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

101–110 of 248 posts

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

#101

Post by thehappypm »

blhack wrote: post #69
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?

1) We require food manufacturers to list on the side of their products the ingredients, as well as the nutrition facts so people can make an informed decision about what they are putting in their body. There is a growing pressure to require your companies to do something similar, and publish the algorithms and metrics you use to keep people on your services longer. Would you support this movement? 2) Do you believe y…

The answer to number 1 is an easy "no" because trade secrets are crucial to just about every industrial sector and an algorithm is clearly a trade secret. Even the food industry allows trade secrets -- the secret Coca-Cola recipe is not printed on every can. Even the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have proprietary stabilizing agents in them. As much as it sounds nice, the outcome would be vagueries like "we use algorithms to select the content we think you'll find most interesting based on your past browsing behavior".

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

#102

Post by noelsusman »

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 have closed door hearings as well. That's where the real work gets done, if there is any.

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

#103

Post by vlunkr »

Closi wrote: post #79

These hearings just show how they have an impossible task. * Question 1: Why did you put labels on the president's tweets? What gives you the right to determine that? Putting a label on is completely outrageous! * Question 2: You labelled the presidents tweet as 'potentially misleading' - but this didn't go far enough, as it was fully misleading! Why are you not harsh enough on fake news?! There needs to be a separat…

Yeah I really don't envy them. They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money. I'm sure they never thought they would be at the center of national discussions about free speech, defending themselves against senators on TV, or being in the no-win situation of having the President use your platform to share obvious lies.

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

#104

Post by elicash »

nailer wrote: post #57

The fascinating thing with Twitter is their 'corrections' to Trump's tweets say 'official sources' dispute them. Clicking on the corrections gives a pointer to AP and NBC. Technically they're incorrect. AP and NBC are by no means official sources for the results of US elections. The Electoral College is the official source for the results of US elections. In this way, Twitter itself spreads disinformation - and somew…

Are you referring to the "Multiple sources called this election differently" disclaimer? Or the "Official sources may not have called the race when this was tweeted" one?

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

#105

Post by op03 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41
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…

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

How many people are required to moderate a 3 billion member network? How do you decide the number? How many do you currently employ city/state/country wise.

Since the engagement algos/infinite scroll/like button/follower counts etc are meddling with the brains reward mechanisms, what determines such meddling is psychologically safe?

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

#106

Post by jb775 »

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…

Was just thinking the same thing. These things are such a joke and nothing comes out of them.

And I love how they are afforded the right to answer these questions from the comfort of their homes. Make them go to DC!

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

#107

Post by pqoek »

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…

I haven't watched this one, but I watched the previous ones (how many times will these guys have to testify really?) and there was more questions than answers. Most of the times the questioners wouldn't even let the testifiers answer the questions, it was just a show.

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

#108

Post by mxskelly »

kemonocode wrote: post #85
mxskelly wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abominatio…

Sorry but "rich people are miserable because they have too much money" is not a real problem and I feel exactly zero sympathy for anyone in that position.

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

#109

Post by leftyted »

whatshisface wrote: post #94
leftyted wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the cameras they have no reason to posture. They posture so they can cut a clip, publish it, and say: "Look! Here's me standing up to the evil Republicans|Democrats|tech CEOs who want to steal your precious bodily fluids!" In the presence of cameras, politicians become instagram celebrities.

If their motivations were to do their real jobs, they would do their real jobs regardless of the cameras. The presence of the cameras reveals that they prefer posturing to doing their jobs, but that does not imply that doing their jobs is the priority immediately below posturing. If the cameras were gone, do you think they would ask real questions, or would they start doing things far worse than posturing in front of…

Let's run an experiment by moving cameras into the Supreme Court -- actually all courtrooms -- and the rooms where juries deliberate and all Cabinet meetings. We'll be able to tell that I'm right after our government stops working.

Or we could save ourselves the trouble and ask ourselves why it is that we don't allow cameras in those places to begin with. And then we could extend that reasoning to Congress. Turns out treating your government like a reality tv show is a bad idea.

Removing the cameras isn't going to fix everything...but it will be a positive change.

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

#110

Post by CodeGlitch »

tensor wrote: post #49
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?

This is an interesting question! I'm not sure there is anything I need to hear from these two. That's not to say that polarization and disinformation being amplified due to social media bubbles isn't a serious problem. Rather, I don't think it's up to these two to fix it, nor even understand it. As a society we need to first understand the problem, then decide on what, if anything, we want to do to fix it. Fixes woul…

Some things are simply too destructive to be in society. I'll take smoking as an example: Of course you should have the option to put whatever you like into your body. But when it starts to seriously affect your health and the people around you, it calls into question whether your right to smoke is above the negative impact on society.

This is how I see social media. (I realise a lot of HN folk work in this area)

These CEOs brought social media into our world, and I expect them to take resposibility for it. If they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility, then I'm OK for The State to do that for them - like you said with regulations. Currently it looks like they don't want to take resposibility for the destruction they have caused.

Sorry for the rant - but I'm seeing first hand the negative effects of QAnon/Consipracy Theories/Extreme Politics within family members.

Post reply on HN