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

151–160 of 434 posts

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

#151

Post by matz1 »

wldlyinaccurate wrote: post #131
TechBro8615 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stro…

>It's that people often take what elected officials say as truth without even considering that it might be false

I'll defend their right to be stupid.

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

#152

Post by TechBro8615 »

bpyne wrote: post #116
TechBro8615 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it's a good thing to hold public figures accountable. Politicians, in particular, need to be held accountable due to the large amount of influence they have on our society. When Twitter, for example, places a warning on a Tweet to warn readers that it contains provably false statements, it holds the Tweeter accountable and that is enough reason to do it regardless of the changing minds argument. As far as cha…

> provably false statements

Herein lies the rub. It’s extremely rare that a politician is tweeting about something so black-and-white that the tweet can be provably true or false. There is almost always a gray area between fact and opinion. In fact, people tend to vote for politicians because they agree with their interpretation and prioritization of a set of facts. So I think you’ll find the vast majority of political tweets reside in this gray area, because otherwise they wouldn’t be political in the first place.

And if “provably false” is the standard for editorializing, then Twitter picked a terrible example to set as the precedent. The tweet they “fact checked” was Trump making a prediction about the future. Namely, he was suggesting that mail-in ballots could lead to increased voter fraud. Not only is this an opinion, but it’s a projection about something that has not happened yet. By definition, it cannot be provably false.

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

#153

Post by chippy »

cryptica wrote: post #144

I sense that Mark may be using his employees to play good cop bad cop in front of the media. But in reality, they all unanimously want censorship. Censorship would give Facebook a huge amount of power. Why would Mark not want that?

Maybe Mark understands his users (as in, the whole ugly world) more than his employees?

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

#154

Post by Supermancho »

babesh wrote: post #71
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.

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.

> There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass.

> Apply the same standards to all.

I find these statements at odds. People can say what they want and it may or may not be inaccurate or misleading or accurate or truthful. Giving elected officials "a free pass" to do just that _is_ applying the same standard to all.

Elected officials have a microphone because of the political system and the endemic elevation of these regular, flawed, people to a status above the common man (same with police and a number of other power hierarchies in the USA).

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

#155

Post by pstuart »

pwned1 wrote: post #102
pstuart wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your hate speech is ok. Theirs is bad. Got it.

Yes, you got exactly what you wanted. Have a nice day!

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

#156

Post by dguaraglia »

raarts wrote: post #143
wldlyinaccurate wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 stro…

> is that people often take what elected officials say as truth Well educate them on that instead of trying to control the information flow. History taught us that will always backfire.

There's a catch: the people doing most of the lying are the same that have worked for decades to destroy public education.

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

#157

Post by cryptica »

chippy wrote: post #153
cryptica wrote: post #144

I sense that Mark may be using his employees to play good cop bad cop in front of the media. But in reality, they all unanimously want censorship. Censorship would give Facebook a huge amount of power. Why would Mark not want that?

Maybe Mark understands his users (as in, the whole ugly world) more than his employees?

If he was really cared about his users, he wouldn't be a billionaire.

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

#158

Post by satya71 »

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 not only in the business of publishing people's speech, it is also in the business of curating people's information input. They are only defending their obligations for the first of the businesses, not the second.

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

#159

Post by yalogin »

I don't think the policy will ever be black and white like that in terms of free speech. If that is the case no social media company will have any terms and conditions on their site, other than don't spam us. All of them will have the same free speech limitations that the country has.

For example will facebook be ok if the next democratic president says "we will stone carl if this post gets 10k upvotes" will it be ok? Lines are always drawn and they are always in he sand. Its just that FB decided that is where they want to draw that line. Everyone will have their own opinion on whether its good or not.

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

#160

Post by dguaraglia »

elwell wrote: post #25
dagmx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of options between full on censoring and not doing a thing. Displaying that certain prominent posts aren’t accurate is a good start, much like what Twitter did.

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts" [Warning this message is inaccurate]

Actually, that was marked as glorifying violence.
Post reply on HN