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

Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 434 posts

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#11

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

pstuart wrote: post #10
danielfoster wrote: post #2

So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.

Facebook is quite happy to censor speech. Facebook banned me for 3 days for commenting on a previous ban where I had said "white people suck" and "white people are savages", both for pictures contrasting white people protesting vs PoC and First Nation people protesting. Disclaimer: I am very white. I was not promoting hate.

It just seems hard to believe that calling people savages isn’t intended to promote hatred of them.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#12

Post by whoopdedo »

ramblerman wrote: post #7
csense wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're getting onto our own slippery territory here. If I let someone into my living room, and that person makes political statements I don't like, I'm free to ask them to leave and not come back, or tell other people in my living room that I think the statements are factually incorrect. If Facebook lets someone onto their website, and that person makes political statements Facebook doesn't like, why can't Facebook as…

> Where do you draw the line between my living room, where I'm free to regulate who my visitors are and what those visitors can say, and Facebook? Unless you have 22% of the worlds population passing through your living room this is a pretty poor analogy. Maybe the town square is more apt.

The correct analogy would be if someone is standing in the Walmart parking lot. And last I checked U.S. law permits Walmart to tell them to leave.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#13

Post by justin66 »

vmception wrote: post #5
danielfoster wrote: post #2

So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.

Facebook is only in this tone-deaf quagmire because they got in the business of censoring at all. Now they created the expectation for them to choose and they said no. Whoops. Going to be funny when the Public Health Orders all start targeting social media.

> Facebook is only in this tone-deaf quagmire because they got in the business of censoring at all.

Being the antenna for Donald Trump to broadcast constantly to the internet was going to be a quagmire no matter what.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#14

Post by [deleted] »

whoopdedo wrote: post #12
ramblerman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where do you draw the line between my living room, where I'm free to regulate who my visitors are and what those visitors can say, and Facebook? Unless you have 22% of the worlds population passing through your living room this is a pretty poor analogy. Maybe the town square is more apt.

The correct analogy would be if someone is standing in the Walmart parking lot. And last I checked U.S. law permits Walmart to tell them to leave.

[deleted]

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#15

Post by trhway »

danielfoster wrote: post #2

So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.

>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials.

It would help to make things clear if FB in their terms of service would specifically and explicitly excluded public officials from limitations on hate, violence inciting and other otherwise prohibited on the platform speech,and marked that speech accordingly.

Or let an official to explicitly checkbox such exception in his/her profile or may be at individual post level, a la carte style with separate checkboxes for hate speech, racism, etc., and mark such his/her post as made under that exception - "This post is published under the hate speech, [comma separated iterator over the checked checkboxes' values] exception requested by this public official"

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#16

Post by nilkn »

pstuart wrote: post #10
danielfoster wrote: post #2

So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.

Facebook is quite happy to censor speech. Facebook banned me for 3 days for commenting on a previous ban where I had said "white people suck" and "white people are savages", both for pictures contrasting white people protesting vs PoC and First Nation people protesting. Disclaimer: I am very white. I was not promoting hate.

That seems reasonable to censor. Regardless of intent, that language clearly does promote hate. I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#17

Post by banads »

whoopdedo wrote: post #12
ramblerman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where do you draw the line between my living room, where I'm free to regulate who my visitors are and what those visitors can say, and Facebook? Unless you have 22% of the worlds population passing through your living room this is a pretty poor analogy. Maybe the town square is more apt.

The correct analogy would be if someone is standing in the Walmart parking lot. And last I checked U.S. law permits Walmart to tell them to leave.

Are there any other non-corporate "parking lots" with anywhere close to the same network effects?

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#18

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

trhway wrote: post #15
danielfoster wrote: post #2

So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.

>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. It would help to make things clear if FB in their terms of service would specifically and explicitly excluded public officials from limitations on hate, violence inciting and other otherwise prohibited on the platform speech,and marked that speech accordingly. Or let an official to explicitly checkbox such exception in his/her profile or m…

Would it help? I would expect that to just make things worse, as the right to freer speech on Facebook becomes an explicit asset with unequal allocation. An informal policy seems much less dangerous.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#19

Post by pstuart »

nilkn wrote: post #16
pstuart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is quite happy to censor speech. Facebook banned me for 3 days for commenting on a previous ban where I had said "white people suck" and "white people are savages", both for pictures contrasting white people protesting vs PoC and First Nation people protesting. Disclaimer: I am very white. I was not promoting hate.

That seems reasonable to censor. Regardless of intent, that language clearly does promote hate. I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself.

Context is everything.

The first case was a collection of half a dozen pictures of white people protesting that they want hair cuts, vs. half a dozen pictures of PoC asking not to be killed.

> that language clearly does promote hate

How does that promote hate?

> I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself

I'm criticizing the group I belong to.

Words get misconstrued all the time. You just demonstrated that.

Edit: because I can't respond to your reply to this, @nilkn, I will say here that you appear to be one of the following:

* Not able to comprehend what I'm trying to communicate * A troll * A white supremacist

I'm not saying that to attack you, I'm honestly puzzled that you can't understand what I'm saying. I'd be happy to try and reach a mutual understanding with you but something tells me that would be a fool's errand.

What is clear, is that you are projecting your assumptions as my intent. And your assumptions are wrong.

Post reply on HN