Yet another Hacker News

The No Kings Takedown Is Why You Shouldn't Rent Your Megaphone from Zuck

185 points robtherobber 1 hour ago 110 comments

NewJazz 1 hour ago | parent

Unfortunately the truth is, way too.many people use Facebook and Instagram way too much, and oftentimes you need to cast a wide net so you can reach people where they are.

fallinghawks 29 minutes ago | parent

It's a combination of ignorance and indifference. One of my social groups is around a sport, no necessity for knowledge around technology, and they will never ever leave Facebook. Those roots got laid down 15+ years ago and I would guess about 40% use FB as their sole social media, and another 50% use 1-2 other sites e.g. Instagram or Tiktok, types that are well known. The rest are aware of the existence of other sites and can explore more widely.

jmclnx 1 hour ago | parent

>And then actually use them

That is the main issue. I am on mastodon but following someone on another instance of mastodon is not easy for "regular people". Until that is solved people will stick to items like twitter and meta.

AFAIK, most people on Bluesky are on the "main" instance, so that tends to end up being a centralized community which can suffer from the same issues.

metabagel 1 hour ago | parent

Mastodon has a serious discovery problem. IIRC, searches are only within your own instance, except for hashtag searches. This appears to have been an intentional design decision to prevent brigading / pile-ons.

For me, I found it too difficult to locate "my peeps" on other instances, so I switched to Bluesky.

empyrrhicist 1 hour ago | parent

I like it for my use case. It's more like the community around forum instances in the old days. The internet is too big.

metabagel 55 minutes ago | parent

I found it to be an absolute chore to find people that I had been following on Twitter.

JoeOfTexas 1 hour ago | parent

Bluesky isn't allowed in Texas without verifying your age with Kids Web Services (KWS). X doesn't have that requirement.

metabagel 1 hour ago | parent

I don't use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok. I feel like people at least need to go on strike once in a while. Stop using those shitty services for a few days or a week so the landlords will make them slightly less shitty.

hackyhacky 50 minutes ago | parent

For many people, those shitty services are the only way they stay in touch with friends and family.

dockd 45 minutes ago | parent

People seem to forget about the phone function on their phones. Maybe this doesn't work across countries, but No Kings is only USA, right?

metabagel 44 minutes ago | parent

I miss out on all the big and little announcements. Sometimes, a family member will forward information to me about a death or a graduation. I find out about these things when I find out about them, just like we used to before the internet.

I dropped Facebook when I realized that their app was snooping on who I called and who called me.

skeeter2020 39 minutes ago | parent

>> I find out about these things when I find out about them, just like we used to before the internet.

How does that work? People post on FB or IG, AND THEN phone you / write a letter? doubtful...

metabagel 31 minutes ago | parent

I usually find out much later, and possibly never. This is how things were before the internet. We didn't know everything going on in everyone's life.

In the case of major events, my brother usually lets me know, for example the death of an aunt. Everyone close to me knows I don't use FB, so if they want me to be aware of something in particular, they can text or call me.

balarjin 44 minutes ago | parent

In what sense are they shitty? They are actually usable by normal people. This is a big reason they are popular.

I don't like (most of) the content on those sites. This is not surprising. The content is aimed at people who can't use Signal. Such a person is different from me in many ways.

metabagel 26 minutes ago | parent

Facebook is cluttered with ads and distracting posts (not from your friends and family). If you use it often enough, you probably stop seeing how terrible it is. Try looking at it with fresh eyes sometime.

Twitter boosts Elon Musk and the things he is interested in.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/15/elon-musk...

I don't have specific complaints about Instagram or TikTok, other than the algorithm is controlled by oligarchs.

option 1 hour ago | parent

also, of course, no one should use or let their loved ones use meta’s Muse.

even OAI and Ant are better options

sublinear 1 hour ago | parent

Oof 500...

Kind of hurts/helps the point, but yeah generally, you should run your own website? Is this the return of the old web?

metabagel 49 minutes ago | parent

They run their own website, but they need to reach people where they are, which is on Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, and Elon Musk's Feed.

https://www.nokings.org

10111001 1 hour ago | parent

> But there is a better solution: build tools that are open, decentralized, and user controlled. And then actually use them instead of just giving more power to Mark Zuckerberg to shut down a protest organization’s account in the middle of one of its big protests.

