Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#221

Post by woojoo666 »

I found interesting how during the podcast, Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. A snippet from the podcast (with minor edits, starting from 7:25 of this video clip [1]):

> Joe Rogan: is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story?

> [...]

> Zuckerberg: yeah yeah I mean it sucks because I mean it turned out after the fact...I mean the fact directors looked into it no one was able to say it was false right. So basically it had this period where it was getting less distribution

> it sucks though I think in the same way that probably having to go through like a criminal trial but being proven innocent in the end sucks. Like it still sucks that you had to go through a criminal trial but at the end you're free

> I don't know if the answer would have been don't do anything or don't have any process. I think the process was pretty reasonable you know. We still let people share it. But obviously you don't want situations like that

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#222

Post by psyc »

aaaddaaaaa1112 wrote: post #2

I wonder how often they block stories that aren't fabricated... Joe started asking the question but then moved on to something else and Zuck never answered. There's clearly more censorship then I thought.

One answer is: more frequently each year.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#223

Post by alsaaro »

rendall wrote: post #164
acjohnson55 wrote: post #78

Rogan kept putting words in his mouth. He kept insinuating that Facebook and the FBI talked specifically about the Hunter Biden laptop story, when Zuckerberg did not say that at all. Zuckerberg said the FBI warned them to be on high alert for propaganda. Facebook's judgment after that conversation was that the Hunter Biden laptop story fit that profile. As for the story itself, I don't know all of the ins or outs, bu…

> I don't know all of the ins or outs, but my understanding is that it doesn't amount to anything, and certainly nothing in comparison to the entanglements of the Trump family. This is a pretty astounding sentence, but I would let it go, except that I see this all the time. It reads like a dismissal of the importance of the story because there is nothing that matches the unique danger of "the Trump family". Is that f…

Trump proved he was a unique evil after he tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power by usurping democracy.

Remember, there are also questions about Trump's loyalty to the United States, he was literally placed under a counter-intelligence investigation for fear he was working for a foreign power, the results of this investigation are still unknown.

Extremism in the defense of liberty isn't a vice. When it comes to obstructing Trump and his acolytes, the ends always justify the means.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#224

Post by INTPenis »

Did no one else react to when Mark said they have "files" on people? It was in the context of someone trying to run a facebook page anonymously and he said Facebook will look at their file to determine if they're a bot or not. Meaning the file on the person running the page, that they already have.

At least that's how I interpreted it but no one else seems to be talking about this.

I mean it's not surprising, it would just kinda confirm everyone's fears already that Google and Meta can track any person regardless of if they give out their real name or not.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#225

Post by colordrops »

lokar wrote: post #112
mwint wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your ISP decided to only transmit the string “jemmyw” 10% of the time, and blackhole the other 90% of jemmyw-containing packets, we would call that censorship. Facebook altered an algorithm to transmit a story to fewer people than it otherwise would have. It’s censorship.

If you try to say something to a 3rd person standing next to us and I shout you down, that is censorship. If I refuse to tell a 3rd person (not present) something you tell me, that is not censorship. I have no obligation to repeat your nonsense.

Only "you" and "3rd person" are individuals in this story. "I" is not an individual but a giant multibillion dollar corporation with vast reach that has swayed elections in the past. Not just some dude relaying a message.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#226

Post by colordrops »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #172
WillPostForFood wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no effective difference. It is limiting distribution as much as restricting the number of newspapers the NY Times could sell. Or allowing free speech in a public square, but only allowing one person in at a time to hear the speech. Facebook didn't "not amplify it" they singled it out and suppressed it. They treated it differently, and negatively.

But censorship isn't about treating something differently. They have no duty to be neutral. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. They did not do this.

What do you mean "preventing a certain kind of speech"? This is your own personaly crafted definition, not the consensus definition of censorship.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#227

Post by wjnc »

INTPenis wrote: post #224

Did no one else react to when Mark said they have "files" on people? It was in the context of someone trying to run a facebook page anonymously and he said Facebook will look at their file to determine if they're a bot or not. Meaning the file on the person running the page, that they already have. At least that's how I interpreted it but no one else seems to be talking about this. I mean it's not surprising, it woul…

Are you responding to the connotation of, say, Cold War intelligence with the use of ‘file’? For me it’s pretty trivial that Facebook can pull up information per IP, correlated IP (via accounts, usage, magic pixel) and try to work from there. I doubt it’s legal under GDPR to store all that data, but it never sees light and they could argue that they need it for compliance with things like law enforcement and keeping their own platform usable regarding bots and misuse. (Not giving my opinion regarding this tracking by FB here.)

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#228

Post by wjnc »

bb88 wrote: post #198
spangry wrote: post #12

This is the great fear of many come to pass - censorship by algorithm. Facebook didn't outright ban sharing of the Hunter Biden laptop stories like Twitter did, they instead tweaked their algorithm to prevent the story from spreading. We found out about it this time because Zuckerberg owned up to it, but what about next time? For all we know, Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing this right now on a range of other s…

> It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm. There is an objective reali…

Pretty near Chomsky in the realm of ontology are the thoughts that the objective reality isn’t findable by respectively the average person, people in general or at all.

I wouldn’t call people lazy for being unable or unwilling to find out the objective reality. What domains offer enough rewards to do that for? A proper quest towards objective reality costs you from weeks to a lifetime. Humans are satisficers, not optimizers.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#229

Post by rendall »

alsaaro wrote: post #223
rendall wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know all of the ins or outs, but my understanding is that it doesn't amount to anything, and certainly nothing in comparison to the entanglements of the Trump family. This is a pretty astounding sentence, but I would let it go, except that I see this all the time. It reads like a dismissal of the importance of the story because there is nothing that matches the unique danger of "the Trump family". Is that f…

Trump proved he was a unique evil after he tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power by usurping democracy. Remember, there are also questions about Trump's loyalty to the United States, he was literally placed under a counter-intelligence investigation for fear he was working for a foreign power, the results of this investigation are still unknown. Extremism in the defense of liberty isn't a vice. When it com…

If the question were Is Trump actually a unique evil? this would be an excellent answer. The question I asked is:

If you rely, for your mental picture of what is... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#230

Post by INTPenis »

wjnc wrote: post #227
INTPenis wrote: post #224

Did no one else react to when Mark said they have "files" on people? It was in the context of someone trying to run a facebook page anonymously and he said Facebook will look at their file to determine if they're a bot or not. Meaning the file on the person running the page, that they already have. At least that's how I interpreted it but no one else seems to be talking about this. I mean it's not surprising, it woul…

Are you responding to the connotation of, say, Cold War intelligence with the use of ‘file’? For me it’s pretty trivial that Facebook can pull up information per IP, correlated IP (via accounts, usage, magic pixel) and try to work from there. I doubt it’s legal under GDPR to store all that data, but it never sees light and they could argue that they need it for compliance with things like law enforcement and keeping…

Yeah I think it's in their interest to identify internet users for targeted ads, so they have what would amount to Stasi-like files on people. Correlating all the info they have to try and determine an internet users true identity, and they sure have a lot of information.
Post reply on HN