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

31–40 of 434 posts

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

#31

Post by ve55 »

elwell wrote: post #20

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.

It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen a lot at companies like this, from what I've spoken about privately.

The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.

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

#32

Post by pstuart »

nilkn wrote: post #21
pstuart wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. E…

I think the context backs up my position. There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages. The image made its own point and didn't need to be coupled with hate speech. That definitely promotes hate and should've been removed, and you should've been (temporarily) banned, just as you were. Everyone who promotes hate speech thinks they're just being misunderstood. You're not the first.

> There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages.

I don't hate white people. Saying they "suck" is not promoting hate.

I think you suck at understanding what I'm saying, but I don't hate you.

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

#33

Post by nilkn »

pstuart wrote: post #32
nilkn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the context backs up my position. There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages. The image made its own point and didn't need to be coupled with hate speech. That definitely promotes hate and should've been removed, and you should've been (temporarily) banned, just as you were. Everyone who promotes hate speech thinks they're just being misunderstood. You're not the first.

> There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages. I don't hate white people. Saying they "suck" is not promoting hate. I think you suck at understanding what I'm saying, but I don't hate you.

You called them savages. In addition to making wild accusations against me in your latest edit of your previous comment, you are now being disingenuous about what you wrote in order to make yourself seem more innocent.

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

#34

Post by OminousWeapons »

banads wrote: post #17
whoopdedo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The network effects are somewhat irrelevant and GP's comment is correct. If you do not use a retailer or service provider's business in a manner that they like, they are normally free to discontinue your service and ask you to leave. The same principle should apply to Facebook as they are a service provider like any other which has not (to my knowledge) explicitly been designated as having special status in legislation.

You can't decide Facebook is subject to a different set of laws or has fewer rights simply because people have arbitrarily decided to communicate on its platform more than another platform. Every private entity should be afforded the same rights to regulate their private property or services unless there is legislation specifically saying otherwise.

If you or any other person do not like the way Facebook is regulating usage of their platform, you are free to go start up your own social media platform with a different ToS (and many people do).

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

#35

Post by lanevorockz »

elwell wrote: post #20

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.

I wouldn't say it is dangerous, more like it is obvious. I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that. The world of total conformity is the really scary thing, we will cease to be humans by then.

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

#36

Post by grumple »

elwell wrote: post #20

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.

The thought police will publicly shame you in every way possible if you don't score enough "woke points" with your latest post. We've seen conservative voices exiled from SV, and I suspect moderate or simply imperfect liberal voices would be treated similarly. As a pretty far-left liberal in an extended social group of extremist liberals, I've learned / am learning to just stay off social media and say nothing (easier to do this by deleting your fb/ig/whatever). Nothing you say or do can every please these people and they are very quick to destroy people when they feel slighted.

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

#37

Post by nilkn »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #24
nilkn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You miss the point. How hard is to find hate speech which isn't censored? Out of interest I searched for "alt right" on Facebook, and it took about a minute to find a post that said "Social media has made too many of you comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the mouth for it." The post is dated Feb 9, so it's been there a while. It's not unusual for that group. And so on. It's one thing to…

I think that's a separate discussion altogether. I'm sure there are instances of hateful speech that should've been removed but nevertheless weren't or haven't been. That doesn't mean that the instances that were removed shouldn't have been.

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

#38

Post by tomc1985 »

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.

I'd agree with you but private entities are not bound to freedom of speech. Only government forums

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

#39

Post by lanevorockz »

supercanuck wrote: post #6
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.

You know what would help. More alternatives. What if Instagram, WhatsApp, Youtube, etc were all still independent or there was interopability between Google Circles, Facebook and whatever else? Watch how fast Facebook would adapt and be monitoring news and trying to conform to the public opinion if they felt they needed to compete. The only reason we're in this position is because a reduction in real competition in t…

Social Media are the real monopolies. For the first time we have a business that are provided for free and that are based on the concept of monetising its users. There is zero accountability and it is the closest we will get to a natural monopoly.

It's interesting how they also collude with each other by defaming competitions and circularly maintaining this monopoly. Good example is Apple/Google process to accept new social media companies. It's nearly impossible and to a much higher standard they hold themselves.

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

#40

Post by trhway »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #18
trhway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Well, that unequal allocation has been working fine with ads - one can say much more as long as it is clearly marked as political or commercial ad.
Post reply on HN