Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#11

Post by runawaybottle » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:16 PM UTC

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

It’s in line with useless meetings a typical company has. It’s hard to get a sense for how bullshit some people’s jobs are until you accidentally get invited to one of their meetings. I once accidentally stayed much longer than I was supposed to in a meeting between PMs/Product and I was absolutely shocked that that’s what they spend several hours a day doing.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#12

Post by 3np » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

Graham makes no sense... Just from the one minute I watched: "We must incentivize social media platforms to come up with standards that are transparent and opaque"

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#13

Post by leftyted » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:18 PM UTC

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given.

I agree with you.

They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#14

Post by Karunamon » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

>I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are.

Considering that they are not even under oath, precisely zero. They can lie to the lawmakers' faces with no recourse.

I very distinctly remember Jack telling congress the time before last that they "do not shadowban", and then screenshots of their admin dashboard were leaked[1] that show they explicitly did have multiple kinds of shadowbans.

[1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-acces...

Disregard that first sentence, apparently they are all sworn in by default. It's just that perjury is barely ever pursued.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#15

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

xalava wrote: post #9

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

Having followed hearings related to Libra, sure there is a lot of posturing. However, first, some MP asks precise critical questions. Secondly, it seems that even for trained CEOs one hour of intense questioning takes a toll. I've rarely heard something new, but you can detect some of their personality, their contradictions, the important points for MP ...

It'd be nice to see more cooperative questioning.

If no answer is given, have the next questioner ask the same question again.

At some point, that's going to get under even Zuckerberg's skin.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#16

Post by jsrjenkins » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:20 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #5

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

The positive argument is that a hearing forces companies to develop official positions on things they might otherwise prefer to ignore. I know there have been a few times where tech companies announced some new project they’re going to do to address issues just in advance of a hearing. I tend to agree that their primary function is public shaming, though.

I wonder if it is something to do with this information:

https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20

Josh Hawley is a US Senator for Missouri.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#17

Post by greesil » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

So I guess the counter argument that these platforms are acting as newspapers with editors is that they didn't actually make an editorial decision by limiting virality or putting a warning message on posts and articles.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#18

Post by jsrjenkins » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

TekMol wrote: post #4

What is this about? Why are they testifying?

I think it is something to do with this information:

https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20

Josh Hawley is a US Senator for Missouri. Supposedly he will ask questions about his information.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#19

Post by whatshisface » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #13

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. I agree with you. They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.

>They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.

It is the cameras you have to thank for finding out that they are posturing and grandstanding.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#20

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

runawaybottle wrote: post #11

greesil wrote: post #2

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…

It’s in line with useless meetings a typical company has. It’s hard to get a sense for how bullshit some people’s jobs are until you accidentally get invited to one of their meetings. I once accidentally stayed much longer than I was supposed to in a meeting between PMs/Product and I was absolutely shocked that that’s what they spend several hours a day doing.

If you want a laugh, go in an enterpise PM meeting, listen to their pain points, and pipe up that you could write an integration of (system X) and (system Y) (that they spend most of their day copying and pasting data between) in a weekend.