Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by bri3d »

ffsm8 wrote: post #140
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were already doing censorship, just for different things - there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan which is not advertiser-friendly. So you can lose credibility two ways, one by not doing any censorship because people on the internet will be the worst if you let them. Doing too much censorship is also bad because people don't like that either. Of the big causes of censorship cur…

> there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan This is false, because Facebook is bound to your real identity. A completely unmoderated Facebook will never be like every /b/ or /pol/ thread. People aren't quiet as outspoken with derogatory terms and pornography if it their family sees what they've written. Random copy pasted examples: - There are 9 billion people on the planet why don't y…

Creating "burner" Facebook accounts is trivial and most public Facebook group discussions are absolutely chock-full of them.

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

#142

Post by Log_out_ »

sirspacey wrote: post #138
hintymad wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.

This is the proof that the religion of “I believe in science” is not a friend to creating a culture of science appreciation It’s been the struggle for scientific progress, the breakthroughs are the exception not the rule and the reason is the culture of belief around the science of the time The lesson I’ve most learned from science is that the questions are more interesting than the answer and the answers we have are…

If it feels bad it may contain trace amounts of truth. If it feels bad all of the time for everyone, but puts food on all tables,regardless of beliefsystem,its actually science

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

#143

Post by consteval »

Terretta wrote: post #124
andy_ppp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

> Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy. That's not in dispute*, and the point is people can experience paper gains without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable. * To be fair, the notion of "tax" being just supposed public good versus requiring transactional value ("no taxation without representation") was a founding issue for the U.S. These days, instead of citing…

> without being exceptionally wealthy, or even ramen profitable

Correction: without SEEMING exceptionally wealthy or even ramen profitable. By, say, kneecapping your own profit. So that you don't pay as much taxes. Which is the entire problem we're trying to solve.

In practice, these people ARE wealthy. Just perhaps not on paper (depending the paper you look at). Of course when you observe their life, they are obviously filthy rich.

So we have an accounting problem. The papers don't accurately reflect the reality.

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

#144

Post by jajko »

Terretta wrote: post #121
appplication wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put simply, people in these brackets don’t need more options for tax breaks.

The audience of HN are striving to be "people in these brackets" and far more here have experienced paper gains over $100M then seen it evaporate, than the few that end up at a place they are insensitive to marginal dollars.

No we're not, since we are smart enough to realize what sort of person you would need to be and what it would cost you in one's actual life (TM) to even have a chance to get there. And most folks here are not high functioning sociopaths to start with.

Upper middle class its where highest quality of life happens, if one is smart enough to understand how happiness and life fulfillment works, to not die full of hard regrets. You can have meaningful true friendships. Enough to afford whatever is you need or desire to do, not enough to become self-entitled spoiled lazy disconnected from reality piece of shit parent and partner type of folks. No you don't need private jet or mega yacht or 5 mil hypercar for that, that's poor man's idea of what sort of quality wealth brings you in life.

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

#146

Post by SecretDreams »

renegat0x0 wrote: post #49

- some people cannot think abstractly about speech, because it is skewed because of actions of Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, or other individuals - it is certain that governments want to control the narrative, and it is not always done in our interests - sometime actions are done to help us, but [disinformation enters the room] - Everything at CEO level is "political" - centralization of social media and forums allowed f…

> I do not know if there is a clean, ethical way to "run the social media"

Darn, I guess we will have to shut down social media since it cannot be run ethically. A tough loss for the world..

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

#147

Post by purpleblue »

chasd00 wrote: post #46

When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

It's only doomed to fail because we have a strong Supreme Court. All the efforts by the Democrats to undermine this will only make things easier for fascists to take over the US.

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

#148

Post by iamacyborg »

hintymad wrote: post #133
chasd00 wrote: post #46

When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.

The challenge is trying to determine who’s legitimately trying to question the science vs who’s a crank.

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

#150

Post by tracker1 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #109

I wonder if this is coming up just before the election because of the Harris campaign’s suggested policy of capital gains tax on unrealised gains for people who have over $100m in assets? I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax including taking out loans against their own share portfolios. Worth thinking about what people are willing to do to not pay billions of d…

I feel an exchange tax that included loans would probably be a much better approach. Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster. So you have to sell, or leverage the property to pay taxes. What would trying to sell billions in stock at once, or leverage hundreds of thousands of rental properties look like to the larger economy, and what would the effect be? Also, who is going to be able to even buy the stuff, if everyone with enough money/credit is scrambling to make huge tax layouts. Will you be able to deduct the interest on loans taken out to pay these taxes?

It's not like the money is just sitting, liquid in a vault like Scrooge McDuck.

Post reply on HN