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

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

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 248 posts

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

#81

Post by crusso »

jsrjenkins wrote: post #45
koolba wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The witnesses are under oath. Everyone that testifies before Congress is under oath and lying would constitute a federal crime. Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like. Regardless of how false or nonsensical.

Has any witness ever been convicted? There are so many witnesses that give completely false information that is later shown to be a lie. Has there any been a case of prosecuting such lies? Without prosecution it is all just empty threats and there is no real incentive to speak the truth. At the last hearing, for instance, Jack Dorsey said that they do not shadow ban, but later pictures appeared of their administrativ…

It happens. It's whimsical and seems often to be based upon media-generated hype. Important decision-makers like Comey and Clapper both lied to Congress in significant ways and never faced any repercussions. A little nobody like Roger Stone lied to Congress and was prosecuted to the hilt.

Look at the prosecution of Roger Clemens. Why the hell was Congress holding hearings about steroid use in baseball?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...

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

#82

Post by klodolph »

robertlagrant wrote: post #30
klodolph wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, are you British? This is North American usage. Here is the New Oxford American English dictionary’s definition, second sense: > North American at any moment; very soon: my husband will be here to pick me up momentarily. Now that you know that this is correct usage of the word, perhaps it will be less distracting the next time you see it used that way.

It's worse than I thought, then.

I sympathize. Everyone has a few words or phrases with incorrect usages stuck in their heads. For me it’s “fall through”, which feels like it should mean the opposite of what it does mean. I think that idea got stuck in my head because of the phrase “come through”, which implies success.

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

#83

Post by everdrive »

Karunamon wrote: post #38
everdrive wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people on HN agree with you. Because these are televised, and MOST people will not watch the hearing, each senator is looking for their own sound bite which they can replay to show how tough they were. The illusion falls apart when you watch the actual hearing: the same question is asked over and over, the speakers are not given a real chance to reply, and there is no real dialogue. Of course it doesn't…

I wonder what the answer for this is? On one hand, you're absolutely right, these events are opportunities for grandstanding. On the other hand, the meetings of the government should be open and transparent by default.

It's a tough call. I think part of the problem is frankly the electorate. You won't find many on HN, but remember that this sanctimonious grandstanding is broadly popular. Senators aren't just doing it to entertain themselves.

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

#84

Post by JumpCrisscross »

formerly_proven wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?

What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths, they're fully aware of what they're doing, what the effects are and they simply do not care.

> What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths

Hearings have four audiences in decreasing order of importance: voters, regulators, the hearing participants and legislators.

If you believe these men are irredeemable sociopaths, ask questions that show voters and regulators (e.g. prosecutors) that.

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

#85

Post by kemonocode »

mxskelly wrote: post #65
dustingetz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe these two men actually aren't trying to become more wealthy. Perhaps they are trapped by promises and partnerships made in the past, where they consensually entered an unbreakable alliance.

Is this a joke? Please tell me you're joking.

Many rich people are incredibly miserable and basically stuck in a position they cannot escape from. That doesn't mean they aren't doing a lot of harm (they are) or they aren't aware of it (again, they are) but they might not see a viable way out of it.

I remember when Zuckerberg was just seen like a nerdy, awkward kid suddenly put in big boy pants and people empathizing with him, and not like the eldritch abomination/reptilian drone he's seen like these days.

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

#86

Post by jedimastert »

formerly_proven wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?

What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths, they're fully aware of what they're doing, what the effects are and they simply do not care.

I don't think it's helpful to pretend to have a full view into the minds of these men. I think it's very possible that Zuckerberg genuinely has no idea why people would care this much about privacy and why people push back against Facebook because of it, just like I think there are people who actually have no idea why the phrase "if you have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide" is problematic.

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

#87

Post by elicash »

crusso wrote: post #67
j4yav wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been following closely, but isn't this the opposite positions of four years ago?

The Left and the Right used to agree that freedom of speech was fairly sacrosanct.

What's funny about this comment is you can read it as claiming either side doesn't value free speech.

One side says the right wants to use force of government threaten breaking up companies whose speech policies they disagree with. The other side arguing that left-wing social media companies have so much power they can essentially censor opposing views.

Edit: clarity

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

#89

Post by snarf21 »

blhack wrote: post #28

Let me give a preview for anybody who can’t tune in: Democrats all say that disinformation is a threat to democracy. Republicans say that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy. Jack and Mark preface every answer with “senator thank you for this question” and don’t answer anything. They both insist that the humans making editorial decisions are somehow impartial. Republicans yell a lot. Somethings they say d…

The greatest trick social ever played was convincing everyone their neighbor is the enemy while the rich and powerful silently rape this country.

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

#90

Post by dustingetz »

mxskelly wrote: post #65
dustingetz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe these two men actually aren't trying to become more wealthy. Perhaps they are trapped by promises and partnerships made in the past, where they consensually entered an unbreakable alliance.

Is this a joke? Please tell me you're joking.

It's an idea, not a joke, but the question has implications for anyone with ambitions to partner with capitalists
Post reply on HN