The problem with that is people are "lazy": they're typically not going to expend extra effort that's not needed to solve the problem in front of them. It's pervasive, and it's one of the big reasons "friction" reducing technology can be really problematic: it turns necessary behaviors into issues of self-discipline (e.g. exercise becomes forcing yourself to haul yourself to the gym regularly in your spare time, instead just walking everywhere because you have to in order to go about your day).

So, IMHO, if you want people to use "open, decentralized, and user controlled" tools in 2026, you have to ban the centralized alternatives. Otherwise you're yelling at clouds, as most people will default to the lowest friction alternative they have access to.

metabagel 52 minutes ago | parent

I tried to get a family member to use Signal, and she eventually gave up on it, because she couldn't handle switching back and forth between Messages and Signal. It's very difficult to get people to migrate to better platforms when they have that mindset.

james_marks 40 minutes ago | parent

You're asking the family member to make their life worse in the immediate term.

If you want people to adopt your thing, it's got to make their life easier, right now, full stop.

ninalanyon 40 minutes ago | parent

That's why we need to separate the protocol from the UI. There is absolutely no good reason why the different platforms should disallow communication with each other.

I used to use a multiprotocol client, Pidgin, to chat with people on a couple of different platforms. But of course now a lot of chat is on things like Facebook and Google Chat which are supported only by plugins. But even that is still not enough because I will have to have an account on each of the platforms.

Chat really needs to be like email or SMS; you ought not to need an account with the provider of the person you are sending messages to.

mooreds 30 minutes ago | parent

Jabber would like a word: https://jabber.org/

But seriously, there's zero incentive for the folks building these clients to make them interoperable. In fact there may even be disincentive, since the more folks they have on their platform, the more valuable the platform is.

MisterTea 30 minutes ago | parent

I don't understand why having more than one chat app is too much for some people. I use signal, whatsapp, discord, irc, google chat, email and messenger without complaint. I can't force people to use my platform of choice so I have to compromise and use what they do with little to no notice on my end. Sure, I am not happy with this situation but I accept it and move on while keeping an eye out for alternatives.

balarjin 48 minutes ago | parent

Apparently, activists need something that is "open, decentralized, and user controlled". Those activists choose to use facebook. That tells me they are at least one of two things:

1. Too stupid to make a plan that could possibly work

2. Too lazy to execute on a plan that could possibly work

Knowing this is a useful signal. It tells me their judgment is terrible, and I should not listen to them ;)

whoiskevin 45 minutes ago | parent

ah yes. Because they don't know technology their movement has no useful information for you and you already know better than all of them.

Amazing.

estearum 42 minutes ago | parent

Above all, activists need something that other people are on.

TFA (and you) are just discounting the power of network effects. Tells me that your judgment is poor and I should not listen to you ;)

verdverm 32 minutes ago | parent

I would consider myself an activist, but not the Blue MAGA variety. Too much of the issue is people still think they can change minds online. In reality you are just chanting to the base, a negative feedback cycle for bad ideas that do not resonate with those outside your group.

Instead, go to where people all are, real life in the real world. I go out and talk to people all the time. I listen to them before telling them. I'm more interested in getting people talking than I am in changing their minds (right now) and providing them with ideas they are unlikely to hear online. I see my "sapphire gals" (retired nokingers) becoming less extreme, not repeating the shallow talking points. I hear them asking new questions.

Talking and working with others in person is 100x better.

estearum 25 minutes ago | parent

Sure, I agree with all that. I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive with the need to be able to organize large gatherings of loosely connected people.

john_strinlai 41 minutes ago | parent

3. they are non-technical people who go where an audience already is

verdverm 30 minutes ago | parent

The problem here is the audience is largely their own group and the opposite extreme looking for fodder or to troll. It's the same for both extremes.

skeeter2020 41 minutes ago | parent

This is overly harsh; it starts with the (flawed IMO) perspective that people are dedicated "professional" activists rather than amateurs from many different backgrounds who come together around something they care about and grow/evolve/deppen over time. It makes complete sense that they use tools in front of them AND don't necessarily get -what are quite subtle angles to most - all the issues with their use. It doesn't make them lazy or stupid, but if you have the skills & talents to help with this yet do nothing you might be projecting...

