Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#121

Post by tomp »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #118
tomp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even labeling lewd sexualised comments ("locker talk") as "bragging about sexual assault" is bias. People have different ways of communicating that not everyone might agree with, but what you're doing is trivialising the victims of actual sexual assault.

I refer you to the department of justice's definition of sexual assault [0]. "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient." Grabbing by the genitals, yeah I think that covers it. Personal definitions of lewdness aside, you don't get to change the laws.

> without the explicit consent of the recipient

Which is what you assumed. Groupies exist for a reason - they want to get with the target of their admiration.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#122

Post by K0SM0S »

ThomPete wrote: post #89
talmand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This >> but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left." does not make this >> Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race incorrect. One side does not get a pass because it was the lesser problem.

But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about whether it effects election which is what the article claims he is in denial about. "Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief, believes that it is “a pretty crazy idea” that “fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of content, influenced the election in any way.” In holding fast to the claim that his company has little effect on how people make up their mind…

The fact is that Facebook is not a media company. In some countries (e.g. most of Europe) where this distinction makes tremendous differences (the media being much more regulated than other for-profit companies), they are pretty adamant about it. Understandably so, business-wise.

Regardless of whether their assumption is true or not, I wouldn't expect the CEO of said company to just come out and say "oh yeah, sure, we're influencers like any other media and we forward fake news too". It's just business sense imho.

As for what Mark truly believes, on a personal level, you'd have to be a close friend, not a journalist recording, to get privy to it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#123

Post by scott_s »

dariusm5 wrote: post #23

Considering that American's trust in mainstream media is an all time low [1], I'm sure there is a big demand for alternative news. I'm not surprised people are looking for content that fits their narrative and end up reading fake articles. As someone observing from Mexico, I noticed almost all of the mainstream US media became an echo chamber for pro-Clinton content. I only realized this after after seeing how Sander…

For a different take on Sanders being "sabotaged": http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-el...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#124

Post by rayvd »

pweissbrod wrote: post #107
dariusm5 wrote: post #23

Considering that American's trust in mainstream media is an all time low [1], I'm sure there is a big demand for alternative news. I'm not surprised people are looking for content that fits their narrative and end up reading fake articles. As someone observing from Mexico, I noticed almost all of the mainstream US media became an echo chamber for pro-Clinton content. I only realized this after after seeing how Sander…

What defines a 'mainstream' media outlet anyways? There were a handful of news outlets thoroughly reporting issues between DNC and Bernie Sanders such as Huffington Post and al-jazeera. I suppose these are not 'mainstream'? Perhaps mainstream media is defined by having a dedicated TV channel, or at least primetime TV show? Isnt it almost customary for such outlets to prioritize ratings over comprehensive coverage?

Both of those are left wing outlets.

I'd think "mainstream" would be the ones which still posit themselves as un-biased (CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, Wash Post, etc.).

I say the more the merrier. Let people decide.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#125

Post by chinese_donald »

What about all of the fake Trump news? My friends on Facebook still think Trump is a rapist (he never raped anyone), Racist (I'm still not sure where this one came from), and homophobic (he is not reversing gay marriage).

When his first speech came out about immigration, he said he wants to deport illegal immigrants (which is actually already law). The media turned it into just 'immigrants' and we now have entire groups of legal immigrants that are afraid Trump will deport them. Did nobody watch the speech or does the mainstream media have problems comprehending English?

There is anti-Trump violence growing in the US and people have been assaulted and harassed for even saying they supported him. The protests aren't 'peaceful', they are riots.

This is all ignored on the news, however. The only thing they can spew out is the story about the girl that got her Hijab pulled, which turned out to be fake. MSNBC still reports it as fact.

Will Facebook ban links to MSNBC for this fake story?

This is exactly why half the country voted Trump into office. Even now, you still can't figure out that it was your own fault and want to blame the rest of American for losing the election.

The other irony is complaining about bias and marginalizing and then painting an entire group of people (Trump supports) as 'racists' and 'islamaphobes'.

It really shows me that all of the people that claim we need more 'love' and 'peace' are just using it for political gain and power. When they don't get what they want, the fangs come out.

