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

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

#191

Post by Aunche » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 6:55 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.

This hearing is somewhat more productive than the previous ones, and I'm guessing that it's because the election is mostly over. However, there are still plenty of predictable loaded questions.

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

#192

Post by donmcronald » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

realce wrote: post #156

It's interesting to expand on what Jack says about choice in algos. What if you had the option to switch between moderation algos on the fly in the client?

I didn't watch it, but that's a neat idea. What's the difference between a recommendation algorithm and a moderation algorithm? I guess I don't even know how they work. Do they only surface content liked, commented, or retweeted by people you follow / friend?

One of the best things I saw relating to social media was on a HN comment a while ago. Reverse chronological content posted directly by your friends / people you follow should be considered part of the platform. Recommendations pushed in your face by an algorithm should be considered publishing.

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

#193

Post by bleepblorp » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

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.

I don't extend personal sympathy to people worth over even a few million dollars -- if they don't like their jobs they can just retire -- but, in the abstract, the social media firms have bitten off far more than they can chew.

The kinds of problems social media has exposed are problems that society isn't able to deal with and the people who were just looking for a quick buck, without needing to do much work, are caught in the middle of it. Corporate structures were never intended to regulate the speech of billions of people in thousands of legal jurisdictions, but that's exactly the situation Facebook is now in.

I don't know if there is a good solution to the problems of social media short of simply outlawing it.

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

#194

Post by bleepblorp » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

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.

> I wonder what the answer for this is?

Don't rely on politicians to do direct questioning of witnesses. Politicians have the wrong incentives, and generally lack the skills, to do anything other than grandstand in public meetings.

Legal fact-finding, including the questioning of witnesses, should be done by lawyers and subject matter experts.

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

#195

Post by vlunkr » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #158

vlunkr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would they change though? As the original comment stated, they're being asked to do contradictory things by different parties. The defense isn't that "they didn't expect this to happen," it's that there's no way for them to win. People can't agree on what they did wrong if anything.

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

#196

Post by proc0 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #61

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…

"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…

Nothing happens because there is a side that lies and has a hidden agenda. If everyone was honest this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

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

#197

Post by proc0 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #53

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…

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.

Yeah but they wouldn't have entered that unbreakable alliance for peanuts. Just saying.

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

#198

Post by mlindner » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

__s wrote: post #123

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…

Twitter is doing what I wish all services would do with misinformation. Avoid putting misinformation into feeds, attempt to direct people to rectifying information, but let the misinformation exist so as not to martyr it

Twitter is martyring information now as well. When Trump tweeted misinformation about the election they physically blocked the tweet from being commented on and being viewed.

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

#199

Post by dustingetz » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

disambiguation wrote: post #186

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.

i'll entertain this fan-fiction you're describing a "deal with the devil". who do you propose is the "mafia" like entity they're dealing with that will "break their legs" if they back out of their job? Epstein blackmail maybe?

Public markets

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

#200

Post by disambiguation » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #42

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. I want to hear from conservatives why they think most of (if not all) of big tech is "in the pockets of the Democrats". Why do all of these software engineers/IT field workers typically end up as left-leaning? Is it a matter of education/intelligence? Empathy? I feel like the split has to be at least 85% Democrat / 15% Republican in…

I know a lot of Trump supporters, here's my take:

1. The candidate pool is biased - in terms of demographics, under-30, college-educated, coastal-city individuals are dramatically skewed to the left. I think as IT workers get older, have families, and high paying jobs and education become more accessible to rural areas, we'll see a shift to the center.

2. Tech companies are in the spotlight of the "culture wars" - if your platform is an echo chamber for the narratives of the media, those narratives will eventually become descriptive of your company's identity.

3. H1-B visas and outsourcing is great economics for tech companies. This also reinforces the imperative for domestic workers and company culture to be highly inclusive.

4. More of a soft-factor, I think since most of tech's growth happened under Obama, there was an incentive for companies that were still finding their culture to align themselves with the administration and ruling powers at the time.

5. I think all of the above has pushed tech culture to a critical mass where those in the consensus will actively purge non-conformists.

--

A side-note, but another strange feature of tech culture is how the industry started off as more libertarian/anarchist, and I don't think my answers above explain the catalyst of this cultural 180. Curious what others think the reason behind this might be?