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

641–650 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#641

Post by fnfjcu7 »

mint2 wrote: post #552
fnfjcu7 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the father starts boasting at conferences on video about using Whitehouse aid money to extort Ukraine into removing the prosecutor going after his son I think maybe the sons business dealings found on said laptop referencing including money for the father multiple times might be worth taking into account? All this was on Fox. A lot. Maybe you weren't watching?

Maybe someone was watching too much fox, that account based on fox leaves out a massive fact and focuses on the coincidence - the prosecutor was universally regarded as corrupt by all top nations and Biden’s son had nothing to do with that.

No post body was provided.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#642

Post by gruez »

kamarg wrote: post #566
zimpenfish wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions? You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.

Pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled that only US citizens, regardless of jurisdiction, are afforded rights laid out in the Constitution.

Not exactly. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/904/aliens

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#643

Post by pegasus »

mgraczyk wrote: post #618
pegasus wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be more like shadow banning but in a way that can never be proven, or even detected in the first place. The post would just be surfaced less. Since there's no visibility on what gets surfaced when, it's a way to nudge public opinion on different issues without any accountability.

You can do this on Reddit. People do it all the time https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/1px939/hiding_post...

It's not at all the same. The behavior you refer to can be checked and proved by anyone as long as they know what to look for. Whereas the FB "tweak to the algorithm" discussed here cannot. This is exactly what I was saying above, I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Maybe, since you admit to have worked on said algorithm, it's a case of Upton Sinclair's dictum "“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it"?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#644

Post by mgraczyk »

pegasus wrote: post #643
mgraczyk wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do this on Reddit. People do it all the time https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/1px939/hiding_post...

It's not at all the same. The behavior you refer to can be checked and proved by anyone as long as they know what to look for. Whereas the FB "tweak to the algorithm" discussed here cannot. This is exactly what I was saying above, I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Maybe, since you admit to have worked on said algorithm, it's a case of Upton Sinclair's dictum "“It's difficult to get a man to understand so…

No, it's that you haven't worked on ranking systems so you probably don't know that it's also easy to check and prove by anybody who "knows what to look for".

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#645

Post by lokar »

baskethead wrote: post #543
lokar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a comment from the presidency of Bush the 1st?

The Bush family are war criminals.

Direct family members of a president should be barred from federal office (president, vice president, cabinet, congress) for life.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#646

Post by jjj123 »

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 find the replies to this fascinating. I don’t know if nationalization would work with FB, but it is interesting what a taboo it appears to be to even bring it up.

Personally, I think 30 years ago the USPS should have made a nationalized email service at the very least.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#647

Post by UberFly »

hotpotamus wrote: post #355
UberFly wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're running for president of the US and your son is in an overall shady bed with China and Russia it should matter. If Joe knew, it should at least be fair news, same if he didn't know.

Do we really have to pretend that anyone cares about this any more? Like sorry, but Trump proved that the right wing doesn't give one shit if one of their boys does it. That's why your faux outrage falls on deaf ears now - no one believes that you have any standards.

You are projecting a comment about Joe Biden on Trump for some reason. That comment had nothing to do with Trump.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#648

Post by colordrops »

myko wrote: post #635
colordrops wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that they used misinformation to bury a true story about the laptop right?

No, this is not what happened. The only true part of the story is that a laptop exists. There is evidence that the hard drives were manipulated on it. There's no evidence Hunter put any of the data on the hard drive there. And beyond all that, nothing there shows Joe Biden did anything wrong. Even the guy who _found_ the laptop doesn't think the information on it is necessarily legitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.…

No, the NYT, FBI and analysts admit that the emails on the laptop were authentic. Please don't spread misinformation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controve...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#649

Post by naasking »

dinom wrote: post #627
naasking wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good because I'm not a lawyer, but what I said is still true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Lol, fair enough. Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization? Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.

It's probably more like a utility at this point and perhaps should be regulated as such. Utilities generally don't interject themselves into people's communications, and they can't refuse people service except for carefully regulated reasons.

The only publishing-like activity social media sites partake in are the curated news feeds. It's not clear that the service hosting accounts and people's communications as a utility has to be the same as the one providing curated feeds. That's one way to approach this anyway.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#650

Post by naasking »

hotpotamus wrote: post #612
naasking wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could just as easily ask you which party claims to be about justice, fairness and democracy? Let's not mince words, politicians of all stripes are largely opportunistic and self-serving, and that's what the evidence is suggesting. There is not as much difference between either side on that point.

Ok, what would one party have to do to prove they are better than the other?

Define "better". Do you mean, "the clearly preferable option in any election", or "acting on issues most citizens care about", or perhaps even just "more trustworthy"? Because these are all different and they don't all break in the Democrats' favour in every election.

The abortion issue is a perfect example. They talked a big game for decades about codifying Roe, and did absolutely nothing every time they got into power, and just cynically used that as a lever in any election to pressure people into into electing them through scare tactics. Is that trustworthy? They seem to have gotten a boost in recent polls because of abortion, but oh boy if they don't follow through this time it will be a bloodbath in 2024, and rightly so.

Believe me, the Democrats are not above trying to subvert democracy to win either. They actually do it every election in a legal way, and recently tried to do it illegally and a judge smacked them down.

I get it, you hate the tactics both sides employ, but you at least agree with what the Democrats claim to stand for. Maybe ask yourself whether they actually stand for those principles or if that's just more cynical opportunism.

Post reply on HN