You want understanding and compassion when it comes to gay marriage and the transgender community, but give none of it in return.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#126

Post by tim333 »

wavefunction wrote: post #55
a_humean wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except to be fair to the Dems and the Clinton campaign, they did have proposals and white papers addressing exactly these communities. For example, a proposal to invest $30 billion into coal mining communities within the Appalachia regions with promises for infrastructure investment and private business investment, and retraining former and current miners into new skilled occupations. Of course all of this pales in c…

Hillary also was resistant to the $15 minimum wage which would make a _huge_ difference for a lot of folks in the countryside. Hillary of course wanted to treat them like second-class citizens with only a $12 minimum. Who's going to go read white-papers after that sort of offer?

Raising the costs of employing people isn't always the best way to get more employed.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#127

Post by lujim »

pweissbrod wrote: post #107
dariusm5 wrote: post #23

Considering that American's trust in mainstream media is an all time low [1], I'm sure there is a big demand for alternative news. I'm not surprised people are looking for content that fits their narrative and end up reading fake articles. As someone observing from Mexico, I noticed almost all of the mainstream US media became an echo chamber for pro-Clinton content. I only realized this after after seeing how Sander…

What defines a 'mainstream' media outlet anyways? There were a handful of news outlets thoroughly reporting issues between DNC and Bernie Sanders such as Huffington Post and al-jazeera. I suppose these are not 'mainstream'? Perhaps mainstream media is defined by having a dedicated TV channel, or at least primetime TV show? Isnt it almost customary for such outlets to prioritize ratings over comprehensive coverage?

Who knows the definition, but I can tell you who is included. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN.... Watching the anchors on these channels respond to Trumps performance on election night was jaw dropping. I was amazed that they weren't even going to try to pretend that they were impartially covering this election. I've always known the Fox and msnbc were a joke, but I have zero confidence in a single US based news outlet after this election.

BTW Huffington Post stands out as an exceptionally huge steaming pile of partisan garbage as well.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#128

Post by grzm »

gragas wrote: post #113
a_lihu wrote: post #83

And this is coming from NYT, a bullshit venue, whose boss said in a recent letter: "... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor ...". NYT should close the business, nobody trusts them anymore.

Yeah NYT is in denial, not Zuck. >We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. Funny, considering the newspaper just had a 96% drop in profits last quarter.

"considering the newspaper just had a 96% drop in profits last quarter."

Without knowing what the drop in profits is due to, I think it's. For example, is it because people are getting more of their news online and letting their paper subscriptions lapse? In my area home delivery is between $5–$10 per week, and that's at the 50% off introductory rate, compared to $3.75/week online only. Of course, that doesn't take into account printing and delivery costs.

Another reason could be that people no longer see value above and beyond what's available elsewhere that they can get for free online. That's different from no longer trusting the paper.

Looking up the reporting on the NYT profit decline, they note

- decline in print ad sales, increase in digital ad sales (which is expected given the print -> digital migration)

- significant investment in digital publishing

- net profit losses mainly due to restructuring charges related to reducing workforce

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-idUSK...

Of course, that's not to say trust in the paper isn't going to affect profits. I think it's fair to look at the entire picture.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#129

Post by losteverything »

Melk wrote: post #102
losteverything wrote: post #92

We are so so so much better now that newspapers matter less and that the network news is not the main game in town. How does more sources make democracy worse even if it's "buyer beware?" it's arrogant to think truth is always hidden. We had a choice of candidates that was leftovers or diner food for Thanksgiving. That was the problem Do you really think the NYT will say good things in an op-ed about it's nimble youn…

No matter what your opinion is of mainstream media, replacing it with disinformation, half-truths, and fabrications is not an improvement.

I struggle with this.

A rising tide raises all passengers (sic)

So more people get more news than mainstreamville. That is better than the way it was. Imo

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#130

Post by jimbokun »

VLM wrote: post #5

The Times is in denial that anyone considers it anything other than a mixture of Democratic party propaganda and clickbait legacy media. The stats are not looking good for them and dying industries always lash out reflexively and ineffectively at random opponents.

You speak as if this is only a problem for the New York Times.

How can a democracy function without an informed populace? If not the New York Times or some other existing "news" entity, what entity can possibly provide reliable information going forward?

Also, this isn't just about bias. Reporting with a bias can still be useful for informing people, as long as the information presented is accurate. Over time, outlets with varying bias can cover various sides of an issue, or various scandals, etc. from different perspectives, and as long as the information is accurate, over time most of the relevant facts should become known.

Not sure leaving it to the Macedonian teenagers will work out as well.

Post reply on HN