10111001 39 minutes ago | parent

> Apparently, activists need something that is "open, decentralized, and user controlled". Those activists choose to use facebook. That tells me they are at least one of two things:

> 1. Too stupid to make a plan that could possibly work

> 2. Too lazy to execute on a plan that could possibly work

Your comment is a pretty good example of what not to do: society/technology makes good choices harder, so flog individuals about their lack of self-discipline when they don't do yet-another hard thing. People only have so much time and self-discipline, have some empathy.

The only thing the flogging does is give the flogger the chance to feel unjustifiably superior.

> Knowing this is a useful signal. It tells me their judgment is terrible, and I should not listen to them ;)

What you're doing is a generalized method to dismiss anything and anyone:

1. Find a thing.

2. Search for some aspect that isn't perfect. Viciously criticize that aspect.

3. Dismiss the whole thing on account of that aspect.

The only thing that using Instagram tells me about these activists is that they weren't setting out to solve some ideological communication technology problem. They had other priorities.

metabagel 37 minutes ago | parent

They need to reach people where they are, so basically all the platforms where people hang out. It's not the activists who are lazy - it's people in general, who continue to use FB even though it is cluttered with ads and other distractions.

AcerbicZero 36 minutes ago | parent

It really doesn't matter how you get to the most important take away, as long as you get there :)

snickerbockers 28 minutes ago | parent

It's because the corporations were all banding together to censor their opponents a few years ago, so they got used to the idea that large corporations are your friends. The left took an opportunistic stance on this instead of a principled one, despite the fact that they're the side that on paper is supposedly opposed to letting corporations turn into pseudo-governments.

2OEH8eoCRo0 47 minutes ago | parent

Repeal section 230. If they want to shape speech for their own agenda then they should be liable.

Right now they have it both ways. They have the users, money, and data and they speak through their moderation decisions while being legally immune from consequences.

verdverm 40 minutes ago | parent

We need something different than "repeal 230" because this is largely believed to be something that will chill speech. Platforms will take down speech out of an abundance of caution.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but we can place two constraints

1. Anyone can say anything online, free speech for individuals

2. Algorithms that act as "editors" are not free speech and should be regulated.

Perhaps the answer is to say that social media algorithms can only be chronological and M0% from your direct network.

Reposts and quotes seem to be one of the core features that enable virality and dog piling. We need to "slow the spread" - to borrow a phase from one of our least favorite times.

Another thing we need is a privacy preserving method for proving humanism online.

2OEH8eoCRo0 27 minutes ago | parent

I disagree that it would chill speech (we also thought Section 230 as-is would work) but I also like your suggestions as a compromise.

Maybe the algos outside of what you mention should not get 230 immunity?

richwater 27 minutes ago | parent

You Facebook et al. to be _more_ aggressive in their content takedowns (out of concern for liability)?

You do realize that will accomplish the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve right?

toss1 26 minutes ago | parent

And they literally exercise more editorial control and reach than any magazine or newspaper editorial board ever did.

Section 230 was a Trojan Horse.

If they want to be treated like an innocent carrier (i.e., telco), they must kill their algorithms.

No news media company writes or says the reports of the journalists they publish or broadcast, but they are nevertheless responsible for that content.

If social media wants to control the algorithmic feed for profit, they must be like any media, "fully responsible for their content", and must be held accountable for it.

betterunix2 36 minutes ago | parent

The problem is not that people are lazy; the problem with open systems is that they are much harder to moderate and people want effective moderation. Usenet was open, decentralized, and wound up dying because there were too many problems with moderation and white supremacists etc. would show up and flood NGs with their nonsense.

