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

241–250 of 434 posts

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

#241

Post by ngcazz »

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…

What’s so confusing about holding the president to a higher standard than anyone else?

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

#242

Post by NE2z2T9qi »

macintux wrote: post #215
kukx wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you see how you're loading and manipulating your words to serve your biased purposes? If an "extremist" view is popular with the "mainstream", it's definitionally not an extremist view. And has it occurred to you that a Republican might consider AOC or Bernie Sanders or Ruth Bader Ginsberg a "dangerous extremist" while a Democrat might consider Trump or Bill Barr or Mitch McConnell an extremist? Is it really that hard to imagine how other people not aligned with you politically might think?

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

#243

Post by brown9-2 »

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.

Why did you edit out the part of the quote that this was just one individual’s opinion?

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

#244

Post by bananabreakfast »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #225
koboll wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate who (before he was permabanned) frequently railed on Twitter against the "Jewish media" and mused about the "JQ", which stands for Jewish Question? Who called Jewish critics "shekels-for-hire" and used the phrase "The goyim know!" as an imitation of their…

> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter - they have monopolised that "short catchy text stream" market. Other services, like Gab, exist - but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else. For better or worse, Facebook…

So what? A monopoly on something that is not a market anyway does not give the government the right to nationalize its interests.

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

#245

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

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.

It should be decided by the market. If that can't happen because there is a oligopoly on social media, maybe we should be look at anti-trust suites breaking up large players

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

#246

Post by dntbnmpls »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #228
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…

> Telephone companies can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their licenses for public airwaves.

> This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their licenses for public airwaves.

Public airwaves? This applied during the landline days and it had more to do with the idea of monopolies/utilites/trusts.

Either way, it debunks your point that non-government entities are all allowed to censor...

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

#247

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

myhnaccount2 wrote: post #220
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 unequivocall…

Brought to you by the Ministry of Truth. If you don't see our stamp on it, it's not true!

> All sources of misinformation are dangerous, but it is undeniable that one "side" traffics in misinformation in much, much higher volume

I'll blow your mind, but from a conservative perspective, it's Dems lying constantly. Both sides can pepper truth in with lies. The best solution is to think for yourself.

Being hyperbolic and screaming it'll save lives doesn't help win anyone over either, you'll have to try harder to trick people out of their freedoms.

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

#248

Post by lancesells »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #225
koboll wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate who (before he was permabanned) frequently railed on Twitter against the "Jewish media" and mused about the "JQ", which stands for Jewish Question? Who called Jewish critics "shekels-for-hire" and used the phrase "The goyim know!" as an imitation of their…

> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter - they have monopolised that "short catchy text stream" market. Other services, like Gab, exist - but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else. For better or worse, Facebook…

That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.

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

#249

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

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.

Slippery slope is a fallacy. You realize that these sites are choosing, on their own prerogative, to censor, if it becomes an especially burdensome part of their business they are free to stop.
Post reply on HN