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

131–140 of 434 posts

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

#131

Post by wldlyinaccurate »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #91
babesh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass. It biases elections by giving them an even bigger microphone than the other people running. Apply the same standards to all.

A free pass on what exactly? This has gotten so crazy, I can’t believe people are protesting Facebook for not censoring a politician. Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it. Do people really think that censoring, or even annotating, the President’s words will change how people feel about them? Like someone is going to read Trump’s message, think “oh right, mail-in ballots could…

> Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it.

The problem isn't that people "don't like" what elected officials say. It's that people often take what elected officials say as truth without even considering that it might be false (they must be Smart and Good if they're in office, right?)

Fact checking and censoring prominent figures isn't going to affect people who already have strongly held beliefs. But it will make a difference to people who are impressionable or vulnerable or don't know any better.

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

#132

Post by splitrocket »

Facebook thinks of itself as a state and fundamentally misunderstands it's relationship to the traditional "big L" liberal democracies.

The first amendment[0] specifically defines congress, the law making body, as the arbiter of free speech. This is because without the force of government behind it, the concept of censorship is effectively meaningless.

In a constitutional sense, it is impossible for any actor other than the government to violate a persons first amendment rights.

Facebook, as a corporation, is not capable of violating first amendment rights. Even FCC section 230 [1] explicitly enables facebook to moderate as it sees fit. Facebook could decide that any post that contains the word "avocado" would be deleted on the spot. Or they could decide that only political posts that support Vermin Supreme [2] are allowed.

This would be completely legal.

The same way you are allowed to delete spam and comments by Nazis on your personal blog. You are also not liable if someone posts a libelous comment on your blog, just like facebook isn't liable.

Similarly, if you decide that you are a-ok with rabid neo-nazis commenting on your personal blog, well, then, sure, that's legal, but it also says a hell of a lot about you and your personal beliefs. There's a word for people that sympathize with nazis...

You could run the smallest blog or the largest, world spanning social network and delete Nazi content legally in the US.

So, when Mark Zuckerberg says he is defending free speech, he is using misdirection. He is fully aware that the legal, constitutional term "free speech" doesn't apply to Facebook.

He wants you to avoid thinking that the people that run Facebook are morally responsible for the legal, fcc section 230 moderation that they choose to engage in, the same way you would be morally responsible for actively allowing Nazis to comment on your blog.

It's so simple, a six panel stick figure comic can explain it. [3]

Zuck just doesn't want to show Trump the door. Why? Because he makes a lot of money from sowing division and hate. [4]

As Barry Schnitt, former spokes person for facebook put it [5]:

"Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices Facebook makes are the ones that allow the most content — the fuel for the Facebook engine — to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices align with the ones that require the least amount of resources, and the choices that outsource important aspects to third parties. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in power who have made misinformation, blatant racism, and inciting violence part of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and cowardice."

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[1] https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-inte...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme

[3] https://xkcd.com/1357/

[4] https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...

[5] https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-employees-7d01761e5...

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

#133

Post by stellar678 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #91
babesh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass. It biases elections by giving them an even bigger microphone than the other people running. Apply the same standards to all.

A free pass on what exactly? This has gotten so crazy, I can’t believe people are protesting Facebook for not censoring a politician. Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it. Do people really think that censoring, or even annotating, the President’s words will change how people feel about them? Like someone is going to read Trump’s message, think “oh right, mail-in ballots could…

Facebook/Twitter/et al created the systems which focus people's attention and incentivize the production of divisive poor quality information in the first place - why shouldn't they take responsibility for fixing their mistakes?

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

#134

Post by splitrocket »

caiobegotti wrote: post #125

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.

They know it's destructive and harms people and they do it anyway: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...

Barry Schnitt, former spokesperson for facebook:

Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices Facebook makes are the ones that allow the most content — the fuel for the Facebook engine — to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices align with the ones that require the least amount of resources, and the choices that outsource important aspects to third parties. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in power who have made misinformation, blatant racism, and inciting violence part of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and cowardice.

https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-employees-7d01761e5...

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

#135

Post by mc32 »

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.

People don’t think forwards and we’re hypocritical.

They’re all for censoring or not censoring if it aligns with their agenda. And they’ll do a 180 when it benefits them.

I believe the Gores’ dream of the PMRC may yet come to fruition for different reasons...

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

#136

Post by throwaway6274 »

alea_iacta_est wrote: post #124
TechBro8615 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

[flagged]

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

#137

Post by closetohome »

banads wrote: post #53
quicklime wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we're continuing the parking lot analogy, it's like there's an almost unending grid of parking lot after parking lot, and you can travel to any of them instantaneously and for free. Some parking lots have a lot of people, so you'd rather go there if you want to be heard, but nothing is stopping you from setting up shop in an empty lot, and nothing is stopping people from visiting your lot.

Now, given that major social network advertise pretty much everywhere, this might not be an entirely fair analogy. Some parking lots have ads for them posted in every other parking lot. But it's a point worth making that access is relatively egalitarian on the internet.

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

#138

Post by prh8 »

Pils wrote: post #89
ve55 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In some ways this seems endemic to all organizations with >1000 or so people. It's crazy the extent that white nationalist orgs have infiltrated Law Enforcement/US military. That being said, in many ways companies/organizations are simply biased samples of the cultural milieu, so I'm not sure there is an easy company-level policy for changing this. Given the Banjo/Clearview.ai KKK/alt-right stuff, the fear of radical…

Are you implying that these people agreeing with his decision are from white nationalist orgs?

Or that they fear people from those orgs?

If 1, that seems unlikely that would be the majority of people. If 2, well, that's the opposite of the case here.

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

#139

Post by Avicebron »

pavlov wrote: post #129
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it will allow for some form of competition because they will be forced to make decisions leaving space for other players to make different decisions.

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

#140

Post by zarkov99 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #91
babesh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass. It biases elections by giving them an even bigger microphone than the other people running. Apply the same standards to all.

A free pass on what exactly? This has gotten so crazy, I can’t believe people are protesting Facebook for not censoring a politician. Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it. Do people really think that censoring, or even annotating, the President’s words will change how people feel about them? Like someone is going to read Trump’s message, think “oh right, mail-in ballots could…

Annotating is fine as long as the user can choose what annotations they see and how those influence filtering. This idea that the stupid little people need the protection of the enlightened ones doing the censoring is profoundly un-american and must die.
Post reply on HN