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

181–190 of 434 posts

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

#181

Post by NE2z2T9qi »

How can anybody still be pro-censorship in 2020, especially using such vague and malleable "standards"? Trump's tweet was flagged for "glorifying violence"? Are you kidding me?

Should we ban war movies and cop dramas for glorifying violence? And ban video games too while we're at it? Should we ban tweets linking to bail funds for arrested protesters since that's "glorifying" breaking the law? Should we ban commercials for fast food and high sugar products since they glorify unhealthy lifestyles and are a "public health risk"?

I can hardly believe how myopic some people are when it comes to free speech principles. Imagine being so afraid of an idea that you'd rather ban it than debate it.

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

#182

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

lanevorockz wrote: post #35
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.

> I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that.

This situation is different in that the people who are agreeing with what their company does are feeling afraid to voice their agreement.

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

#183

Post by m00x »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #150
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.

> "Apply the same standards to all." Do you honestly not realize that this is the exact issue being debated? Whether the "standards" are being applied fairly and consistently irrespective of political affiliations? And whether the "standard" itself is loaded to censor certain relatively mainstream but not Silicon Valley viewpoints? What you're saying reminds me of an anti-gay marriage argument I heard: "Hey, I'm stra…

> I'm not particularly aligned to either democrats or republicans, but I've looked at "fact-checks" by supposedly neutral parties and they're often absolute garbage.

Got some numbers behind this?

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

#184

Post by deanCommie »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #181

How can anybody still be pro-censorship in 2020, especially using such vague and malleable "standards"? Trump's tweet was flagged for "glorifying violence"? Are you kidding me? Should we ban war movies and cop dramas for glorifying violence? And ban video games too while we're at it? Should we ban tweets linking to bail funds for arrested protesters since that's "glorifying" breaking the law? Should we ban commercial…

> movies, cop dramas, video games

fiction

> Trump

not fiction

How is this even a question? Fictional narratives and real-life actions are incomparable

> Should we ban tweets linking to bail funds for arrested protesters since that's "glorifying" breaking the law?

If they were encouraging violence, yes. They weren't encouraging violence, they were encouraging civil disobedience.

Destruction of property and assault on individuals are incomparable.

> Should we ban commercials for fast food and high sugar products since they glorify unhealthy lifestyles and are a "public health risk"?

Well, we've banned commercials for cigarettes. Lots of countries ban commercials for alcohol. But I would assume you would be against this too, and here I will actually agree with you.

This one is a spectrum. If an adult human being wants to make the conscious informed choice to assault their own body (with drugs, or alcohol, or sugar), we should let them.

What we shouldn't do is target commercials at children that are not fully formed enough to make their own decisions. Which is what most of restrictions about fast food and high sugar products are focused on.

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

#185

Post by emsy »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #174
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.

> social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress It's explicitly not the job of Congress. That's the point of the First Amendment. Regulating free speech is up to private enterprise, using private enforcement methods like de-platforming (old school: you can't spew your drivel inside my bar) and shaming.

You could argue de-platforming is a violation of the first and amend accordingly.

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

#186

Post by dmicah »

emsy wrote: post #185
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress It's explicitly not the job of Congress. That's the point of the First Amendment. Regulating free speech is up to private enterprise, using private enforcement methods like de-platforming (old school: you can't spew your drivel inside my bar) and shaming.

You could argue de-platforming is a violation of the first and amend accordingly.

I don't think this is the case, unless the platform is run by the government. The First Amendment applies to restrictions on free speech by the government, and is not related to the actions of private enterprises.

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

#187

Post by sixstringtheory »

matz1 wrote: post #151
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…

>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.

You’d expend effort to prevent people from learning? A democracy requires an educated electorate, so you are anti-democracy?

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

#188

Post by seumars »

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.

Fact checking and censoring are two very different things.

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

#189

Post by gruez »

emsy wrote: post #185
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress It's explicitly not the job of Congress. That's the point of the First Amendment. Regulating free speech is up to private enterprise, using private enforcement methods like de-platforming (old school: you can't spew your drivel inside my bar) and shaming.

You could argue de-platforming is a violation of the first and amend accordingly.

>You could argue de-platforming is a violation of the first

There's literally no way you can read the 1st amendment and think it should apply to non government entities. It specifically mentions congress only.

>and amend accordingly.

The chances of getting such amendment passed is approximately zero.

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

#190

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

madeofpalk wrote: post #170
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the debate is whether or not the companies are acting in bad faith and abusing this 1996 law by selectively altering their users posts and presenting their information thus acting like a publisher. Yes this is the current state, but the question is whether it's morally right and should we update it to reflect the current situation of the social media behemoths, this law was designed for small bulletin boards…

“Acting like a publisher” is completely irrelevant. Section 230(c) makes no exceptions or distinctions for publisher vs not. Twitter and Facebook are publishers. Publishers still get protections afforded to them under 230(c).

Yes, I believe the discussion is to update Section 230 to make those distinctions as the law was created in 1996 to protect bulletin boards, not the social media giants we have today.

It's a discussion we should all want to have to preserve our freedom of speech from being infringed on by these (very very few) social media companies.

I don't think anyone is arguing they don't currently have these powers, it's whether they should and whether they've been abusing them.

Post reply on HN