Re: Why we really can't use Facebook for technical discussion.

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:01 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 06/06/2021 05:17, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> It is time to stop this. Dean points out one of the major problems with
> Facebook - there is only one authority. Only King Zuck gets to decide who
> can and who cannot speak. His house, his rules. So it is time to make it
> our house.
>
>
> As you know, it's all about algorithms that filter content and with the
> pressure from some groups to have tighter and tighter algorithms, this is
> nothing new. I remember many years ago, even the ISOC mailing list mailers
> having problems with the British town Sc*nthorpe.
>
> Get ready for a world full of false positives where you are guilty until
> proven innocent.
>

Quite, and the trolls always have the advantage. They create accounts with
legends by the hundred. Use ten of them to attack a target, lose all of
them but the target is also taken out. The 30 day ban means that this is a
big win for the troll.

There is no cost to creating troll accounts because there is no negative
feedback. A brand new account has the same prominence as an established one.

More importantly if ones's fascist uncle is posting bigotted crap and sees
only thumbs up, they are encouraged to do more of it. Their epistemic
bubble is reinforced. If they see thumbs down from ten of their close
relatives, then maybe they realize that they are not the voice of the
silent majority.

Maybe it would be easier for people to understand the fact that Biden
received 8 million votes more than pants-on-backwards if they had been
receiving that negative feedback. Maybe the QAnon LARP wouldn't be as much
fun if the response to posting nonsense theories outside
8chan/16chan/64chan was 50 thumbs down and five thumbs up rather than just
one thumbs up.

Of course, not puncturing said racist uncle's bubble is more profitable
because it discourages further venting.