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

151–160 of 248 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by elicash »

nailer wrote: post #118
elicash wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Official sources called this election differently" is the exact message I'm discussing (the message then refers to the AP and NBC) 1. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em8ByxrXMAEN_Mi?format=jpg 2. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em8By4-XcAIUY2D?format=jpg

I think Twitter changed the wording on that slightly to address these concerns. It's now, I believe, the ones I mentioned.

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

#153

Post by tshaddox »

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…

I’m not a big fan of the last question. It seems like it’s hinting at the line of argument (which is very popular on HN) that goes something like “you can’t provide a formal specification for what it means for something to be “true,” and you cannot determine “truth” with 100% reliability, therefore you should have no processes or policies which involve any determination whatsoever about the state of the world.”

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

#154

Post by esja »

greesil wrote: post #133
esja wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something strange seems to have happened to America in the past ten or so years. People seem to have become hyper-literal and unable to detect any sarcasm, hyperbole, etc. I wonder whether this is due to spending more and more time communicating via the written word.

It probably wasn't a death threat, but I could see how someone might interpret that way. In the past 10 years? Deliberate misinterpretation of a joke or sarcasm is not a new thing.

I don't remember it being quite so bad in the nineties. It feels like a "medium is the message" type of effect where textual communication has become predominant even in the mainstream (no longer just usenet flamewars), and people have been trained to hyper-focus on just the words in front of them and ignore any potential context.

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

#155

Post by triceratops »

dx87 wrote: post #63
komali2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Josh Hawley often promotes the meme that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor conservatives and conservative politicians. I have an extremely difficult time taking people like him seriously in a world where Facebook refuses to ban Steve Bannon when he calls for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded, yet twitter does so without issue. But then again, Twitter refuses to address covid-19 misinformation, and allows politicia…

Saying that he called for beheading is deliberately misunderstanding what he said. "Put their heads on pikes", "heads will roll", etc., are hyerpbolic phrases, and shouldn't be taken literally. It'd be like saying that someone should get kicked out of office is threatening to physical harm, or that saying someone should be fired means their belongings should be thrown out of the office and set on fire.

Ok but he said:

"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats."

You're saying "pikes on heads" is a figure of speech, meaning firing and making an example of them. But he's saying "let's go beyond just firing". So what does "heads on pikes" mean in the context of the quote? Seriously, I'm trying to understand. How does one make an example of an employee you're displeased with, beyond firing them? Write really mean tweets about them? Fuck with their pensions? What?

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

#157

Post by triceratops »

esja wrote: post #50
komali2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Josh Hawley often promotes the meme that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor conservatives and conservative politicians. I have an extremely difficult time taking people like him seriously in a world where Facebook refuses to ban Steve Bannon when he calls for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded, yet twitter does so without issue. But then again, Twitter refuses to address covid-19 misinformation, and allows politicia…

Bannon didn't literally call for Fauci to be beheaded. He was using a fairly old-fashioned figure of speech to call for Fauci to be fired and for an example to be made of him. If that sort of comment warrants a ban, half the sports fans on Earth will lose their Facebook accounts.

Full quote:

"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes".

I'd be inclined to believe your interpretation but he himself has already ruled out the figurative meaning of the phrase "pikes on head" with the first sentence in that quote, by saying he wants to "go farther" than that. Beyond firing, how exactly can you "make an example" of an employee?

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

#158

Post by tshaddox »

vlunkr wrote: post #103
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.

And yet, surely they could change things essentially overnight if they wanted to. I’m not sure how far “they didn’t expect this to happen” goes as a defense.

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

#159

Post by kordlessagain »

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.

Let's not forget that Jack's beard looks straight out of Lord of the Rings.

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

#160

Post by sjg007 »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #131
dx87 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a coastal thing, plus it's not a stretch to think that big tech is in the pockets of Democrats when Facebook told the Obama campaign "we're on your side", and google had executives crying on stage after Trump won.

> It's a coastal thing Why do New York and California vote so heavily blue?

Because the struggle is real.
Post reply on HN