There are also legal issues that kill decentralized/user-controlled systems. Copyright and child abuse are the most prominent, along with terrorism and drug trafficking. Who gets sued or prosecuted when the system is open, decentralized, and user-controlled? The users, and that's why peer-to-peer filesharing died, why so few people are willing to host a Tor exit node, etc. Before talking about banning centralized systems we need to talk about updating the legal system so that it does not force centralization, which is a much bigger project and much harder to get right.

thesuitonym 25 minutes ago | parent

The moderation problem wouldn't have been hard to solve on USENET, it's just that nobody wanted to do it. It could work exactly like moderation does on Mastodon, where each admin is responsible for the content on their server(s). There isn't a technical reason why you couldn't do that, and even give individuals moderation rights on specific lists. Of course, this only affects your particular news server, but it lets the white supremacist post their insane ramblings over on Giganews, while you and I read less toxic version of the thread over on Cozy News. If you don't like the moderation on your server, go find another one.

> that's why peer-to-peer filesharing died

p2p file sharing is still huge, though. Most people just put their seedboxes behind a VPN to avoid getting DMCA notices.

010ED67913 1 hour ago | parent

can't even take this shit seriously anymore. for years when the left controlled twitter they ruled with an iron fist. twitter, meta (then FB), instagram, youtube, would somehow "completely randomly" come to the same conclusions to deplatform people all at once. even now, britain arrests people for wrong think social media posts. people like james damore lost his job for saying the most innocuous milk toast shit you could imagine. and everyone was fine with it, so long as they were the ones calling the shots.

all the bullshitting about complaining about centralization, third party this and that, freedom of speech, can't take that shit seriously. somehow they uniquely find only violations of these from people in the "other" side of the aisle. it's just so exhausting and obviously bad faith engagement. and the right isn't really any better, they do the same thing, just flipped. i think it's about time we mostly just admit: libertarians are fools (that used to be me LOL), and nobody in western culture genuinely cares about "free speech". everything they support is free speech, everything they dislike is "hate speech" (notice how the narrative changed). it's all so obvious to anyone who zooms out and looks at the larger trends. just get over it and embrace authoritarianism. just be honest about who you are.

slibhb 57 minutes ago | parent

A strong culture of free speech is the clear solution to the problem you're describing. I.e. when both political factions censor, the only solution is a strong preference for free speech regardless of who is in power.

010ED67913 35 minutes ago | parent

that's like saying the solution is for everything to just be perfect. well of course. the problem is, that's not a realistic solution. the whole "No kings" movement in itself is an example of this. trump isn't a king nor is he trying to be, and most of the shit he does is rather milk toast. yet where were the "no kings" protestors when we were discussing forced vaccines? oh that's right, most supported it. where were the "my body my choice" people when we were discussing forced vaccines or else you can't work and feed your family? or yeah as it turns out in that case, it's not really your choice (in any realistic sense).

if the No Kings people truly want to be taken seriously, the best thing they can do is just admit they are wrong about their whole schtick. unfortunately the chances of that happening are exactly zero % since pride stands in the way.

watch and observe. literally nobody believes in free speech. people believe in policies and agendas, and "freedom" is just a tool used to push it. the right wing does this, especially in economics, all the time, where they want the rich to be "free" to fuck the poor. take a step back, observe the trends, and be honest with yourself, and it will be quite obvious that freedom itself is just a tool used in politics, nobody actually believes in it as an end to aspire to. this isn't 1980 anymore. milton friedman is long gone.

slibhb 25 minutes ago | parent

I believe in free speech. It doesn't take "perfection," actually the opposite.

squeegmeister 55 minutes ago | parent

Found the bot

marknutter 47 minutes ago | parent

Calling people "bots" was also a favored tactic of the left. Seems it's still in fashion.

