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

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

#401

Post by giardini » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 5:28 PM 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…

Why not let a fool be a fool? Why hide what someone is? All that does is create mystique about him.

"Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox, it is a set of privately owned servers where people can persist small amounts of data that comply with a set of rules. "

Certainly that is how it started.

But the de facto power of social media's censorship and dominance in discourse will eventually bring government to regulate social media so as to preserve free speech.

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

#402

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 5:54 PM 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.

If our elected officials use your platform to share lies and hate you cannot morally ask people to be silently complicit.

Our elected officials have their own electronic resources. Every senator and congress person has a website. Trump has a website. Anyone with $100 can have a website.

Let them distribute hate and lies on their own site.

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

#403

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #359

root_axis wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies. What rules are those? Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?

The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise…

To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable.

Does that describe your position?

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

#404

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

stOneskull wrote: post #62

ve55 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a mistake to assume that anyone who doesn't want to fact-check/remove Trump's posts has to lean right politically. There's a lot of other reasons they can have. What if all of Trump's worst posts were removed, such that every potential voter reading them then has a less-aligned view of what he supports, and decides to vote for him, when they would not have had his posts not been selectively filtered? Jus…

i think that the president should be able to speak to the people, and half the people want to hear it. those who don't want to hear it shouldn't block it from the others. it's jiggled into such a drama. a headache over nothing. zuck was right, about transcending the feelings, and going by principles.

Half is a vast overestimate.

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

#405

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

hkai wrote: post #371

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.

A great example of why major companies should not regulate people's lives is WeChat in China. Some ethnic minorities are banned from using it, which is almost the same as not having a credit card in the US. You can kind of get around without it, but not really. Many tech companies are simply utilities now. They should not be allowed to refuse service in the same way as electric companies are not allowed to refuse you…

Can you please name one platform that is like this in America?

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

#406

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #301

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.

> 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.

They presumably take a broader view than this quarters profits.

How did business fare after Germany lost ww2?

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

#407

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

Diederich wrote: post #149

neonate wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most of the folks I've spoken to don't agree with Zuck's position, which I find disappointing and unsurprising. Facebook and to a lesser extent other big social media is in an impossible position. In my opinion: “Over time, in general we tend to add more policies to restrict things more and more,” he said. “If every time there’s something that’s controversial your instinct is, okay let’s restrict a lot, then you do e…

This is just Facebook acting in bad faith, and glad to see many employees can see right through the charade.

Facebook cares about its bottom line only. By restricting things, it decreases its income. They don't want to verify ads (my dad was just scammed the other day. I have since gotten my mom off of Facebook). They don't want to lose users, that includes nazis, white supremacists, Trump supports, far left radicals, etc. They don't care about hackers, and foreign agents influencing elections.

If Facebook wishes to be a public forum then it needs to either become a utility or it needs to lose its profit incentive. Otherwise it is a private platform and should bear the consequence of the misinformation and hate it spreads.

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

#408

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

grumple wrote: post #36

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.

The thought police will publicly shame you in every way possible if you don't score enough "woke points" with your latest post. We've seen conservative voices exiled from SV, and I suspect moderate or simply imperfect liberal voices would be treated similarly. As a pretty far-left liberal in an extended social group of extremist liberals, I've learned / am learning to just stay off social media and say nothing (easie…

I've heard this for years, the conservative victim complex truly is one of the country's greatest examples of social engineering. No evidence of any of this stuff - it's just a boogeyman.

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

#409

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 6:41 PM 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?

It's a known issue that unrestricted commerce or indeed unrestricted ANYTHING is unacceptable because its trivial to imagine situations wherein an actor or actors can misuse the situation.

We cannot and shouldn't contemplate a solution to any and all possible feasible problems because time is finite and a solution that in theory results in the best outcome for a..z wherein h..z are hypothetical and a..h are actual may actually be a worse solution for a..g

The analogy is ridiculous on its face. It will never be actual. In such a situation we would trivially resolve it by passing a law that food stores can't blacklist groups of people while retaining the right to blacklist individuals for actual misbehavior. This would be somewhat limiting on the freedom of small shopkeepers to say throw out nazis but it would break the back of the "big food for lower taxes" coalition. Since none such exists this solution is as described above worse for the set of problems we actually have to solve a problem that is only hypothetical.

It would be more productive to discuss the ACTUAL issue by addressing it directly instead of trying to reason by analogy. It's not like its a topic people on this site have trouble understanding. Going off into the weeds like this just wasted time.

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

#410

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

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…

There isn't an alternative to twitter that will get you as many views as quickly. Are your rights decreased if fewer people hear you because they aren't interested in your message enough to come to www.mydomain.com