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

231–240 of 248 posts

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

#231

Post by mesozoic »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #149
nailer wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vo…

Recounts change results when mass fraud is found in the middle of them.

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

#232

Post by realce »

donmcronald wrote: post #192
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 yo…

> What's the difference between a recommendation algorithm and a moderation algorithm?

They both just seem to be versions of spam filters to me. The real power that Twitter would have is a historical dataset that could influence the weight of certain users' content in recommending/rejecting to a viewer. Algos are only as good as the data behind them, right?

> Recommendations pushed in your face by an algorithm should be considered publishing.

Interesting distinction!

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

#233

Post by cycrutchfield »

mesozoic wrote: post #231
cycrutchfield wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vo…

Recounts change results when mass fraud is found in the middle of them.

Which isn't going to happen here, despite your fervent prayers.

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

#234

Post by cycrutchfield »

Kiro wrote: post #180
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.

Twitter removed the wording because it was wrong. What are you arguing about?

They changed the wording probably because pedantic people like the guy I was arguing with were saying "But ackshually the Electoral College..." It doesn't change the fact that "official sources" come from each state's Department of State.

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

#235

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#236

Post by ethbr0 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #227
ethbr0 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not passive aggressive cloaking. If a CEO can't answer a question posed by Congress, running out the clock shouldn't be a viable strategy. "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." Why do the American people care about the next question, if the previous question wasn't answered? Which is more important, more questions or answers?

> "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." That quote is exactly what I mean by passive aggressive cloaking actually. You won't get the answers you want if the questioning process is adversarial as it turns into "Don't talk to the police." or deposition style of being unhelpful as possible instead of trying to actually inform because of incentives.

What part of Zuckerberg repeating Facebook's mission statement until time expires qualifies as "actually inform"?

Zuckerberg isn't dumb. If he's repeating rote memorized passages, it's specifically to run the clock down.

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

#237

Post by nabla9 »

dhimes wrote: post #217
nabla9 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It didn't pin down Graham on supporting a late-term Supreme Court nominee, even though he's on the record as not supporting them.

Graham is a senator.

We are talking about people who are testifying in the Senate hearings. Those people who raise their hand and then sit face towards congressmen.

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

#238

Post by listless »

ehsankia wrote: post #164
smnrchrds wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot…

I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. Also, realistically no one's gonna care too much if you ban one of those millions of people without a voice, but good luck trying to censor the president.

“Propaganda is communication that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.”

Social Media literally turns every important, nuanced discussion into propaganda. Until we all realize that and decide to collectively reject it at an ideological level, it’s gonna be a rough road.

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

#239

Post by kgin »

smnrchrds wrote: post #161
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.

You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot…

Everyone likes revolutions as long as they're not on the business end of one.

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

#240

Post by kgin »

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…

AP and NBC are not the ones disputing. They're reporting the dispute.
Post reply on HN