Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by NE2z2T9qi » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #184

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…

As I say elsewhere, I could just as easily use your empty standard to ban tweets saying “A riot is the language of the unheard.” This quote sympathetically explains rioting as a consequence of oppression—and it’s a quote I largely agree with. And yet people as easily triggered as you may seek to have MLK banned since the quote serves as justification/apologetics/glorification of rioting—-a definitionally violent and illegal act.

And if you want to play these games about particulars, replace war movie with war documentary. Are you satisfied now? Shall we ban war documentaries which may glorify violence?

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

#212

Post by cma » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

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.

Why would a politician get a less restricted Twitter than a potential future politician?

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

#213

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

This is Zuckerberg posturing to run for president in some medium term future. Probably expected it to be leaked and is setting up the decision reasoning to make it seem like he deals with “presidential” topics, has to assess national civil unrest.

It’s such a complete joke. Probably will work though.

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

#214

Post by jayd16 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:17 AM UTC

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.

If there's an internal culture of fear at Facebook then why should this information be trusted? Seems like there's usually more fear when disagreeing with corporate policy, not agreeing with it.

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

#215

Post by macintux » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:18 AM UTC

kukx wrote: post #210

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.

Just because they legally can does not mean they should censor the official representatives of the voters. The bigger the audience the more important it gets to show all points of views. The sun is the best disinfectant. The wrong ideas should be publicly challenged, otherwise they may silently spread unchecked and surface when it is too late to stop them. You do not need majority to make quick and radical social cha…

> The sun is the best disinfectant.

That has proven not to be the case. Bringing extremist views into the mainstream by way of social media (and politics) has only strengthened their influence.

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

#216

Post by google234123 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:19 AM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #54

nilkn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Your one data point is pretty funny. I bet within any racist group, hate against another race would also get postive feedback.

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

#217

Post by reaperducer » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:19 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #208

dmicah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. That's not quite accurate. There is precedence for regulating speech in private media for example, as in the case of broadcast networks. Broadcast TV networks are still restricted on speech/expression to this day, as are radio stations.…

The reason broadcast content was regulated was because broadcast frequencies are a finite, public resource. Internet platforms are neither of those.

Also, the FCC no longer regulates broadcast content. It publicly stated a number of years ago that it does not have the desire to do so. The stations police themselves in order to stay within their perceived community standards to prevent external regulation.

Today, unless a station does something really egregious and congresscritters get involved, there is effectively no content regulation.

In the mid-90's, I was part of a morning radio show that was #2 in a medium-sized East coast market. One day we said "shit" on the air three times to see if this was true. Nothing happened. We didn't hear word one from any listener, manager, or government agency.

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

#218

Post by jasonjayr » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:20 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #209

dntbnmpls wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It already applies to non government entities. Telephone companies can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say. Your power and gas company can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say. Trump can't even block people on twitt…

Is Facebook / Twitter / the internet in general infrastructure in a similar way to telephony and electricity? There is an argument to be had there.

I'm sure there are other nuances, but I'd be willing to say that it depends on if their news feed is 'editorialized' or not (ie, they choose what I see, or I choose what I see ...)

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

#219

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:20 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#220

Post by myhnaccount2 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 12:21 AM UTC

tuna-piano wrote: post #207

The problem is really pretty simple: -Facebook has a culture that is extremely biased toward the political left. The left has a (recent?) trend of wanting to censor speech they don't agree with. -America (and the world) has a lot more viewpoint diversity. Zuckerberg is stuck with trying to keep his workers happy but also not wanting to alienate large portions of users, customers, politicans, etc. In my opinion, he ha…

I want to respectfully disagree with you. The kernel of your argument here is that the speech in question is a matter of disagreement. It's important to define what kind of speech we're talking about here, because everyone might mean something different.

To be clear, we are talking about verifiably false speech. Verifiably false speech that is sufficiently amplified can have serious consequences. This is unequivocally NOT a matter of differing opinions. And, yes, I understand that there is a huge gray area as to what is "verifiably false", but it's still a standard that we should strive for. Misinformation is a serious problem that is arguably responsible for tens of thousands dying in the US from COVID just in the past few months. This is not a game.

I can't say for sure if you're framing the question as partisan bickering in good faith, but if you are I want you to consider how flat out lies and half truths can have extremely dangerous effects. All sources of misinformation are dangerous, but it is undeniable that one "side" traffics in misinformation in much, much higher volume (at least an order of magnitude). Anyways, the point is the problem is not simple and anyone claiming such is oversimplifying at best and being disingenuous at worst.