Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 174 posts

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#81

Post by jacobush »

greatwhitenorth wrote: post #41

Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.

This is not really the largest problem with FB at all. It's that they finely tune us in Skinner boxes to react to shitposts. If the algorithm crosses the line and you back off, it tries something else.

It just so happens that what we humans engage most with is inflammatory bullshit, so of course the algos push that. It's not personal, it's just more money in that.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#82

Post by trca »

a-wu wrote: post #30
trca wrote: post #26

Could someone copy / paste the text here for those of us who have blocked *.facebook.com domains in our /etc/hosts file?

I just shared the following note with our employees, and I want to share it with all of you as well. --- As we continue to process this difficult moment, I want to acknowledge the real pain expressed by members of our community. I also want to acknowledge that the decision I made last week has left many of you angry, disappointed and hurt. So I am especially grateful that, despite your heartfelt disagreement, you rem…

Thank you!

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#85

Post by jacobush »

vz8 wrote: post #50

I would love to see a set of (enforced) policies that are blind to the user in question, if such a thing could be. For example: 1. If a post is flagged for review, the account name/owner, social score, social graph, ad revenue, all of it, is hidden from the review person, team, or algorithm. The only history they would have access to is violation history, influencing some kind of recidivism penalty. 2. The duration a…

What about revenue impact

Write that in cursive on the black board 100 times before you are allowed back in your cubicle, employee #140932.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#86

Post by jonstewart »

cryptoz wrote: post #8
coliveira wrote: post #5

Nothing is really being announced. He said they will discuss a few things but what will come out of these discussions is not guaranteed. Great way to say you're doing something without doing anything.

The most-used verb in the numbered list is 'review'. I hope some action comes of this, but, I dunno, it's Facebook.

I noticed that, too. Also: “going to”

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#87

Post by im3w1l »

boplicity wrote: post #21

> I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, Facebook systematically promotes and propogates the most inflammatory content posted on its platform. Why? Because it is the most engaging. This is part of the intentional design of Facebook, and is the fundamental reason there are so many problematic things happening on the platform. Mark's "thoughts" on the topic do…

> Facebook systematically promotes and propogates the most inflammatory content posted on its platform.

This is not borne out by the facts. Facebook is a lot tamer than unmoderated, uncurated, algorithm-free platforms.

This idea that facebook promotes inflammatory content was invented by unscrupulous people, with the goal of getting facebook to censor even more than they already do, because this will give their viewpoint the upper hand.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#88

Post by chrisco255 »

harikb wrote: post #65
chrisco255 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, same goes for books. You know how many people have been indoctrinated and persuaded by books? Let's burn those while we're at it.

If the cost (monetary and one’s credibility) of publishing a Social post matched that of publishing a book, we wouldn’t be here discussing this. If we allow anyone with opposing thumbs to spew garbage online, platform have some responsibility to have some limits or require making source/author public

Yeah that's how freedom of speech works. Listen, you don't police private conversations among friends. Not in America. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm sure I could comb over your personal beliefs and find all sorts of garbage, including what you're saying now Corporate regulation of speech is a losing proposition for society. Period.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#89

Post by Barrin92 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #49
slantedview wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you haven't been radicalized on FB doesn't mean it's not a real problem.

Yeah, same goes for books. You know how many people have been indoctrinated and persuaded by books? Let's burn those while we're at it.

People tend to bring this up as some sort of forceful counter-example, but the printing press contributed significantly to religious sectarianism in Europe, fuelling the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century which killed over a third of the German population.

Books might not have been burned, but about 50.000 'witches' did.

A rapid increase in the dissemination of information in systems that have no mechanism to tolerate them is no trivial matter.

Re: Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

#90

Post by harikb »

chrisco255 wrote: post #88
harikb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost (monetary and one’s credibility) of publishing a Social post matched that of publishing a book, we wouldn’t be here discussing this. If we allow anyone with opposing thumbs to spew garbage online, platform have some responsibility to have some limits or require making source/author public

Yeah that's how freedom of speech works. Listen, you don't police private conversations among friends. Not in America. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm sure I could comb over your personal beliefs and find all sorts of garbage, including what you're saying now Corporate regulation of speech is a losing proposition for society. Period.

My only ask is that you see the difference between free-speech as intended in the constitution vs free-speech under an unverifiable and easily forged online pseudonym. You may not even be defending free speech of an American citizen/resident
Post reply on HN