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

331–340 of 434 posts

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

#331

Post by SamReidHughes »

titzer wrote: post #294
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…

You could see the "fascist" "mob" protesting last month.

Now we see the other side.

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

#332

Post by cmonnow »

alea_iacta_est wrote: post #124
TechBro8615 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an entirely unsurprising result of eliminating reasonable discussion and rendering it professionally untenable to support the president. Welcome to the life of a conservative in tech. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because it's clear that speaking about our political beliefs can lead to negative repercussions in our career. Good luck getting a job or investment a…

> I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure Just created a new account just to tell you we're at least 2 conservatives in tech. Pretty sure I'll get angry and abandon this account very soon again because of the liberal bias here, and their adoration for the downvote button, but whatever, anything for a conservative colleague :) > There should be a term for "liberal privilege" when y…

why post anything under your real name ?

for all the lofty scientific & neutral ideals that rational/atheistic/left/liberal people chest-thump, they should be able to judge an idea for its content and not for the person.

but since we know that no one is that scientific, just post views under a pseudonym, unless you plan to run for political office.

if the idea is acceptable, it will be accepted.

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

#333

Post by Talanes »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #150
babesh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass. It biases elections by giving them an even bigger microphone than the other people running. Apply the same standards to all.

> "Apply the same standards to all." Do you honestly not realize that this is the exact issue being debated? Whether the "standards" are being applied fairly and consistently irrespective of political affiliations? And whether the "standard" itself is loaded to censor certain relatively mainstream but not Silicon Valley viewpoints? What you're saying reminds me of an anti-gay marriage argument I heard: "Hey, I'm stra…

Non famous people get Facebook timeouts for memes. The same standards are not being applied in the slightest.

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

#334

Post by hsikka »

stale2002 wrote: post #326
ByteJockey wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> Can't they? For every single grocery store in the world to starve the population of people who do not vote for decreasing their taxes? No, I am pretty sure that society would do something about that, if this happened.

I’m not sure I follow this line of thought. If all the grocery stores did this, then I agree society would certainly take action: build better, more open grocery stores. surely the same principle applies here, A business like Twitter can choose to block a group of ideologies. If there is enough want in the part of people to propagate those ideologies, they’ll build a better forum and if those ideas are successful, that forum will be. Competitive, capitalistic behavior handles this.

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

#335

Post by lol636363 »

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…

Forcing companies to host hateful content will drive away regular users. That's not good for business.

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

#336

Post by dntbnmpls »

XorNot wrote: post #295
dntbnmpls wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

In other words, they can't censor as they are. A private company cannot censor.

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

#337

Post by bryan_w »

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…

> If you disagree with this, think to yourself - would you want Trump supporters deciding what you're able to post on Facebook?

I've been thinking about this from a what-if perspective. In this scenario, you could imagine the staff wanting to block all LGBT content especially this month as that would be "dangerous to the standard family values"

This bizzaro FB would be upset that Bernie was spouting socialism and would point to historic examples of socialist dictators as a reason to ban him

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

#338

Post by xenospn »

musicale wrote: post #324
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.

> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech Wasn't that the idea of Public Access Television?

Try airing a show called Happy Nazi Fun Time on public access. See how that works.

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

#339

Post by youeseh »

opportune wrote: post #309

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 o…

About baby names: This was in 2015, when the Democratic presidential front runners for the most part were pro-China and in favor of the TPP.

Edit: TPPP -> TPP

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

#340

Post by philipov »

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.

The First Amendment protects citizens from censorship by the government. It doesn't protect the government (or citizens) from censorship by private business. This is why having unregulated private platforms be the primary forum for political discourse is a threat to democracy.

If Facebook or any other social media site wants to do that, they should be classified as a common carrier and be regulated by the FCC.

"One reason common carriers are licensed is to ensure they provide indiscriminate public access and protect the privacy of the general public."

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/common-carrier

Post reply on HN