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

511–520 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#511

Post by world1212 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #375
wellthatsawrap1 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when they are not too lazy to find out, they are labeled as racists, Russian sympathizers, anti-vaxers, conspiracy theorist and have their voices silenced... to protect democracy.

Yeah, the problem is that when they are not too lazy they tend to try and save the children locked up in the basement of a pizza restaurant with no basement, assault armored FBI buildings with nail guns, or mail non-functional explosives built in their van-house to members of congress and the media.

No post body was provided.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#512

Post by someguydave »

ericmay wrote: post #459
myko wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...

Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations. “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” “But Hillary’s emails!” Etc.

one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#513

Post by celsopitta »

philipov wrote: post #396
projektfu wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law protects small sites, too. It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize p…

How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.

I'm from Brazil, here we have more than 3000 national companies, handling everything from oil, mining and energy to banks and in the past even telecommunications. It was a disaster, you had to wait for about one year to have a land line installed and it costed almost as much as a car, you had to declare it in your taxes!

Social media should be a protocol, in that way it will become naturally decentralized and way harder to censor or control, like email.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#514

Post by ericmay »

someguydave wrote: post #507
Consultant32452 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary's primary crime was destroying evidence weeks after it had been subpoenaed. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-tru... >Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later. The Politifact article then goes on to say the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding…

I agree with this take. The more important issue is that there is no independent oversight on government secrecy, which is the underlying enabler of all of these "paperwork" claims.

Can you describe what mechanism would exist for “independent” oversight of government secrecy? It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies.

> these "paperwork" claims.

In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. It’s very similar to discussions I have with fervent religious believers. Better to take an engineers approach and change your mind when the facts change.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#515

Post by lokar »

cal85 wrote: post #283
klyrs wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an advertising platform.

Could it be both?

It's an organization in which people (employees, shareholders) voluntary participate that has speech rights (including the right nor to be compelled to speak) of its own.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#516

Post by 0x445442 »

justapassenger wrote: post #471
parkingrift wrote: post #314

So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control. Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform. Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publis…

Hacker news can do (and does on occasions) all of those things as well. It’s called moderation. Is Hacker News a publisher?

To my knowledge Hacker News does not publish misinformation that labels facts as misinformation. This is what Facebook, Twitter and YouTube do repeatedly. They’re publishers full stop.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#517

Post by ModernMech »

someguydave wrote: post #512
ericmay wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations. “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” “But Hillary’s emails!” Etc.

one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.

The element of intent makes many laws difficult to enforce, and I think that’s a good thing. Taking away the element of intent just to make laws easier to enforce would encourage prosecutions of people for accidents or honest mistakes, which I don’t see as an improvement.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#518

Post by degrees57 »

based69 wrote: post #277
epgui wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest reading the articles before writing in the comments: > Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting. So while people could post the article and discuss it, it was less likely to spread organically to new users.

Bs.. i remember sending the link for the nypost article to a friend via facebook measenger and the link would simply be deleted as soon as I sent it. That isn’t tweaking algos.

Right. I remember a friend trying to share the link, and the app on the phone said "No - this link cannot be shared." My friend took a screenshot on his phone and then posted it to a Discord server I'm on. I forget if it was Twitter or Facebook; but both were complicit.

I've also seen posts by people defending this censorship with the lie that "you could still get to the NY Post article, so it wasn't censorship." This is bullshit. How am I supposed to even know there _was_ a NY Post article if your platform shuts down the attempts to share that link?

That Discord screenshot was the only way I learned that there even was a story.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#519

Post by ModernMech »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #489
myko wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...

Hillary's primary crime was destroying evidence weeks after it had been subpoenaed. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-tru... >Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later. The Politifact article then goes on to say the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding…

> the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding the subpoena, which may be true, but that doesn't make it less of a crime.

Sorry, what now? The subpoena was for related emails. They claim they deleted unrelated emails and the FBI agrees. It’s not a crime to delete emails unrelated to a subpoena, especially when the subpoena (according to your link) did not request those emails. And doubly so when the FBI agrees those deleted emails were unrelated. So where do you see a crime in this?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#520

Post by DangitBobby »

andy_ppp wrote: post #297
oldgradstudent wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court. You’re stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? Facts can’t be put on “criminal trial” or got to jail - the…

Weird, I thought it was a decent metaphor.
Post reply on HN