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

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

#141

Post by elicash » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #112

elicash wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One side is actively telling people to "rise up" [0] in a state that recently had a terrorist plot to kidnap the governor [1]. And that had an armed occupation of the house of government [2]. And who were recently told by the President to "stand by" [3]. The other side is saying not to actively invite violence. I'm pretty sure those are not equivalent positions. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/trump-a…

I wasn't saying that the left and right hold equivalent positions. My point was that the comment I was responding to was vague and could be read in a variety of ways.

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

#142

Post by an_opabinia » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

furyofantares wrote: post #132

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…

It's not your fault that this is the top comment in the thread at this time, but I find it somewhat ironic that I watched the testimony on disinformation -- and it didn't go too much like this comment suggested it would -- and then came here to find the top post is dismissive, incorrect speculation about the content.

What counts as misinformation: generalization? Omission? There might be a partisan-associated divide among these forms of lying, but I don’t want to risk generalizing about Republicans and Democrats nor omitting that I didn’t watch the testimony either.

The real takeaway is they should disseminate the transcriptions not the videos. One thing I feel comfortable generalizing about is, everyone should fucking read more.

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

#143

Post by nailer » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

cycrutchfield wrote: post #127

nailer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No my argument is that NBC and AP are not official sources and are being presented as such.

The "official sources" are the election results tabulated by each state. NBC and AP collate this data and show that Biden has enough electoral votes to win. That is what is meant by "call". A "call" is what happens before the electors meet to vote. To suggest that you need to wait until January 6th or whenever in order to "call" the election is absurd.

State recounts finish December 8.

The Electoral College meets December 14.

The Electoral College determines the winner.

Any 'result' before the EC determines the winner is a preliminary result.

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

#144

Post by hallway_monitor » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #120

javert wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to think of rich people who are doing more harm than good. Sure, you could argue that for Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the Sackler family if you want to. But they are a tiny fraction of all rich people. "Silently rape" is a pretty harsh thing to say. Would you prefer we had no rich people? There are places like that.

Really? You have a hard time thinking of rich people doing more harm than good? Do you recall the decades where the truth about tobacco was actively suppressed? How fossil fuel companies are doing the same thing right now about Global Warming? Or the dismantling of regulatory agencies like the EPA by the Trump admin? Or the various billionaires that fund "think tanks" to conduct "research" favorable to their economic…

It seems less productive to focus on "rich people" and instead focus on "large corporations", because all of these actions are done in the name of the corporation. An adjustment to corporate law to put the responsibility for actions of corporations on to C-level execs could have positive effects for example.

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

#145

Post by elicash » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #136

elicash wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just edited for clarity, so maybe that helps? My entire point is that you were using such a vague straw man that it's impossible to know which direction you meant it. That's why I intentionally showed how it can be a straw man in either direction. Also, I've been watching the hearing. So you're correct, I suppose -- that's how I was able to accurately summarize. I'm assuming from comment history that you have a lib…

The Republicans are pretty clearly wanting to remove legal protections of section 230 of the CDA for social media companies that are acting as quasi-publishers by suppressing the speech of users on their platforms. The Democrats want more effort made by social media companies to fight what they perceive as online misinformation... and are asking for more suppression of speech on social media platforms. Nobody is hidi…

I disagree, and am glad you clarified your position.

My view is that these companies are privately run and online communities should be free to run them as they wish. If, say, Christian Mingle wants to ban atheists from using the platform to spread their message, they should be allowed to do that without suddenly taking on liability for things like copyright infringement. If a woodworking community wants to ban discussion of politics, they should be allowed to do that without retribution. If a dating website wants to ban people who say gross things in a first message, there's nothing wrong with allowing them to exist and compete in the marketplace.

If I, as a user of social media, want to belong to a community that removes misinformation around the election, government shouldn't ban such a platform from allowing to exist (since without 230, that'd essentially be impossible). Companies should compete on an equal footing and shouldn't be penalized due to whatever speech policies they favor. It's not government's job to enforce neutral speech codes.

That said, I know some folks disagree and favor government taking a more active role in speech regulations in order to make sure nobody is banned from social media. While both Democrats and Republicans are pushing for changes, mostly only one side favors using the threat of law to enforce their will. It's not that you're genuinely concerned about things like copyright infringement -- you're clearly in favor of laws that would force social media companies to choose between removing the ability of its users to post without a legal review, or using the speech policy you favor, knowing they'll choose the latter. (Since, with so many posts, they couldn't exist with the former.)

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

#146

Post by justin66 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

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.

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

Ha. "Agreed" only in the most superficial way. You might have caught people saying it occasionally.

If you follow civil liberties debates and the politics thereof you know there's often a gap between what politicians (or just ordinary people) say about freedom of speech and what they actually believe and do. In the US the politics of things like compelling public schoolkids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, to give a perennial example, are illustrative of this. (there are tons of examples involving obscenity laws, etc.)

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

#147

Post by forgingahead » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

What the heck is wrong with Jack Dorsey's mic/speaker setup? Is this a machine from 1995?

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

#148

Post by hvdfhbj » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #78

elicash wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nothing happens" mostly because people disagree about things. As a result, seems like a good thing that these hearings broadcast different views on these issues so that the public can know how those views differ. Then, after knowing those views, people get to weigh in during election seasons. In this very recent election, of course, the public weighed in and likely delivered divided government, so we can expect some…

If the Senators spent their time asking meaningful questions that don't know the answer to rather than grandstanding, they might be able to find something they can mutually agree on.

And if footballers could just stop struggling against one another then maybe they could all agree on which direction the ball should go.

There's no room for agreement here. The sides are

Republicans: stop censoring us

Democrats: please censor Republicans even more

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

#149

Post by cycrutchfield » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #143

cycrutchfield wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "official sources" are the election results tabulated by each state. NBC and AP collate this data and show that Biden has enough electoral votes to win. That is what is meant by "call". A "call" is what happens before the electors meet to vote. To suggest that you need to wait until January 6th or whenever in order to "call" the election is absurd.

State recounts finish December 8. The Electoral College meets December 14. The Electoral College determines the winner. Any 'result' before the EC determines the winner is a preliminary result.

Recounts do not change results with something like 99% probability, particularly results with large enough margins like these. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine with high probability what the final electoral results will be from the "preliminary" count of votes. Again, not only are the margins within each individual state large enough to make it improbable to overturn, the margins of the predicted electoral votes are large enough as well, even in the unlikely event that an individual state is somehow overturned. This is not even remotely close to Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Your objections seem overly pedantic, to be honest.

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

#150

Post by dustingetz » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #126

kemonocode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> a viable way out of it 1. Give Larry Page & Sergey Brin a call. 2. Ask them what to do when you have too much money, but don't want public attention anymore. If Zuckerberg is still in the public eye, it's because he makes a choice to be.

Googles founders detached themselves from their runaway creation without actually bringing it back under control