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

Post by toast0 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

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.

Post by Nextgrid » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 8:33 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

Post by disambiguation » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 8:37 PM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #199

disambiguation wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by dhimes » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 8:51 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #47

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…

Hearings of this type can like legal depositions. The goal is to get statements into public record and pin down the answers to be used later. Ideally congress would delegate this job to top lawyers who would go list of questions very methodologically. Making these hearings public and televised has made them into a show. Congressmen make questions that are more like statements in order to please their voters and lots…

Post by elicash » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #175

elicash wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discu…

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, You continue to indicate that you haven't actually listened to the arguments made. The Republican argument is not about whether or not a company can censor information on their platform. In no way is it about the government'…