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

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

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

#91

Post by dang »

lol139189 wrote: post #20
javagram wrote: post #19

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.

Could you please stop creating accounts to do flamewar here? It's not in your interest to do that, first because you're contributing to destroying the community that you're participating in, and second because these sorts of attacks just reinforce the people you disagree with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#92

Post by dang »

cameronbrown wrote: post #7
50ckpuppet wrote: post #2

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

This viewpoint is well represented on HN as well, worryingly.

It may be worrying but it's not surprising. Every common-enough point of view will be well represented in any large-enough population sample, assuming the sample wasn't specifically selected to exclude it.

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

#93

Post by manfredo »

manfredo wrote: post #90
aklemm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, this is the hard part and I don't understand what the law says so far and what may need changed. Imo, if you won't publish my book, I still have free speech, but if no one will sell me paper, then I don't.

It's definitely a hard problem. I definitely don't agree that companies need to host speech. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. I think a good boundary is to define whether an entity is actually hosting speed or providing general communications services. Platforms like facebook are the latter. Comments and photos exist on their servers, and they have a right not to host speech they don't want…

"hosting speed" -> hosting speech

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

#94

Post by manfredo »

unishark wrote: post #73
manfredo wrote: post #33

In the realm of corporate censorship, I still believe that politics is much less important to companies than profits. My takeaway from censorship on YouTube and other social media is that it's levied at content that could reflect poorly on advertisers. Inconvenient and controversial content more so than any specific political views. Granted, controversial does overlap with politic and especially fringe politics. Pers…

I think it's always been this way to a degree. But the mob can't completely exclude companies beyond a certain appeal, only the most extreme fringe. E.g. when they try to "excommunicate" firms over more mainstream views it doesn't work. Groups also use various forms of harassment to censor individuals which I think is a much harder problem online.

Payment processors refusing to do business is a new thing. As is cloudflare and dns providers refusing service.

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

#95

Post by cameronbrown »

dang wrote: post #92
cameronbrown wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This viewpoint is well represented on HN as well, worryingly.

It may be worrying but it's not surprising. Every common-enough point of view will be well represented in any large-enough population sample, assuming the sample wasn't specifically selected to exclude it.

That's very true, and a point I've made in the past about other opinions (namely, internet trolls). My assumption though, was that HN had a very well educated population, who know the dangers of censorship.

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

#96

Post by foxes »

mrits wrote: post #48
dilippkumar wrote: post #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 preside…

Alex Jones is the new CEO of Twitter. How would we think differently about the real problem here?

Yep, the real problem is conservatives/right wing.
Post reply on HN