know what I should do here, so I'm asking you: in a similar position, what would you do? <comment><USER2> I would go see my ex-boss' boss and tell him that we're down two people, and while I can keep things going somewhat smoothly for a few weeks, things are going to start breaking due to a lack of manpower.

Then, I'd tell him that I already had the names of a few people to interview (having selecting people I already knew). If you do it right you'll

a) Guarantee that you're working with staff you like b) Be able to redefine your role (for example, from Sr. Software Engineer to Software Architect or Support Analyst to Programmer). c) Create a reputation as a guy that solves problems independently and removes headaches from his superiors

Fortunes, careers and reputations are made by fixing problems in times of chaos, not by staying with the status quo or coasting in a comfortable path.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's SF, the company is hemorrhaging staff, your job description is constantly mutating...and you can code well.

It sounds like time to get a better job, with a healthier employer, working on something more interesting, and making at least 20% more. Or take a run at building your own ship if that interests you and if you have the financial padding.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is sort of like asking whether you should marry the person you're seeing. Um, it depends.

If you believe in the opportunity of the company or believe you can influence and contribute to a real success there, you should consider this an opportunity to prove that, derive benefit from it, and increase your role/responsibility/compensation there.

These departures are not generally good signs though. Have you considered asking your boss why he/she left? If they're firing/attriting under- performers, that's one thing; if the good people are all jumping ship, as the new person you have to ask yourself what they know that you don't.

</comment><comment><USER5> If your boss was fired for justifiable reasons then perhaps staying is an option. If it feels that his/her departure was for financial reasons or just plain whimsy then it is time to explore the other options - as fast as you like.

<comment><USER6> It sounds likely that three critical people separating in just two months is more likely to be due to the latter class of reasons you cite. At the very least figuring out why, and why they aren't getting replaced quickly, is critical, and if answers to those questions aren't forthcoming, indeed get out ASAP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> GTFO. Do they have such a high turnover because they are so awesome? You will probably run into the same or another similar problem. This behaviour is endemic of a systematic problem.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't really understand the structure of your company.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's amazing what people ask others on the Net.

What does your 'gut' say?

</comment><comment><USER10> If you do not have a good relationship with whoever is now your boss then you might as well find a new job. You're starting over anyhow.</comment>