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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by bilekas »

AlbertCory wrote: post #248

If you want to see what's been "moderated" away from you on Hacker News: Click your username at the upper right: Turn on "showdead": showdead: yes. (defaults to "no") There are a number of dead posts in this thread. I'd post some here (some of which don't appear to violate any HN guidelines, I'll note), but probably those same moderators would kill this one, too.

It's very easy to claim censorship these days when in fact it's usually more benign than that, companies with large communities generally like to avoid anything inflammatory. Even still, like it or not, you don't have a right to say whatever you like most places on line. It's a privilege. Right or wrong that's just how it is.

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

#292

Post by Diederich »

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"

It's a very difficult problem, no doubt.

Do you think Hacker News is 'social media'? If so, is it being run in a 'clean, ethical way'?

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

#293

Post by fooker »

nightski wrote: post #159
zelias wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this "close" the tax loophole in which holders of tradable assets can take out loans against those assets in perpetuity, never paying taxes on any of it?

I mean, you have to pay the loans back. Which requires income which is taxed. This would only work if you either don't spend any money (which then what is the point of the loan) or if your assets are always going up and increasing in value beyond that of the loan which inevitably will not be the case.

> Which requires income which is taxed

And there lies the loophole. These loans are often structured as some kind of business expense that can be paid from pre-tax income.

So, ultra rich people get to double dip here. No taxes on selling stocks for money, as there's a loan, plus no taxes on the income for paying it off.

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

#294

Post by feoren »

AlbertCory wrote: post #248

If you want to see what's been "moderated" away from you on Hacker News: Click your username at the upper right: Turn on "showdead": showdead: yes. (defaults to "no") There are a number of dead posts in this thread. I'd post some here (some of which don't appear to violate any HN guidelines, I'll note), but probably those same moderators would kill this one, too.

[Dead] means they've been downvoted to oblivion. Moderators had nothing to do with it -- those were other users on HN. I always browse with "showdead" on and the vast majority of [Dead] posts are awful. They don't need to violate HN Guidelines, they were killed by the community.

[Flagged] means it was killed by a moderator. Those are more rare. I don't agree with everything that is flagged but I think HN has a great moderation policy overall. Often when posts are flagged, the moderator responds explaining why.

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

#296

Post by cheema33 »

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

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

> doesn't think people that say mean things (or things someone in particular thinks are mean) are automatically bad people.

Unless they are mean to him. Then yeah. Automatically bad.

BTW, you listed none of the serious issues the left has with Elon.

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

#297

Post by rv3909i »

andy_ppp wrote: post #254
chrisco255 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And if the asset is a farm?

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

#298

Post by gopher_space »

93po wrote: post #253
kjkjadksj wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I'd be surprised if Elon's detractors know about his daughter, generally speaking. The tech conversations don't overlap with the gossip conversations very often.

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

#299

Post by fooker »

andy_ppp wrote: post #120
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…

> 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.

> They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it

In that case, this is the end of public companies as we know it.

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

#300

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

I didn't see a lot of people banned for questioning. Most people were banned for authoritatively affirming things.

(But then, that "a lot" is there for a reason. There has been some bad behavior from the platform too.)

Post reply on HN