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

121–130 of 434 posts

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

#121

Post by 3pt14159 »

dodgyb wrote: post #68
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.

But Facebook does regulate the feeds of their users by employing algorithms to surface content that they think the user will engage with, and so get bucks for the eyeball. This distinguishes them from libraries, the only other similar platform for unmediated content. Libraries treat all information as equal and curates it as such. Facebook does not treat information equally, this means it is already moderating conten…

Sorry to be a little pedantic, but libraries do not treat all information as equal. There are far, far fewer books written by nazis in the library and most of them are by former high ranking members of the 3rd Reich so students and historians can research the Second World War and The Holocaust.

Even access is limited in some libraries for some information like technical libraries and books describing the manufacturing or design of dangerous materials.

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

#122

Post by kukx »

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.

Yes, exactly. Sun is the best disinfectant. We should not allow speech to be banned, because then we do not know what people think anymore. If we suppress the free expression we may find that really bad ideas are silently spreading without being challenged. And it may end up really badly for all of us when people holding these ideas suddenly surface. You do not need majority to make quick and radical changes.

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

#123

Post by specialist »

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…

Markets are winner takes all. No matter the size, there will be power law distribution. First place, runner up, distant third, everyone else.

Market consolidation (regional, national, global) reduced the number of markets, reducing the number of players.

One very illiberal idea is that we also need to break up markets, erect some barriers. Prevent winners in one market from usurping other markets.

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

#124

Post by alea_iacta_est »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #100
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.

This is an entirely unsurprising result of eliminating reasonable discussion and rendering it professionally untenable to support the president. Welcome to the life of a conservative in tech. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because it's clear that speaking about our political beliefs can lead to negative repercussions in our career. Good luck getting a job or investment a…

> I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure

Just created a new account just to tell you we're at least 2 conservatives in tech. Pretty sure I'll get angry and abandon this account very soon again because of the liberal bias here, and their adoration for the downvote button, but whatever, anything for a conservative colleague :)

> There should be a term for "liberal privilege" when you're able to post your political views under your real name.

They can post under their real name, doesn't mean it's not gonna cost them someday for a future job or who knows what, karma works in complex ways.

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

#125

Post by caiobegotti »

If Facebook and Zuckerberg personally did not profit from such acidic and destructive kind of free speech they would fix that pronto, it's as simple as that and it appears fruitless to me to spend a lot of words to counterargue them without considering this. Karl Popper would be going nuts by now were he alive today, I'm afraid.

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

#126

Post by asiachick »

dodgyb wrote: post #68
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.

But Facebook does regulate the feeds of their users by employing algorithms to surface content that they think the user will engage with, and so get bucks for the eyeball. This distinguishes them from libraries, the only other similar platform for unmediated content. Libraries treat all information as equal and curates it as such. Facebook does not treat information equally, this means it is already moderating conten…

Libraries have a featured books section or many of them do. Someone decides what is featured. If they are pro X they'll feature pro X books. Similarly they have limited space. Someone decide which books to take in and which books to throw out. Libraries have also banned books.

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

#127

Post by nova22033 »

kleton wrote: post #64

Does President Trump's threat to treat them as publishers rather than platforms have teeth?

It doesn't because the publisher v/s platform thing isn't a real thing.

Helpful link: https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/

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

#128

Post by throwaway6274 »

wbronitsky wrote: post #114
TechBro8615 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like this is a misreading of the situation. I was referring to the quote from the article "that people who agreed with [Zuckerberg's decision] were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive," so I don't think it's a misreading of the situation. On the contrary, I'm expressing my lack of surprise, given my personal experience as a conservative in tech with a 98% liberal peer group. I am unable to…

> Trump as if it's a foregone conclusion that he's a racist sociopath You are totally correct. I do think this. I have ample evidence that backs up my case as well. I think the quote "when they start looting, we start shooting" which was hidden by Twitter for inciting violence, is enough for me. > This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts." I don't think we can…

> "when they start looting, we start shooting"

Umm... except that’s not what he said though. If it was, I would completely agree with you that it is an incitement (more accurately, a proclamation) of violence. But what he actually said was:

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

And, per Wikipedia:

"He said that he was not aware of the phrase's 'racially-charged history'. He added that he didn't know where the phrase had originated, and that his intent in using it was to say 'when there's looting, people get shot and they die.'"

So his statement is not an incitement, but a prediction. You may believe that Trump is lying about his intention, but that's a different debate.

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

#129

Post by pavlov »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #110
gilbetron wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the person you're responding to is talking about an asymmetry of rules - current politicians can say anything, everyone else has to follow rules. In that situation, current politicians can lie about their opponents, but opponents cannot lie back.

Actually it seems like social media companies are choosing who can't lie and who can. Normal users and even most politicians lie on social media everyday, who cares. The problem I see is social media companies targeting specific leaders and what they see as "lies" while ignoring others. And most importantly, who decides what is a lie? Either take 230 away from the company and no-one can lie on the platform, or stop c…

If Section 230 is revoked, social media and content platforms become liable for all user-created content that they host.

Surely that will lead to much more content deleted to avoid lawsuits? Why is that a desirable outcome?

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

#130

Post by throwgeorge »

bzb3 wrote: post #3

>Here are my top takeaways from the roughly 85-minute recording Is that recording publicly available?

i've been looking for it as well and haven't been able to find it. i wouldn't be surprised if journalists are keeping it close because fb puts a watermark in streams to catch leakers. so it's not available to keep the leaker anonymous.
Post reply on HN