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

251–260 of 1001 posts

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

#251

Post by jmull »

snickerbockers wrote: post #214
jmull wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yeah but you can still disagree with them for doing so. I don't get why so many people think the 1A protects them from criticism of the way they exercise their own freedom of speech. It's not just your freedom of speech that gets protected.

> yeah but you can still disagree with them for doing so

Of course. I'm not telling anyone what to say or think.

I was just pointing out how the poster's "censorship" argument is contrary to free speech, not supportive of it.

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

#252

Post by atum47 »

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

This is the same with Instagram. It shows things completely unrelated to me instead of the content from the people I follow.

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

#254

Post by andy_ppp »

chrisco255 wrote: post #240
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…

Unrealized gains taxes is an extractive and totalitarian tax. Someone is always risking 100% loss until they realize those gains. It's an affront to entrepreneurial risk-taking and it's capricious. It would be just as ridiculous to allow someone to write-off unrealized losses.

As someone else has said just let them pay their taxes with stock, if that were the case I think it addresses most of your points right?

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

#255

Post by unethical_ban »

EcommerceFlow wrote: post #149

[flagged]

Ah, welcome to the internet, then! I suggest you research internet access in Iran, China, Pakistan. Further reading: India disabling internet access to entire regions of the country during political upheavals.

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

onepointsixC wrote: post #229
jhp123 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by kjkjadksj »

EcommerceFlow wrote: post #245
jmull wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I completely agree, but that same entity cannot state they support free speech ever again. If they own their censorship, that's completely fine, but this backtracking with "cool Zuck" schtick is ridiculous. The stain to their reputation on free speech is permanent.

Free speech has never meant say whatever inflammatory bs you want and suffer no consequences

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

#258

Post by snickerbockers »

norir wrote: post #188
purpleblue wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

At this point "fascist" is more of an insult than an ideology, very few people who get called "fascist" ever actually live up to any reasonable definition of the word.

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

purpleblue wrote: post #147
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.

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by adamrezich »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #169
ryandrake wrote: post #100

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. If you look at every attempt to create "The Uncensored Free Speech Version Of [ANY_SERVICE]," they all, inevitably turned into a 4chan-like trashfire. You've got to have some kind of moderation.

This is where I really feel my age. Every message board and chatroom (bbs, forums, irc, icq, aol, et all) on the young internet was virtually uncensored and a 100% free for all, yet we all mostly got by. You went to the places you knew to go to. The communities mostly self moderated by kicks/bans. It worked really well. So whats changed? Well, I have my thoughts, but one thing is for sure, as soon as the platform its…

> So whats changed?

Gentrification of the Internet by smartphone-wielding normies who were neither prepared nor equipped to deal with the established cyberspace social norms that differed from their meatspace counterparts, as massive corporations rushed to get as many people Online as possible, as fast as possible, so as to target them with advertisements and accumulate and sell their data. Once said gentrifying normies outnumbered the "Internet natives", the "New Internet Culture" subsumed nearly all of the "Old Internet Culture", leaving us where we are today.

Post reply on HN