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

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

#291

Post by lukifer » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

sooper wrote: post #233

legostormtroopr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter" I'm curious, what's the problem with that?

Metcalfe's Law [0] dictates that the value of a network service scales exponentially with its number of nodes. This tilts the table in favor of winner-take-all ecosystems; moreover, in terms of both political soft power and cultural influence, this often creates a pressure for users to participate, not quite under duress, but let's say unenthusiastically, lest they be left out of the conversation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

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

#292

Post by philwelch » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

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.

I think it’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not inherently about the rise of extremist views, it’s more about how the establishment grew complacent with the 20th century media environment only to be caught wrongfooted when the 21st century media environment exposed them as being full of shit. Once everyone realizes that the mainstream media and the political establishment are full of shit, where do we have to go from there except to the extremes?

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

#293

Post by Pils » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:11 AM UTC

prh8 wrote: post #138

Pils wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm agreeing with the parent comment about the chilling effect that radical political groups can have on moderate dissent. White Nationalism's relationship with Law Enforcement/military is pretty well documented, and is very clearly under the umbrella of radical political movements. But if that's causing confusion, I used that as an explicit example of the phenomena the parent comment was describing.

I am curious by what you mean by "well, that's the opposite of the case here." What is in your opinion the opposite of White Nationalism on the radical spectrum?

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

#294

Post by titzer » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:15 AM UTC

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…

A younger me would be right there with you arguing these hard-line principles. And older me has seen 20 years of absolute madness spreading across people's minds and an outbreak of sickness and obesity. An even older me fears this whole thing is coming down because that old assumption that most people are like me--smart! educated! harmless! peace-loving! egalitarian! color-blind!--is flat-out false. Human society is infested with psychopaths who are given free reign to do whatever they want as long as it flies under the radar of whoever is making and enforcing the rules. And some of these psychopaths are busy building tribes by feeding them absolute bullshit and raising angry mobs.

Does this mean censorship and the big ban hammer for everything we don't like? You're making that leap.

As for myopic, let's turn that back around. How myopic it has been that we haven't been serious about addressing the hate and violence in our societies and have left it gestate, fester, even mutate into an uncontrollable angry mob? How are them free speech principles tasting when 40% of the population is so far gone they'll never be sobering up for a nice quiet little chat about intellectual issues? Have you ever had an in-depth discussion with someone who doesn't believe in evolution, who thinks the Earth is probably 6000 years old, and will flat out tell you that they cannot be convinced otherwise because of their religion. That's some weapons-grade irrationality, right there. You should think hard about what to do with a society filled with people so effectively programmed, should it ever come the point where people are programmed with a more virulent ROM.

Society is sick right now. Very, very sick. Enjoy your free speech principles while they last, because it won't be your fellow HNers taking that right away, it's gonna be the angry mob who doesn't actually give a shit. You fundamentally do not want to see what is going on. The fascists are feeding their base crazy pills right in front of your very eyes. Bleach for fuck's safe. Hydroxychloroquine, NO COLLUSION. 19,000 lies. LOCK HER UP! And that mob is. pissed. off. Everyone. is. pissed. off. The president is the leader of a mob. Let that sink in. The President has the write lock on a big section of the voting population and is feeding them utter insanity and is now vowing "total domination" through police violence. We are in deep shit this very moment.

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

#295

Post by XorNot » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

dntbnmpls wrote: post #246

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

The protections the telephone companies have are based on their desire to remain common carrier status, and not being considered curators or providers of the content they carry.

It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too.

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

#296

Post by dionidium » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

lancesells wrote: post #248

legostormtroopr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That was indeed the status quo on broadcast television for many years:

> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

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

#297

Post by zmj » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:22 AM UTC

karatestomp wrote: post #112

supercanuck wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what would help. More alternatives. What if Instagram, WhatsApp, Youtube, etc were all still independent or there was interopability between Google Circles, Facebook and whatever else? Watch how fast Facebook would adapt and be monitoring news and trying to conform to the public opinion if they felt they needed to compete. The only reason we're in this position is because a reduction in real competition in t…

This is the real answer. Removing the incentives that discourage interoperability and common standards would help. This probably means regulating spying-centric advertising and related mass-data-gathering out of existence. Twitter should be a protocol with many providers and many clients, not a restrictive service from a single provider. Ditto most of the rest.

It's not. This assumes that people want what's best for them.

People want what was best for a small group of hunter-gatherers in hostile territory.

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

#298

Post by gjs278 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

koboll wrote: post #205

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. 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…

he should be fine. he broke no law.

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

#299

Post by disconcision » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:49 AM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #291

sooper wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter" I'm curious, what's the problem with that?

Metcalfe's Law [0] dictates that the value of a network service scales exponentially with its number of nodes. This tilts the table in favor of winner-take-all ecosystems; moreover, in terms of both political soft power and cultural influence, this often creates a pressure for users to participate, not quite under duress, but let's say unenthusiastically , lest they be left out of the conversation. [0] https://en.wik…

(proportional to the square of the number of nodes, not exponentially)

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

#300

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:49 AM UTC

nscalf wrote: post #272

legostormtroopr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why does there have to be an alternative? They can give speeches, send letters and emails, go on television, post to other social media platforms, yell in a park, release an album, etc. You have the right to freedom of speech, not the right to freedom of mediums of speech.

If this is your opinion, then why not go even further?

If you don't support lowering Walmart's taxes, along with all other grocery stores, then why shouldn't they be allowed to permanently ban you for all places to buy food from, forever?