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

571–580 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#571

Post by erikpukinskis »

kurupt213 wrote: post #533

I don’t understand why Facebook is getting the negative attention instead of the FBI. This is a classic example of an entity in a position of power abusing said power. How is this different from sexual extortion for a promotion. I don’t care how rich your company is, the FBI comes knocking, the obvious response is to acquiesce to avoid issues with the federal government

Did you read the article? All the FBI did was notify FB that there was likely to be Russian propaganda incoming. Facebook made the determination about the Hunter Biden story independently.

I’ll turn the question around on you: how is this similar to sexual extortion for a promotion? I don’t see the connection.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#572

Post by [deleted] »

mwint wrote: post #66
jemmyw wrote: post #44

So Facebook didn't censor anything? He didn't admit censoring and the story wasn't censored. Nobody had their posts about it taken down and nobody was prevented from discussing it. Facebook just didn't disseminate the story, they prevented their feeds from selecting it and showing it. Isn't that what everyone wants? Except that they do that with all stories and have no algorithms at all? It's not censorship though so…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#573

Post by peter422 »

typeofhuman wrote: post #417
dmix wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunter turned out to be mostly a non-story [1] in practice but the FBI silencing his laptop story makes every partisan person in the country immediately think there's something they are trying to hide. Especially when it comes out they already had access to the laptop data before the suppression of the information, so they knew it was real. I don't blame them for thinking it's a big deal. They Streisand'd it into the…

> but he wasn't politically involved like other politicians children and there wasn't much tangible beyond that He was a board member of a Ukrainian oil company receiving tons of money having 0-energy related business experience. Then there's the firing of the prosecutor looking into the corruption of Burisma at the behest of Joe Biden ("son of bitch, he got fired"). Now we're sending billions of dollars over there w…

> Now we're sending billions of dollars over there with reports saying few of those dollars are going to the front lines.

The vast majority of the “money” we are sending is military equipment that the U.S. produces. You think Ukraine is reselling it to somebody else while they are in the middle of a war?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#574

Post by landemva »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #458
hotpotamus wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious - does that also apply to Donald Trump who himself had dealings with those countries as well as several of his children, and removed classified documents to his own house where foreign agents were known to frequent?

Everyone should be held to the same standard. That means me, that means Reality Winner[1], that means Hillary Clinton, that means Hunter Biden, and yes, that means Donald Trump. But what we are seeing from what SHOULD BE our impartial law enforcement agencies is that small fish get the hammer, and Donald Trump gets his house raided. Why wasn't there a raid on the Clinton residence after the server scandal? Why hasn't…

> Why are we forced to chose between two

Election laws are at the State level. State election law typically has a minor/major party designation which tends to create only two viable parties. It's designed this way and you can talk to your State reps about it.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#575

Post by prof-dr-ir »

fareesh wrote: post #500
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are trying to make the point I was anticipating. One might have been a supporter of someone like Trump or Cuomo for all kinds of reasons, but for many it's simply over once a certain line is crossed. As I said, it is a difficult point to argue against because their transgressions concern what many consider really basic values.

I could see this kind of luxury when there is a plurality of candidates but can one afford this when the presidential election in the USA is A choice between two opposites?

I don't think it's that black and white.

As you surely understood from my previous comments, in the eyes of many both Trump and Cuomo are simply disqualified men. This is so fundamental that one must stop supporting them and find the next best option within your party, taking any compromises on policy or electoral disadvantages for granted.

For Cuomo this was done swiftly; for Trump there would have been plenty of time since the 2016 election, but it just hasn't happened.

For many this is unforgivable, and I am afraid it is nearly impossible to change such a viewpoint.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#577

Post by erikpukinskis »

bgorman wrote: post #141
cromwellian wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a nothing burger. Amazing how a Coke addict who failed upwards to get a cushy c suite job like many, is supposed to sway the election but the Trump family running a fraudulent university and a fraudulent charity, paying millions in fines, isn’t literally a disqualification.

The simplest explanation is that Hunter was selling access to Joe Biden.

Is there any evidence of that actually happening?

To me the simplest explanation is Hunter Biden was selling the perception of proximity to Joe Biden. Which is skeevy but IMO doesn’t reflect on Joe Biden as anything except a shitty father.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#578

Post by colordrops »

arinlen wrote: post #308
colordrops wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 pre…

You are confused about what the Overton window describes. It's not "picking and choosing what to talk about due to limited airtime". Look it up.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#579

Post by hackinthebochs »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #503
hackinthebochs wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really understand what you are saying. That if something isn't 100% blocked it isn't censored? But censorship isn't about treating something differently. Yes it is. Not just treating it differently, but treating it differently and negatively based on the content. Suppressing a story or speech based on the content. They have no duty to be neutral. Legally, no duty. Morally, I think most people would say Facebo…

Algorithmic amplification is an entirely different kind of distribution dynamic that isn't covered by your analysis. Algorithmic amplification is inherently non-neutral, so AA is already biasing distribution. Neutrality towards some content is to not algorithmically amplify it. At best you can say Facebook was neutral towards this story. But that doesn't have the same ring to it.

Do they have a duty to be neutral with the application of their algorithm? Obviously not: such an algorithm must discriminate on content in some manner. There is no such thing as "neutral amplification" in this context. Do they have a moral duty to not consider political content in the application of their algorithm? Obviously not, as a private company they are free to bias their algorithm in whatever manner they see fit.

Can we presume there is some kind of social contract that should constrain the manner in which they bias their amplification? Perhaps one could argue for this. But this social contract does not extend to foreign actors attempting to sway an election. If Facebook had reason to believe that this story was a part of an intelligence operation--and they did given the FBI warning--being neutral towards this story is not breaking any social contract. Facebook has no duty to allow their product to be the vehicle of a foreign psyops campaign (or a local one for that matter).

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#580

Post by hackinthebochs »

colordrops wrote: post #226
hackinthebochs wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's the normal definition.
Post reply on HN