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

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

#301

Post by geodel » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:50 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.

> For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business.

Well with that logic popular politicians are good for FB's business and hence must not be censored.

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

#302

Post by matz1 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:57 AM UTC

sixstringtheory wrote: post #187

matz1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

>You’d expend effort to prevent people from learning?

I won't prevent people from learning rather I won't force them to learn if that what they prefer.

>A democracy requires an educated electorate, so you are anti-democracy?

Democracy doesn't require an educated electorate, it only require majority. If the majority is 'stupid' (stupid is relative) then stupid it is.

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

#303

Post by logicchains » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:58 AM UTC

whymauri wrote: post #239

myhnaccount2 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm with you on this. In the past 150 years, pseudoscientific disciplines like eugenics and phrenology have directly led to the deaths of millions of people. Geographic determinism and 19th-century racial "science" directly led to the subjugation, abuse, and exploitation of tens of millions of people. Just two years ago, misinformation and falsified news fueled a genocide through Facebook. You're 100% correct: this i…

>pseudoscientific disciplines like eugenics and phrenology have directly led to the deaths of millions of people

>Just two years ago, misinformation and falsified news fueled a genocide through Facebook.

All this was done by governments (Hitler, Myanmar government), and you want to give governments more power to control what people can do/say online?

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

#304

Post by ByteJockey » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 2:59 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #300

nscalf wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Can't they?

They can't discriminate based on protected traits, but political opinions aren't really protected on a federal level.

It might not be a good business idea, but I think it's legal (correct me if I'm off base on my legal positions).

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

#305

Post by madengr » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:05 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.

Cable TV is required. The KKK ran a show on a NYC public access channel back in the 90’s.

Of course I could go cut the data lines running through the right-of-way on my property. I don’t agree with how these big data companies are censoring, so maybe I will censor them.

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

#306

Post by opportune » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:06 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.

Social media sites should also feel free to apply the same content standards (no calls for violence or fake news) to all users regardless of their political status. Politicians aren’t entitled to use Facebook or twitter. They can start their own social media site where racism and false statements are allowed

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

#307

Post by sevreview38402 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:07 AM UTC

tech-historian wrote: post #26

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.

It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something? Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?

I’m at FB (throwaway account for good measure).

It’s impossible to tell, especially working remotely. It’s not like you can ask these kinds of questions over Workplace chat unless you’re close with other team members.

But the perspective that there are people who agree with Zuck’s decision and aren’t speaking up is valid. I’m one of them despite generally agreeing with BLM _and_ being a person of color.

You have people changing their profile pics to BLM icons which makes it ever so apparent that a non-negligible percent (20%-30% maybe) of co-workers in each group chat support the cause.

During Q&As, 95% of the comments are from BLM supporters making quite blunt remarks about Zuck’s decision making.

Director+ levels are also vocally against Zuck’s decision (although they accept that they can’t change his mind). I’m not willing to torpedo my career progression here, and imagine others feel the same.

So yeah, I’ll be keeping my mouth shut and silently nodding along with the rest while Zuck gets rocks thrown at him.

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

#308

Post by augustt » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:11 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #277

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…

Better than the alternative. Consider the r/nyc subreddit, where criticism of anything Jewish-related, no matter how minor, is usually instantly deleted. Whereas posts referring to black people as thugs and animals are allowed to stand. E.g. Google "site:reddit.com/r/nyc thugs"

Huh, there were lots of posts/comments about how the Hasidic community has dealt with coronavirus, mostly condemning them.

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

#309

Post by opportune » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:15 AM UTC

Zuckerburg has a history of this type of behavior in the past where he sucked up to Xi Jinping asking him to name his child (wtf...). He obviously doesn’t care about politics nearly as much as he does courting influence and money from politicians in power. The embarrassing part is his attempts to justify it without outright saying “Look, we have to keep Republicans happy because they have the power to hurt Facebook or stop giving us money and I’m not OK with that.”

Dorsey and even Bezos are more principled than he is.

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

#310

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:15 AM UTC

ve55 wrote: post #31

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.

It's unfortunate, but I've seen it happen a lot at companies like this, from what I've spoken about privately. The worst part is those I speak to have very modest views, good intentions, and have put thought into it. But they're terrified of ever speaking up at the workplace for fear of what those that are most radicalized might try in response.

[deleted]