010ED67913 31 minutes ago | parent

sounds like i hit a nerve.

delichon 53 minutes ago | parent

It's a good sign when people have to resort to protesting a one hour suspension of one social media account to get worked up about corporate tyranny.

hackyhacky 51 minutes ago | parent

No, there are lots of other reasons to be upset about corporate tyranny.

fullshark 53 minutes ago | parent

That's why I organized my protest on mastodon. No one showed up but my subscribers told me how awesome it was that I organized it.

verdverm 24 minutes ago | parent

I didn't even know about it until I heard it on HN a day later. I went to a NoKings in the flesh instead of cosplaying from social media.

jesuswasjew 53 minutes ago | parent

no kings is the biggest limited hangout session, bigger than blm.

darkstar999 44 minutes ago | parent

~7 million attendees in October 2025.

krapp 42 minutes ago | parent

And what have they accomplished?

nness 37 minutes ago | parent

I guess we'll find out after Tuesday, November 3.

estearum 36 minutes ago | parent

Reassured each other and millions of non-participants that they’re not alone in thinking shit has gone off the rails.

There’s a reason autocrats hate protests. It’s because they’d much rather that opposition become doubtful of whether other opposition exist out there.

010ED67913 27 minutes ago | parent

eh, shit's always off the rails for leftists. it's a huge grift that they have to keep going. that's why places like france, which have implemented many, many of the changes that leftists in America want, still protest non stop. protesting is the grift. you can have government spending at like 50% of GDP (france was 57% recently) funding an endless welfare state with free education, worker protections, unfettered illegal immigration, every leftist wet dream you can realistically think of, and they still protest.

the grift works though, in part because the changes they protest for usually take a toll on the system over time, until the system soft or hard collapses. then you get social unrest. that's exactly you're seeing in france now. i dont even feel bad for france.

skeeter2020 35 minutes ago | parent

to paraphrase, well you're talking about it, aren't you?

slibhb 47 minutes ago | parent

This is a real problem but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Zuckerberg or Meta in particular. The article admits it's unlikely that this hour-long ban was a top-down decision. People get banned with no recourse on all the big platforms.

But yes, a solution is for people to host their own content/sites. Or "protocols not platforms"

pixl97 38 minutes ago | parent

>a solution is for people to host their own content/sites.

In a perfect world yes. In the reality we live in no.

Why is this the case?

1. Any site that is politically active and capable of upsetting people WILL BE ATTACKED. Can you afford a terabyte of data a second coming your way? Probably not. So you put it behind CF, but now you're vulnerable to their policies closing you down.

2. Any site that is politically active and capable of upsetting people WILL BE ATTACKED. What are you going to do against floods of child porn or death threats posted by users pretending to be on your side, but actually working for the opposition?

3. Any site that is politically active and capable of upsetting people WILL BE ATTACKED. You are now in charge of your website security. Are you any good at it? How are you going to pay for it to be secured? How do you trust the people doing the security?

4. Any site that is politically active and capable of upsetting people WILL BE ATTACKED. How do you plan on getting people to come to your site? If it's upsetting enough to the powers that be any messages containing links to your site will disappear from Meta/X/Google. You are going to have to find neat an interesting, and probably expensive ways to get your message out.

We have consolidated the internet down to a point where it is very very easy for a few small groups to control the general discussion, especially across large diverse groups of people.

slibhb 26 minutes ago | parent

"CF might shut me down" applies to some groups but not most and certainly not to No Kings

ChrisArchitect 46 minutes ago | parent

Meta Takes Down No Kings Instagram During Protest Day

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50136881

martythemaniak 45 minutes ago | parent

The media is mostly MAGA owned. Here's a short list:

- TikTok is controlled by Larry Ellison

- CBS news is controlled by Ellison's son

- The Ellisons will soon own CNN as well

- Twitter is controlled by Musk

- Facebook, Instagram and Threads are under Zuck

- WaPo and Amazon Prime by Bezos

- Old time favourites like Fox and WSJ owned by Murdoch

The owners of this media are also very explicitly involved in pro-Trump editorial content. In short, the playing field is wildly lopsided and unreliable and no tech (decentralized social media, lol) solution will work. Ultimately people will have to elect politicians to explicitly break up and clamp down on this hive of scum and villainy, but people aren't there yet, mentally. Such a solution seems wildly inappropriate today, but my guess is that another 10 years of the last two years will change a lot of minds.

skeeter2020 36 minutes ago | parent

These individuals are all sucking up to the president, but to call them "MAGA owned" is a stretch. They'll kiss whichever ass - democrat or republican - next fills the president's chair, it's just with this emperor-magpie it's very straightforward and easy: shiny & bright == good.

vlyan 43 minutes ago | parent

I can't help but recall the joyous cheers during the deplatforming era. "Freedom of speech doesn't apply to companies" is a particularly vivid memory.

estearum 39 minutes ago | parent

I haven’t seen anyone complaining about “freedom of speech.” This is a complaint about corporate power.

lmz 33 minutes ago | parent

Yes, and they cheered when the power was aligned with them to deplatform the opposition.

