Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

wired.com

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#21

I wonder if people will change their views on Facebook censorship if Zuckerberg and Facebook drift to the right? People have changed their politics as they have gotten older, before. All of a sudden, if Zuckerberg comes out wearing a MAGA hat, will people be so excited about him being the “arbiter of truth” or will they suddenly be talking about “free speech”?

I bet that if Facebook and others start fact-checking comments about the dangers of nuclear power or GMOs then people will revise their perspective very quickly.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#22

2016: Facebook rigged an election. They are awful. 2020: Facebook won't rig an election. They are awful.

You forgot one.

2012: Facebook (via an open, neutral platform) helped Obama win the election. They are wonderful. E.g. “Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship: the 2012 data election” (The Guardian, February 2012)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#24

More mental gymnastics and gyrations to justify muzzling the opposing narrative.

If the opposing narritive is propaganda or hatred, who’s doing the mental gymnastics here?

“If the opposing narrative is blasphemy and heresy, of course we ought to burn the books (and the heretics)”

Comment on Medieval equivalent of HN

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that ~40% of America supports/votes for the POTUS, following him on social media, re-shares his memes, etc. People are looking to generally open communications platforms like Facebook and asking them to censor, but if they carried their logic to its conclusion, the President’s emails, texts, mobile Apps, and press releases should all be censored or blacklisted by communications providers. If the p…

The real problem is that you refuse to take people you disagree with seriously. You keep fucking lying about them, you keep pushing people towards their side by being an absolute fucking cunt. Just stop. It's not helping.

I am taking it seriously. The logic that demands Facebook censor trump from their open platform doesn’t have any clear limiting factor that means that Trump shouldn’t be censored off other communications service providers.

Not a MAGA type by the way. I’ve voted against trump in 3 elections already and will be voting against him again in the fall.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#26
> Zuckerberg should take note. Yes, it’s crazy for one person to have such massive control over what people say online. But like it or not, our system gives leaders of huge corporations massive power. In his total control of Facebook, he must be the arbiter—of harm. We must demand that he perform that role in the best possible way, minimizing the toxic speech posted by his customers, whether they are peons or presidents. His employees are speaking out. His billions of users should let him know as well. And the government should back off.

And when Zuckerberg steps down as the CEO of facebook and his successor is someone leaning towards a different political ideology - what happens then?

The next CEO of Facebook is not an elected official. Unless you count Wall Street appointed board of directors approving a successor as somehow being representative democracy.

I still believe that tech companies should focus on building tech - Facebook engineers have incredible impact in connecting friends and families all over the world. Changing company policy to be aligned with the Bay Area’s political inclinations seems to me to be very short sighted.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is considered propaganda or hatred has become increasingly subjective

No it hasn't. Propaganda and hatred has just become more sophisticated and super-charged by new tools (social media, Internet etc.) in order to maximize it's spread among the community. These new tools also allow bigots to self-organize, privately in ways never before possible.

And what does sophistication of means has to do with the subjectivity mentioned?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#28

More mental gymnastics and gyrations to justify muzzling the opposing narrative.

People fail to understand that nothing is static. One minute you’re in, the other minute you’re out.

What was PC today may not be PC tomorrow depending on dynamics.

They don’t understand the same forces they want to use to muzzle someone today can become the force that muzzles them tomorrow.

They like Jack censoring twitter only because he aligns with them. They don’t like Mark right now because he doesn’t 100% align with them.

They don’t care one whit about data retention and third party selling, etc. all they care about is “are you aligned with my narrative today?”

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#29
There are multiple reports that all over the country in rural areas people read fake facebook posts and mobilized arms in a bid to protect their area from "antifa". Zuckerberg did not want to get into the vetting business because incidents like this will then fall squarely on them. Now he doesn't have to care and can just count the dollars from all kinds of clicks.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is an Arbiter of Truth–Whether He Likes It or Not

#30
post #15

Even if I were to condone censorship, I do think that in any case announcements by the government are special. Trump's form may be off, it might not look official, but absent other more formal press releases etc., this is as official as it gets. And such announcements do need to reach the citizens of the affected nation/state/area, because they do directly influence people's lives, health, the society and the state.…

" if the announcement were too provocative/evil/illegal, there are ways in a democracy to hold the wrongdoer responsible."

Are there really though? Perhaps there are said to be, but can you give me an example of this supposed system working?

Post reply on HN