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

Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 410 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#171

Post by tobylane »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #121
paulgb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? I can't speak for everyone, but I just want the company not to carve out exceptions for their rules against violent speech depending on who said it. If you believe that Facebook doesn't have the right to remove any violent speech regardless of who says it, obviously that's another story. I think online…

The problem I see is that "violent" speech is a subjective perception. I could claim that your post was "violent", and that I was harmed by it. Sticks and stones.

Section 230 permits the platform to decide for themselves what is violent, according to https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-p...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#172

Post by rswail »

austincheney wrote: post #45
blueterminal wrote: post #24

People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized applications more than ever. Thoughts of people should not be censored. Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? This is just ridiculous. I don't like Facebook but great decision by Mark. Same as they decided to not re…

Or have congress roll back Section 230. If online publishers were held to the same libel standards as print publishers this problem would be instantly fixed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...

So who do you hold responsible for the publishing of your comment? YC? @dang? Yourself?

If it's one of the first two, your comment will be queued and reviewed by one of the many editors that YC will pay for to review each individual comment to ensure it does not incur liability on their part for publication.

/s

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#173

Post by city41 »

mjayhn wrote: post #7

People on twitter at other $bigtech seem more than happy to bring you all on board but you've been sucking that $270k+ top-end-even-for-FAANG salary with no concern for the ethics or morality of your business for years. This isn't new. I'm less than excited to see Facebook show up on a resume and haven't been for years. Not to mention the people I've interviewed from there seem to get so accustomed to working on Face…

Do you believe you don't need to compromise morals to work at Google? They're not the most wholesome of companies. You pretty much need to compromise some morals to work just about anywhere. Just Facebook stands out as being more than most places in this regard.

Your rant is unhelpful and applies broad stereotypes and assumptions to a lot of people. You also strongly imply you've never worked at a SV company, so you don't even have first hand experience here.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#174

Post by espadrine »

commandlinefan wrote: post #119
phone8675309 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can'…

> That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it But in the context of this post, you (and the Facebook employees) are actually arguing exactly the same thing: that Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park.

> Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park

That is a strawman.

They are advocating that Six Flags should ban people who draw swastikas on the carts, even when those people are in office, or seek election.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#175

Post by freeone3000 »

xyst wrote: post #163
mjayhn wrote: post #7

People on twitter at other $bigtech seem more than happy to bring you all on board but you've been sucking that $270k+ top-end-even-for-FAANG salary with no concern for the ethics or morality of your business for years. This isn't new. I'm less than excited to see Facebook show up on a resume and haven't been for years. Not to mention the people I've interviewed from there seem to get so accustomed to working on Face…

Has the world lost its collective mind? Imagine discriminating based upon the employees work history. Who the fuck are you, mate? This is like throwing away a resume because the developer worked for a Pornhub subsidiary. “Oh this person worked in the adult industry, he probably wanked off all day. Hard pass. No interview or screening by actual technical people.” Take a hard look in the mirror, you might see yourself…

The idea that this doesn't happen is a bit laughable. Of course the choices you make of employer matter. They've always mattered, and they will continue to matter, because they represent exactly what your values are worth to you.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#176

Post by rswail »

petee wrote: post #64
blueterminal wrote: post #24

People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized applications more than ever. Thoughts of people should not be censored. Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? This is just ridiculous. I don't like Facebook but great decision by Mark. Same as they decided to not re…

Calls to violence? Yes they should. Freedom isn't limitless, it demands responsibility. The same way you can't yell fire in a movie theater. Inciting people to violence and threatening that same free speech of others, particularly from someone with the biggest soap box in the world, is unacceptable in our country. I thought we decided that years ago

The issue is not whether people are allowed to incite violence with their words. It's where FB or other online forums are responsible.

To use your example, is it the movie theater's responsibility to ensure that you don't yell fire in their theater?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#177

Post by marcosdumay »

slantyyz wrote: post #55
whymauri wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5. (Optional) Establish some Oversight Council or Committee, to be disenfranchised, dissolved, or declawed at the company's earliest convenience.

If my memory of BASIC from the 80s is still accurate, Line 5 will never get executed, because of the GOTO 1 in line 4, so not even optional.

Yeah, the OP should have numbered them 10, 20, 30, and 40, so the GP could insert a needed line in between...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#178

Post by elygre »

leesec wrote: post #143
nikivi wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is that they do censor content so words have no meaning.

They censor content that would lead to immediate harm. How would you prove a Trump post can lead to immediate harm? Is CNN immoral for reporting what he says? Is my Dad immoral for telling me what he says, becuz it might lead to harm? Don't shoot the messenger.

Immediate harm. Like this iconic picture. Or breastfeeding.

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/norway-rig...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#180

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

nikivi wrote: post #135
leesec wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol at Fbook's "attacks on democracy". You're the one that needs to prove your insane conspiracy theories bud. All Zuck said is that he doesn't think they should be the arbiter of truth, which is SMART, because otherwise they have to start censoring content for hundreds of millions of people, which they are bound to get wrong. Watch some of Alex Stamos talks if you think this such an easy problem to solve. Remind me…

The truth is that they do censor content so words have no meaning.

Agreed. I think the larger issue is the hypocrisy.

I think it’s totally possible Facebook can have been censoring things that don’t break their TOS for years, individuality at FB can be punished in favor of groupthink so attacking them for company actions isn’t right, I also don’t need to like FB in any way. The world is grey.

Post reply on HN