301–310 of 732 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[...] support current Russian and its invasion to Ukraine. I picked a random video with Chomsky [1] about the topic and he calls the invasion a criminal act against international law in his first sentence. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=68Rh1tKx98k
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…
> Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.
Let's be honest, it rarely works that way.
However i agree, what facebook did here is "shoot fist, ask for forgiveness later".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> There is an objective reality -- it's just that people are too lazy to go find it. It is not that Truth is impossible to find, rather that undeceiving the self is difficult.
I feel that people are misrepresenting the issue. What they seek is not the objective truth. This is about politics, and the goal is to impose their will onto others, whether they are onboard ir not. Consequently, "seeking the truth" is being used as an euphemism for "persuade to join my political cause to further my personal political goals". Hence the army of militants who insist that the hypothetical existence of a mythical laptop is relevant because that is the propaganda wedge to dislodge a political rival from holding office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be the nicest person and still leave behind an awful world. Really hard to argue that Zuck and his companies have had a net positive impact on the world.
There is no net positive impact from social networking services, or indeed any other medium powered by advertising where the operators thereof have realized that hatred can be monetized. People have always disagreed with one another and clashed over political views... but only in the last 15 years have people been so polarized, and I think we can directly attribute it to conditioning as a direct result of participati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn’t Zuckerberg implicitly support trump at one point? (What he is doing here certainly supports trump.) In the hope trump would ban TikTok. I thought that was why the Biden admin put Facebook in the doghouse.
I think that it's worth keeping in mind that no matter what you think of their morals (that's a whole other debate for a whole other comment thread), people who have helmed sometime trillion-dollar companies for decades aren't in general stupid , and it would be fantastically stupid to make serious enemies of any candidate in any high-impact political race: if you load the boat on that and guess wrong you're going to…
However when Zuckerberg goes on Joe Rogan assume things are carefully planned and rehearsed; and a statement/story like this is intended and the politics of it is well understood.
So I guess they are doubling down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook coded a rule that All algorithms are coded rules, the idea of using an algorithm to somehow launder responsibility in tech companies is ridiculous. Before companies had algorithms they had heuristics, nobody would (successfully) deflect blame for the actions of the organization by saying "the heuristic did this!"
What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm"
Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take.
Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While its easy to talk from outside the US, I am honestly a lot less worried about the content and a lot more about the fact that it is a non trivial question whether or not the son of the leader of the free world is a crack user. Reality and all this fake news stuff got weird fast. Which wasnt really surprising if you look at the upcoming clusterfuck of cheap realistic video simulations. After getting there already…
Your comment is rambling and borderline incoherent but it also has moments of greatness.
Maybe you need a dictionary to convert a seemingly word salad comprising of great moments into a comprehensible thought stream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh please. It's called "content curation". You want zero of that? There is always 8chan. If you enjoy seeing things that make you want to pour Clorox into your eyes.
The television stations and newspapers back in the day absolutely maintained the Overton window and constructed narratives that supported the the ruling class. To call this "content curation" is ignorant at best.
It's also ignorant at best to pass off "maintaining the Overton window" as being censorship. Whether you like it or not, there's a finite amount of airtime and an infinite amount of content that can be presented. Picking what goes in is not the same as picking what stays out. See as an example what's aired by some peculiar media companies.
Is it possible to be an unabashed openly conservative / Republican in a company like Facebook or Twitter or Google? One gets the impression that it's a club for one kind of animal only.
I think it should be viewed like this: in the eyes of many, Trump is a man who boasted about sexual harassment. Continuing to support such a man is borderline incompatible with holding basic values that one might hope every employee has. This viewpoint is really difficult to argue with. You can say that such transgressions are perhaps outweighed by any advantages of his presidency that you perceived, but that will no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious how, from a logically consistent conservative viewpoint this can be 'fixed' The ideas that spring to mind fly smack in the face of conservative ideology - Private companies are allowed to hire who they wish. In our capitalist world the free market would provide for "conservative alternatives" and it does ("truth social" versus twitter for instance) - Mandating some kind of 'quota' for conservative employe…
I don't think it's a problem that needs fixing. I think of it like this - Twitter labels accounts that are Russian government accounts so that the public is aware of where the information they are seeing is coming from. That same benefit in the context of misinformation / selective publishing would go to the public if it was known that companies lean a certain way. For example the public knows that Fox leans right an…
To even imply MSNBC is "left leaning" is absolutely hilarious however. Though I suppose people so easily forget their Nazi comparison of Bernie Sanders
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2020-03-03/ty-article/msnbc-...