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

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

#311

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:23 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…

[deleted]

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

#312

Post by SauciestGNU » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:23 AM UTC

Pils wrote: post #293

prh8 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is in your opinion the opposite of White Nationalism on the radical spectrum?

Not him but I'm giggling over here thinking about insurrectionary anarchism with compulsory interracial characteristics.

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

#313

Post by sevreview38402 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:24 AM UTC

neonate wrote: post #69

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.

Any Facebook employees want to give us an inside view about this? Throwaway account if needed?

I’m at FB and the nuance between supporting BLM/racial equality and preserving free speech has been lost. If you don’t think Zuck should’ve taken down Trump’s ramblings then you’ll likely be seen quite negatively by people all across the org chart, potentially including your direct and indirect superiors.

Of my own team:

30% definitely support

20% probably support

50% unknown/neutral

0% definitely against

I wrote more thoughts here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23411899

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

#314

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:25 AM UTC

sultanofswing wrote: post #108

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 want to clarify that this is in NO way verifiable. There were 0 company polls taken about this on a grand scale. Most vocal position so far has been large scale dissatisfaction with this decision. But no way to actually know if that is just a ‘vocal’ minority. So unless this person they ‘surveyed’ did some sort of independent analysis where they sampled a significant portion of the company independently, they are f…

[deleted]

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

#315

Post by aniro » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:25 AM UTC

derrick_jensen wrote: post #278

lancesells wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you in spirit, but the Fairness Doctrine in the United States was a variation of this, where the FCC required that approximately equal time and attention be paid to all sides of a major issue. Ronald Reagan removed this in the 80s, and helped popularize conservative talk radio. The justification was that the limited bandwidth of television made it in the public interest to regulate its influence. The int…

The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the airwaves were a public resource and that anyone using that resource was required to use it responsibly and in the interest of the public.

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

#316

Post by prawn » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:29 AM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #253

lancesells wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If the…

Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal.

But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.

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

#317

Post by whymauri » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:29 AM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #303

whymauri wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a misreading of what I've said that is so egregious that I cannot reply assuming you're writing in good faith.

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

#318

Post by ColanR » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:33 AM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #232

ColanR wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we discourage institutions from taking responsibility for accuracy Facts are often debatable; the set of facts that need to be accurate is also debatable; and you are suggesting that both of those debates be settled unilaterally by expecting (requiring?) the institution to "take responsibility for accuracy." Note that public pressure (read: popular opinion of the day) will almost certainly be the deciding factor in…

Where facts are debatable, the responsibility to accuracy would include a description of their basis and the limits of that basis. Where there's less room for debate, responsibility includes an obligation to avoid "shape of the earth: views differ" approaches. If individuals and institutions don't take up this kind of responsibility, then there's no such thing as discourse, only speech as indulgence. And the value of…

Discourse is when individuals are willing to argue civilly with people who believe fundamentally different things, and are able to do so without concern for 'watching their words'. Whether they are engaging in an informed discussion or an uninformed one is between the people talking.

For anyone else to insert themselves into the conversation, public or not, and claim to have The Real Facts is arrogant. For an institution to attempt to referee the conversations it is privy to, prevents actual truth from being discovered. To require institutions to referee in that way? Is another act of arrogance: placing oneself above 'the other people who have to be kept in line'. To leave those institutions at the mercy of popular opinion, to referee as the mob sees fit, is insanity.

At least, that's the way I see it. Thank goodness we're still allowed to disagree on this.

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

#319

Post by nine_k » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:34 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…

Ideally all the speech, including every kind of speech you find disgusing, should be left as is, without censorship.

As long as it's not anonymous, you can see who is who (even under screen names), and value other speech and actions of these people accordingly. For instance, it would be easy to let anyone know that Paul Nehlen is a racist, by pointing at these posts

As a service owner, you could collapse and mark certain posts so that content offensive for most people won't jump in their eyes. Twitter does this.

Unfortunately, this is not always possible. First, there are legal limitations (hate speech, libel, etc). Second, the public outrage: people actively want to destroy things they find offensive and wrong, and put pressure on the service's owners. This includes its employees and shareholders.

Most people only tolerate free speech as long as it fits the confines of the Overton window. You have to have balls of steel and really good sources of money to explicitly and publicly tolerate anything beyond. Common carrier protections help here, too.

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

#320

Post by nine_k » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:41 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.

Because the loudest, the most intolerant wins in a society of decent, nice people:

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Also, there is no way to abate and come clean of the sin once you've been accused of it loudly enough. The accusation will stick and can ruin your entire remaining life. It's often not worth the risk if your views are moderate, and it's not a life-or-death question.