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

221–230 of 410 posts

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

#221

Post by jaywalk »

darkarmani wrote: post #195
lgleason wrote: post #114

Zuck get's it. Start censoring, editorializing etc. and section 230 protections will be gutted. On top of that anti-trust investigations intensify, rightfully, because you have not concentrated too much power into an un-regulated, un-elected platform vs the elected government which is against the interest of the country as a whole. For all of the engineers complaining about this, there are plenty of other ones who wo…

> Start censoring, editorializing etc. and section 230 protections will be gutted. By whom? I've been on a lot of forums and listservs where trolls get banned (censored). I've yet to see section 230 get gutted because trolls have their commented deleted.

By Congress.

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

#222

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

GhostVII wrote: post #80
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'…

Facebook is not required to preserve free speech on their platform, I don't think there are many people who would argue that they are required to do so. That doesn't mean they shouldn't given how widespread Facebook is.

This is an understanding that goes a little too far into adulthood for some.

100% exactly. They aren’t under a requirement - but absolutely should. And the people that dislike Trump the most should be demanding for free speech for everyone regardless of how “wrong” they are because it’s the mechanism that protects the Democracy long term.

Instead, I see a lot of people that want to just make the bad man who said the mean things go away, and look to our SiliconValley Overlords to make that happen.

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

#223

Post by Fjolsvith »

tobylane wrote: post #171
Fjolsvith wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Exactly. So Twitter says its violent and Facebook doesn't.

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

#224

Post by CSSer »

espadrine wrote: post #174
commandlinefan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To add another dimension, people who draw swastikas and claim it’s not bad because “we didn’t mean it _that_ way”.

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

#225

Post by vharuck »

lgleason wrote: post #114

Zuck get's it. Start censoring, editorializing etc. and section 230 protections will be gutted. On top of that anti-trust investigations intensify, rightfully, because you have not concentrated too much power into an un-regulated, un-elected platform vs the elected government which is against the interest of the country as a whole. For all of the engineers complaining about this, there are plenty of other ones who wo…

>Start censoring, editorializing etc. and section 230 protections will be gutted.

If you mean they'll stop applying to Facebook, I don't think that's true.

If you mean 230 will be repealed, then the pessimist in me is willing to believe it. But the realist in me knows the consequences will quickly lead to a new law much like 230.

>On top of that anti-trust investigations intensify, rightfully, because you have not concentrated too much power into an un-regulated, un-elected platform vs the elected government which is against the interest of the country as a whole.

Facebook's either too big or it's not. The problem would be if it could unilaterally control public opinion. We shouldn't allow unregulated monopolies just because they happen to not anger us today.

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

#226

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

soylentcola wrote: post #115
beager wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rather like the comparison of social media platforms to amusement parks.

I usually compare them to pubs/night clubs: They're places where people hang out and socialize or network. Some have really strict bouncers whereas others will let just about anyone in as long as they're spending money and not shitting the place up too badly. There are some that are so big and so popular that it almost doesn't matter if you prefer hanging out in another less popular one because no matter how you try,…

Both are long term bad for your health but you love the small dopamine fix.

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

#227

Post by ilikehurdles »

jcadam wrote: post #61
jcadam wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who wants to work for a company where they're living in constant fear of being outed as a non-leftist and losing their job? I get the frequent recruiting emails from FB and (much less frequently) Google, but am really too afraid to pursue them.

And the downvoter(s) prove my point. Read between the lines: I'm saying that there are a lot of people selecting themselves out of the candidate pool for the large SV tech companies based on the perception of SV corporate culture being promulgated through the media and forums like this one, further reinforcing the group think in those organizations. That should make you happy.

What an obnoxious strawman you're holding up. If you're not sending political manifestors on the company's listserv you're probably fine. There are right-leaning people at every company. Even facebook. Especially facebook.

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

#228

Post by ceilingcorner »

rswail wrote: post #204
ceilingcorner wrote: post #88

Who knew the day would come when I’d agree with and defend Zuckerberg. It’s not Facebook’s job to tell me what I can or can’t think. I can evaluate the claims of Trump or any other politician myself, thank you very much.

Except it has been proven that people using FB and whatsapp have incited violence in India and other places and that often people can't or won't evaluate claims with a focus on facts and evidence.

Then work on stopping people in India from being violent? Treating human beings like mindless automatons is not the right way forward.

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

#229

Post by [deleted] »

pdimitar wrote: post #57

I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…

[deleted]

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

#230

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

caenorst wrote: post #136

Except that the "glorification of violence" depends on the interpretation. It can also be a warning that people will start to defend themselves with violence or that the military will intervene. If that's the case those warning are here to AVOID violence by discouraging people to engage in looting... Facebook shouldn't make such decision based on the interpretation of some emotionally biased employees.

I can imagine a consistent "promoting violence is bad" policy - I think we can all agree that the general standards of e.g. a corporate office wouldn't permit Trump's statement. But there's no universe where "when the looting starts the shooting starts" glorifies violence more than "riots are the voice of the unheard", and 100% of the people complaining to Zuckerberg would oppose banning that second message.
Post reply on HN