AshleyGrant 27 minutes ago | parent

No. "They" cheered when it was used to deplatform hate speech.

Deplatforming people organizing a peaceful protest is very different. If you cannot understand how that is different, then I worry about your critical thinking skills.

estearum 27 minutes ago | parent

Do you have some specific examples that you find equivalently egregious to disrupting an organized protest?

pokstad 26 minutes ago | parent

Then organize the old fashion way people did before social media was a thing. Otherwise, accept the convenience of social media has strings attached.

AshleyGrant 29 minutes ago | parent

Conflating deplatforming hate speech and deplatforming people organizing a peaceful protest is certainly a choice.

NotPractical 28 minutes ago | parent

For example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18764523

pfdietz 34 minutes ago | parent

It makes me feel good about not using his services.

snickerbockers 33 minutes ago | parent

>Unfortunately, most of the “solutions” to this problem that people are suggesting are some form of “force Mark Zuckerberg to be better and not shut off the account we like.” But that’s no way to build a better world. It is, also, the exact same response that MAGA folks had when Donald Trump was banned from social media in the wake of the January 6th insurrection. Their response was to try to force platforms to host the content of people MAGA supported. That cannot be a workable solution, because as political fortunes shift, forcing platforms to host the worst people’s accounts is unworkable for basically everyone.

The bit about "the worst people's accounts" just sounds like a refutation of everything else in the article. The problem was always that it was up to interpretation who "the worst people" are.

IDK why so many people want to die on this hill of not forcing social media companies to extend free-speech rights to their userbase. Facebook didn't accidentally wind up in this position where their TOS can effectively censor entire political movements on the Zuck's whim. They spent decades purposefully angling for this by acquiring competitors and encouraging people to use their platform for any and all communication. They own the audience.

>But there is a better solution: build tools that are open, decentralized, and user controlled. And then actually use them instead of just giving more power to Mark Zuckerberg to shut down a protest organization’s account in the middle of one of its big protests.

Not happening LOL. The decentralized platforms have been there for 10-20 years, hardly anybody uses them.

Back when the shoe was on the other foot, the right tried to make *several* alternative platforms and there was widespread collusion amongst all levels of infrastructure providers to push them off the internet. The same will happen to any platform which seeks to effect political change and attains enough critical mass that it could plausibly do so.

miohtama 32 minutes ago | parent

Left wing politicians wanted Internet moderation.

We got Internet moderation.

Watch out what you wish for.

verdverm 27 minutes ago | parent

> Left wing politicians

It's the Right wing politicians too. Look at Texas and pornography laws or the IRL book bans. We live in a politics of Win At All Costs, Dominate Those Who Think Differently, i.e utterly broken and anti-democratic.

The problem is the Oligarchy, the are thick from money, power, and hubris

krapp 26 minutes ago | parent

The internet has always had moderation, WTH are you talking about?

It was the right who wanted to repeal Section 230 and have the government take over all social media platforms and regulate them, and make it illegal to ban their speech. The left never wanted anything of the sort.

tashian 29 minutes ago | parent

If Facebook is really a "utility" then it should not arbitrarily pull the plug on accounts with no recourse. Other utilities have due process for cutting off access: written notice with a clear reason, a chance to dispute, etc. That's because utilities are regulated.

What Facebook has is an opaque process run by AI with no way for most people to appeal.

zer0zzz 28 minutes ago | parent

When people want moderation they cry at Zuck, when people get moderated they cry at Zuck. When people are given free and open systems they cry that it’s icky and weird.

xhkkffbf 27 minutes ago | parent

How many people complaining about this were cheering when FB deplatformed Donald Trump?