[unearthed]

Yes. Realize that FB is the defacto platform for social discussion and realize that discussion at this scale is the singular path towards cohesive integration of multi-culture societies.

Stop policing speech/thoughts/ideas/communication.

Nobody has asked facebook to be the arbiter of social-morality.

You at facebook are creating an echo chamber and driving dissenting voices away because they dont adhere to the 'woke' dogma.

You're taking all the monstrous ideas and pushing them outside. You're giving them no option but to aggregate + further radicalize each other.

This is why shit like 8chan has gotten so wretched.

Theres already WAY too much involvement + dogmatic oversight of 'moral right' by facebook.

Stop doing what you're doing and accept that if you're ACTUALLY interested in the mass-culture integration you claim you're working towards, banning + policing thoughts aren't the way towards that ends.

What actually needs to happen is for the bad to be extrema to be buffered though interaction w the socially normal beliefs.

What facebook is CURRENTLY doing is radicalizing groups.

Somehow zuck cant see this as the repressive puritanical system that it is.

[sdenton4]

You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution. Implicitly, this says that you don't value the opinions of people who very strongly believe that there is a problem. It's not a great place to argue from.

[paulddraper]

> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution

Actually, I believe @unearthed acknowledged a problem, and asserted the best solution was to do nothing.

[unearthed]

More than just this though.

Because FBs take is so uninformed, its going to create greater social rifts.

LITERALLY contra to what its stated objectives are.

SO. WHY would zuck do this?

lip service to his employees.

[unearthed]

> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution

Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here.

Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference"

Surely You're NOT suggesting:

"Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony"

[JumpCrisscross]

> We require the dogmatic, bureaucratic oversight of speech to create harmony

This is an open, legitimate debate. It's complicated with Facebook due to its lack of competition.

Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary. If the market presents a diversity of services, no one system of moderation gets a stranglehold on public discourse.

Facebook, however, is dominant. As a result, its decisions approach the breadth of government censorship. That's a fundamental disconnect they're trying to paper over.

[paulddraper]

> It's complicated with Facebook due to its lack of competition.

Twitter, Reddit, Snapshat, Marco Polo...lots of competition in the social media space.

Is there a successful FB clone, a la Google+? No there is not. That does not mean FB somehow owns social media.

[banads]

>Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested

Not at FBs scale

[unearthed]

> Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary.

Here's the thought experiment validating what Im claiming about driving out dissenting views:

Where do the ideas that are pushed out of facebook go?

Do you think they just go away? Absolutely not.

The problems is zuck is culturally beholden to his droves of socially 'woke' employees. Nor does Zuck strike anyone asa persona strong enough to do anything other than 'tow the line' of that narrative.

Socially, hes a lap-dog.

Which is why this 'Supreme Court' is being established. Homeboy cant shoulder the weight (in the court of public-opinion) of the moral judgements being made, so hes throwing $130 million so someone else's name sits at the top of that list.

IMO the only thing this is doing is creating monsters + pushing the work of social integration down the line. Its a bad short-term strategy.

Atop the list of problems here is that facebook loses oversight/engagement w the most dangerous of outside thought-leaders. Inadvertently, putting themselves in the dark.

[sdenton4]

Many, many people believe that the hands-off approach has, in the fullness of the history that brings us here today, demonstrably failed.

The argument is that we have more violent extremists, not less, and they've been quite successful in using large public platforms to recruit and radicalize new members. The "organic zeitgeist" has had plenty of time to do its thing, and it really hasn't.

You're offering a straw man argument, by way of false dichotomy: kafkaesque hellscape vs total freedom happyland. It's not helpful to the conversation, imo, and doesn't actually engage with the issues at hand. It's polemics, not a solution.

[unearthed]

1) Chill w the superflous language. Nobody is impressed with how much debt you've saddled over your phd.

2) You cite nothing substantiating these claims.

Leave it to a woke phd to misrepresent a claim to win an argument.

> total freedom happyland

No you dumb fuck.

Im saying that the process of people sorting out a collective, integrated social morality is going to be complex.

Where the fuck did I say it was going to be easy?

> kafkaesque

Yes, its a big deal. How long do you think the british people are going to put up with their daughters being raped and people being stabbed? Do you think that "acceptance" for Khans woke bullshit will continue into perpetuity? Do you think there's some really mean fucking people who are basting in anger + isolation because they've been pushing out of pleasant society?

Does such a thought seem plausible at all? What do you think happens before a coup of any kind? Someone capable sits it isolation + gets really fucking pissed off.

This is the problem with having discussions with arm-chain intellectuals in a space where they can behave with impunity.

You're happy to attempt to win an argument by misrepresenting my claims. The intelligencia of the bay area is absolutely reprehensible -- and I know, I live here with this bullshit.

Fuck, would I love to have these discussions face to face.

> kafkaesque

Lets sit down and get a coffee and chat over this shit and well see which of us is more capably evil.

[dang]

Obviously you can't post like this to HN. We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html