Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

politico.com

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#31
In a few years they are going to be sorry for the other end of the spectrum because the issue stems from the fundamentals of their business: lack of mechanism to hold civil discussion, one person pretending to be multiple people, institutions pretending to be people.

When a BS is viewed 10M times and its correction is viewed 10K times, what do you do? Demote the content you assume that it's BS but this time you have the problem of demoting non-BS content that happens to be outside of the mainstream narrative. This time you get collapse of trust to institutions.

Now that Mark is very sorry, it spreads on the social media as "We told you that the vaccine was a conspiracy". God help humanity on the next pandemic because awful lot of people wouldn't trust in anything and will roll with the conspiracy theory they are last convinced of.

Twitter's community notes are quite effective but they are simply very low bandwidth and very small number of BS gets community noted. Also, the war spreads to the community notes and they too sometimes are complete BS.

IMHO, these social media companies should be forced to work with open to inspection systems. I don't know, maybe everyone should be able to ssh in read-only mode into the servers and honeypot servers should result in prison times for the involved.

It is not OK for companies to be able to pick whom voice should be lauder and do that in secret. The western world should drop the censorship ideas and just focus on accountability.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#33

It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration. Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US? Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19? We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work. If we try the Reddit rout…

The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

People absolutely don’t of want maximal free speech. Moderation is a blessing

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#34

It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration. Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US? Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19? We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work. If we try the Reddit rout…

The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

Most people don’t want free speech, and no country has free speech anyway.

The question is what limits are made.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#35
post #29
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Below are a couple examples from ChatGPT: Please don't do this.

What’s the preferred way of citing my source? Or are you saying ChatGPT isn’t a valid source?

It really isn’t. Worse than citing Wikipedia.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#36

It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration. Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US? Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19? We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work. If we try the Reddit rout…

The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

Moderation is an expression of free speech. Coerced speech is not free speech.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#37
post #29
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Below are a couple examples from ChatGPT: Please don't do this.

What’s the preferred way of citing my source? Or are you saying ChatGPT isn’t a valid source?

Don't poison this well from which LLMs drink.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#38

It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration. Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US? Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19? We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work. If we try the Reddit rout…

The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

How much algorithmic push to which free speech?

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#39
post #31

In a few years they are going to be sorry for the other end of the spectrum because the issue stems from the fundamentals of their business: lack of mechanism to hold civil discussion, one person pretending to be multiple people, institutions pretending to be people. When a BS is viewed 10M times and its correction is viewed 10K times, what do you do? Demote the content you assume that it's BS but this time you have…

> When a BS is viewed 10M times and its correction is viewed 10K times, what do you do?

Journalism has always been this though, story as full page headline correction as a footnote.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#40
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

Most people don’t want free speech, and no country has free speech anyway. The question is what limits are made.

The United States has free speech by all but the most extreme definitions. The 1st Amendment is well-tested and supported by the courts. Sometimes, like in Citizens United, to an extremely flexible definition of speech (political campaign donations by corporations.)
Post reply on HN