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

271–280 of 410 posts

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

#271

Post by conradfr »

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #51
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'…

so are the utilities- Yet we still found a way to regulate them (in our capitalist dystopia)

Google suspending an account = HN outrage

Facebook / Twitter deleting posts = they are private companies, it's fine.

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

#272

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

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.

That is against laws and their terms of service.

No one, not even Zuck is saying there should be zero moderation of illegal things.

It’s the line of where “harmful” is. Some people would seriously argue every message from Trump is “harmful”, some that just want to game the system, some that really believe it, some that just don’t understand what power they are asking Facebook to take.

The other day he had 800k likes from a tweet that just said “CHINA!”... I bet more people reported that as violence/harmful than seems reasonable.

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

#273

Post by petee »

rswail wrote: post #176
petee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If they're handing you the microphone, absolutely!!

Trump isn't a normal person, his words have power. Providing him with a platform to spew whatever he wants is completely irresponsible

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

#274

Post by petee »

PunchTornado wrote: post #259
petee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't see how Trump's tweet was a call for violence. it wasn't a call to kill people, it could be interpreted as a way to warn citizens.

Of injury or death, yes. What do you think normally happens when you shoot people?

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

#275

Post by petee »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #234
petee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did that to themselves by creating monopolies, and leveraging their power over basic services to make money and fleece customers. Regulation exists for a reason

Google using their massive resource tried to make a better platform than Facebook. They failed spectacularly. Are you suggesting Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp doesn’t have a monopoly on what each is?

They do not provide a necessary public service; it's not drinking water or heat, you would be perfectly fine existing without Facebook. It's their private platform, they should do what's morally right by them, which is apparently doing nothing.

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

#276

Post by sp0rk »

keiferski wrote: post #108

Remember when "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" was a thing? I certainly do. How far we've fallen as a culture since then.

> "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it"

I'm not sure somebody's "right to say [something]" is directly equivalent to being able to tweet something on a privately owned platform.

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

#277

Post by znpy »

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.

It's hard to mislabel "glorification of violence" given the militar culture in the US: just look of all the military propaganda more or less hidden into mainstream media (movies, tv series etc)

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

#279

Post by znpy »

keiferski wrote: post #108

Remember when "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" was a thing? I certainly do. How far we've fallen as a culture since then.

People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say.

But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you to express your ideas.

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

#280

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

petee wrote: post #275
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google using their massive resource tried to make a better platform than Facebook. They failed spectacularly. Are you suggesting Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp doesn’t have a monopoly on what each is?

They do not provide a necessary public service; it's not drinking water or heat, you would be perfectly fine existing without Facebook. It's their private platform, they should do what's morally right by them, which is apparently doing nothing.

Ok, so using that exact line of thinking.

Netflix isn’t a necessary public good or service - why can’t Comcast throttle it? Is it because I don’t get to say what you do or don’t use Netflix for? Then why does someone else get to determine what political speech I do or don’t get to see? They’re both over the Internet aren’t they?

It’s far more nuanced than “they’re a private company”. Even at base level let’s say FINE, you should still want them to follow the spirit of free speech especially if not required to do so.

Post reply on HN