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

51–60 of 434 posts

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

#51

Post by lanevorockz »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #41
lanevorockz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The danger is that what people think and what people are willing to say are systematically diverging. If true, that means that anyone who's trying to observe what people think and make decisions based on it will consistently get things wrong.

That is kinda temporary, in normal companies mistakes get accountability and executives are fired. In the end, you can get on the "design by committee" trap.

The problem here might be the monopoly, so it doesn't matter how bad the decision there will be no repercussions.

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

#52

Post by HarryHirsch »

quicklime wrote: post #27
banads wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not a parking lot, but a lot of suburban communities are built around large shopping malls, operated by companies like Westfield. It’s not exactly conducive to protests, as the malls are private property and there’s no significant pedestrian traffic anywhere else.

Such arrangements are not conducive to the political process, and that should worry everyone. If something can be used against someone it can also be used against you.

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

#53

Post by banads »

quicklime wrote: post #27
banads wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not a parking lot, but a lot of suburban communities are built around large shopping malls, operated by companies like Westfield. It’s not exactly conducive to protests, as the malls are private property and there’s no significant pedestrian traffic anywhere else.

by putting "parking lots" in quotations, I was meaning to ask for the alternative digital equivalent to major platforms like FB and Twitter.

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

#54

Post by pstuart »

nilkn wrote: post #33
pstuart wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> You called them savages.

Yeah, I did. Please connect the dots from that comment in that specific context to where actual hate comes into play, and more importantly, where that supposed hate translates into a pathway to discrimination, violence, or other ramification of real hate speech.

I'm not trying to be innocent. I make mistakes all the time. If I do an edit, I append and keep the original content intact (save for typos) because I try my damndest to own my words.

My accusations against you are my guesses about you. You are very comfortable in judging me, so I'm not sure why you feel so hurt when I share my tentative assessment of you.

One more datapoint: that within the private group that the original comments were made, the feedback I got on this issue was aligned with my perspective. Something tells me that in your social circle it would never happen.

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

#55

Post by Verdex »

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.

I feel your point here is important. Facebook has a lot of power. To the point where I feel they owe the public more than they would if they were a small entity with a narrow reach.

There are two principles here: 1) it's a problem if you have enough power to force the weak to cover the expenses of your failures and 2) if you have a lot of power you also have the ability to defend yourself from assholes and malicious actors.

So, for point 1, if facebook decides that they want to dump trash into residential areas, they could silence everyone on facebook who complains. They could also call up their friends at twitter et al and convince them to do the same in exchange for whatever massive corporations like these days. Because of this possibility, I want facebook's freedom to curtail freedom of speech on their private platform to be extremely limited.

For point 2, if facebook becomes inundated with assholes or (heaven forbid) malicious trolls who make relentless fun of the font that facebook uses for posts and every post that everyone sees is just complaints about fonts, then facebook has the capability to create a special asshole facebook website and marketing campaign to convince the assholes to go somewhere else. They have the ability to switch out the font. They can fund research into powerful AI techniques that can group all the font complaints together so that only people who want to see that crap will see that and everyone else can have a good experience. Because of facebook's ability to deal with malicious (or social incompetence that is indistinguishable from) behavior, I want facebook's freedom to curtail freedom of speech on their private platform to be extremely limited.

On the other hand, if we're talking about an individual (or otherwise small and powerless organization) running a personal blog (or your living room), they have extremely limited ability to force other people to deal with their platform. And they also have extremely limited ability to deal with malicious behavior if they didn't otherwise have the right to curtail freedom of speech. In these cases, I want them to have greater rights because the likelihood of them being able to use these rights to oppress others is minimal AND their necessity of them needing them to defend themselves is greater.

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

#57

Post by DougN7 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #8
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.

Everyone has more of a right to a public space (like a town square) than a private living room or a private website (hadn't occurred to me that being publicly traded may have implications actually). As I've written in another recent comment, the problem is when Facebook or other networks become quasi-official sources for public communication. If the primary means that the government thinks I will find out about publi…

I fear social media IS the primary place that a lot of people get their news. That is a huge problem because of all the propaganda, fake news, knee jerk reactions and everything else that is spread there.

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

#58

Post by trhway »

briffle wrote: post #47
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…

Right, so the people that are registered with the US political Party ANP (American Nazi Party) Or many other parties you have never heard of could then check the box, and be free to say whatever they want. Or is Facebook going to police it only for a few popular political parties in the US, and not censor which political parties get speech?

I meant public officials. As there is at least some public interest in giving them platform, and there is at least some minimal check/scrutiny for them - their voters.

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

#59

Post by jacklury »

Jack Lury here, health specialist with 5 years plus experience, I am the owner of arrowmeds.com online pharmacy. Arrowmeds is the most leading supplier and exporter of medications. This company is ahead of the game. So, it is possible to get the medication at cheaper rates.

Get more Detail at: https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/fildena/ https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/cenforce/ https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/vega-100/ https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/tadalis-sx/ https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/tadacip-cipla/ https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/kamagra-oral-jelly/ https://www.arrowmeds.com/product/vidalista-cialis-tadalafil...

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

#60

Post by tomc1985 »

lanevorockz wrote: post #43
tomc1985 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry but you are incorrect. Platforms have protections while they act as a free and open forum. This protection ceases to exist the time you start fiddling with the content. Obviously, Terms of Service are there to filter the garbage out but any double standard can end up with your Platform credentials revoked and your business down the drain.

Those protections afford immunity to civil claims related to copyright and infringing content. It does not apply to matters of decency. Many online platforms have booted their bigots and hate speech without any consequences to their ability to continue hosting content.

Please do not conflate civil torts with criminal hate speech

Post reply on HN