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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by lawlessone »

object-a wrote: post #184

It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. Twitter similarly requires aggressive use of block + mute to eliminate scams, clickbait, and other content I'm not interested in. I don't know if this is due to their changes in moderation policy, or if AI has overwhelmed them, but I vastly preferred the old news feeds

>It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait.

It's brutal. (i know this is my own fault for arguing with once probably) I constantly get recommend stuff about flat earth, portals around the world. It's like this weird toxic mix of new age cult with maga.

More generally to all media ... What happens when flat earthers start using AI to generate videos with "proof" the earth is flat, or fake videos of robots inside a vaccine?

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

#222

Post by stevenAthompson »

lupusreal wrote: post #158
iamacyborg wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If censorship is too "challenging" to do right then maybe you should knock it off.

Censorship is something governments do. What you're discussing is a business decision Facebook made. They deemed it to be in the best interests of their shareholders not to amplify those peoples opinions. Zuck now regrets that decision, but it was still his decision.

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

#223

Post by indoordin0saur »

toofy wrote: post #60

here we go again. another election cycle where some of the loudest voices with some of the largest platforms ever in history will be declaring they’re not being allowed to speak. the reality is, they’re loud, they have easier and larger access to more people than anyone ever in history. the reality is also that they’re just mad people speak back to them. people talking back to them is what they’re really upset about.…

> another election cycle where some of the loudest voices with some of the largest platforms ever in history will be declaring they’re not being allowed to speak

Willful misinterpretation. He's claiming that the government encouraged FB to censor in a way that violated his values of truth and free speech, not that Zuckerberg himself feels censored.

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

#225

Post by matwood »

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 good and bad of the internet is that everyone appears the same. You might be an expert in X and I should listen to you. And right next to you may be a troll or someone trying to sow discord who twists your legitimate opinion just a bit to influence me. How can I tell the difference?

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

#226

Post by rendang »

mandmandam wrote: post #45
tyre wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The right to speak, but not the right to be heard. That costs money . Speak in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and you can be placed in a "free speech zone" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured.

"Free Speech Zones" are a limit on freedom of assembly, not speech. Less about preventing people from saying an offensive thing outside of the zone & more about keeping the physical mass of a protest from disrupting the flow of traffic or causing a security issue

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

#227

Post by beedeebeedee »

talldatethrow wrote: post #190
NotAnOtter wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuck Vs Elon on the 2028 presidential ticket would be.... something

[flagged]

> Also, he's almost as toxic to the left as Trump is at this point because he doesn't want kids to be transitioned and doesn't think people that say mean things (or things someone in particular thinks are mean) are automatically bad people.

That's a pretty big understatement about all the wacky, inept and dumb things he has said (and presumably believes)

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

#228

Post by chrisco255 »

preciousoo wrote: post #185
Malidir wrote: post #152

In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.

“During their dialogue, both tech leaders probed each other’s intentions for expansion. “I remember him asking me whether we were planning to start something on a global basis, on the global level, go for international expansion. I said no,” Durov recalled. Zuckerberg similarly denied any plans to target Durov's domestic market, yet both moved to expand their respective reaches shortly after the meeting. “We both end…

Gotta be honest, if I was talking to a competitor I'd lie about whatever non-public product expansion plans I had too.

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

#229

Post by onepointsixC »

jhp123 wrote: post #194
Terretta wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups with rapidly increasing value but no way to take money off the table? It doesn't take much to cross "$100m in assets" as a startup, say, $2.5M in revenue at 40x valuation (or $5M at 20x, etc.), even while loss-making. How should the founders and equity investors in a bootstrapped high growth unicorn that is neither public nor profit-making handle this pr…

This all seems very easy to deal with. Pay employees cash not equity. Founders can negotiate with investors to take enough cash compensation at each round to cover their tax bill. Investors can use financial instruments to hedge their risk.

That’s an awful idea. Startups need cash that cash, now. Wasting it on tax bills for evaluations that don’t become reality would just make everything worse and reduce runways.

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

#230

Post by hermitdev »

jmull wrote: post #166
EcommerceFlow wrote: post #149

[flagged]

The idea that a private social/sharing/communications platform should be required to carry the messages of the head of government is strongly authoritarian and quite unconstitutional. It’s incredible to me that people will argue the government’s lack of control over mass media platforms is censorship. IMO, nobody should be required to carry government propaganda.

> The idea that a private social/sharing/communications platform should be required to carry the messages of the head of government is strongly authoritarian and quite unconstitutional.

Except it's neither authoritarian nor unconstitutional. Private companies are already _required_ to carry government messaging. Several examples: emergency broadcast system, AMBER alerts or presidential alerts (which cannot be silenced) to your phone.

Post reply on HN