Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
301–310 of 1001 posts
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#302Earlier 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.
> 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 silence…
Okay, but those use cases and the related systems are codified: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...
AFAIK there is not a similar legal basis for requiring a social media company to participate in the rebroadcasting of a specific individual's speech just because of their current elected position.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#303Earlier 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…
> 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
This statement is hysterically ahistorical. Each thing you listed had active moderation. Sysops didn't just allow anything on a board, if you posted stuff off topic or offensive (to the Sysop) it was removed with prejudice. IRC networks all had long lists of k-lines of people kicked off the network. Individual channels had their own mods with ban lists. Forums either moderated or were deluged with spam. AOL and ICQ were both highly moderated.
Just like today small networks might be uncensored free-for-alls. Even then they are/were rarely actually uncensored, it's just you might have not been censored because you aligned with the views of the owners/operators.
The only really uncensored free-for-all was Usenet and that state only existed for its first decade or so when it was limited to professionals and academics. The Eternal September turned Usenet into an unusable mess. It's corpse limps along today as a vehicle for piracy and not much else.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#304Earlier 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.
The actual loophole is the step-up basis for inheritance. This allows you to never realize gains, living off loans against them. Then, when you die, your heirs inherit the appeciated assets, and the liabilities. But, their cost basis for the assets is stepped up to the then-current fair value. So, they can sell off assets to pay the loans off, but have no realized gains.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive.
How do you know you have over 100m in assets? One never really knows the worth of something until it's sold. (i.e. try selling a used car. there's what you think it's worth and what you get...) And once the asset is sold, that's a taxable event.
> How do you know you have over 100m in assets?
If your bank determines that assets you post for collateral are worth 100mn or more, that's a pretty good indication.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#306If 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.
[flagged]
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#307Earlier 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.
The Democrats are not trying to weaken the integrity of the Supreme Court.
It's not the GOP that is loudly and proudly calling for the court to be packed with sychophants because it ruled against their preferred policy platform...
The Dem leadership has been splitting the baby for years by allowing the ever-increasing radical wing of the party to bloviate about this without ever letting meaning legislation to the floor to enact the changes this group wants, so credit where credit is due, I guess.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume he’s familiar with the transparency standards of his own site. And he still calls whatever happened pressure. So it’s entirely possible it wasn’t as innocuous as you suggest.
I mean, he has the emails. He can release them whenever he wants. It only seems reasonable to assume the emails for FaceBook took the same form as the ones to Twitter. But he's welcome to prove me wrong.
If a major government agency repeatedly requests you follow certain guidelines and gets frustrated when you don’t, it might be reasonable to feel pressured or threatened, even if they’re your own guidelines. I know I’d be, even by what was revealed in the Twitter files.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#309Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#310It'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
A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. I've always understood it as the algorithm is looking for engagement and will try some lowest common denominator tactics to engage in it. As someone who just wanted to see the odd picture of a friend or relative, I don't have much use for Facebook these days.