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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by drawkward »

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…

What are kicks/bans but censorship?

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

#402

Post by kjkjadksj »

this_user wrote: post #321
kjkjadksj wrote: post #246

Earlier 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.

Nobody with assets over 100m has a "pile of gold", as you put it. Those assets are always productively invested in some form or another. But you would prefer that those investments be pulled, because the government are clearly much better at employing those assets productively?

Its not a question of who is better at managing money but more who needs benefit in our society. The government supports welfare programs. Someone throwing 100m in the market does not unless they are taxed to do so.

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

#403

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

iamacyborg wrote: post #148
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.

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

I'm not sure that this is a useful distinction. It starts to sound an awful lot like philosophy 101 "what is a p-zombie" horseshit... if both people are asking the same questions or using the same rhetoric, why would their internal, unknowable-without-telepathy intent make any difference whatsoever? If you do think there is an actual distinction, somehow, even then should you care? Because people who want to censor the speech will just label the skeptics as cranks anyway, and shut it down.

"Crank vs sincere skeptic" is fallacious, as it attacks the person and not the argument.

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

#404

Post by sangnoir »

AlbertCory wrote: post #288
sangnoir wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN allows everyone with sufficient karma to vouch for dead comments (or flag comments), I suspect most of the comment-level moderation you see is crowdsourced to fellow commenters; a still-dead comment means most of those who see choose to keep it dead. HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation (including bans); any unmoderated forum devolves into a cesspit; and it only takes a surprisingly few bad apples to…

That's the gospel, for sure. However, look at the dead comments here and, for each, tell us why it would turn HN into a "cesspit."

I didn't flag any of them; I do not owe you an explanation on behalf of the flaggers.

Conversely - why didn't you vouch for each of the dead comments, if they are so great?

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

#405

Post by vintermann »

lawlessone wrote: post #221
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…

Nothing. You don't need to be worried about the public being fooled by AI, because the public is really big, and as a certain president said, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

What you should be worried about isn't the many, but the few. As usual. Presidents, judges, party nomination committees etc. being fooled by fake private evidence. It's much easier to fool a few people, especially with evidence they can't examine too closely "for security reasons" or some other pretext.

If you've convinced people to look at private evidence, you've halfway there to fooling them already. And sometimes, they're happy to be fooled, because they really wanted to believe what the fake evidence pushes anyway.

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

#407

Post by soneca »

AlbertCory wrote: post #315
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the four dead comments I see, two are content-free trolling and one is a completely unrelated discussion about Jim Jordan. The fourth is a bit more borderline, but I think a reasonable person could conclude that the commenter is more interested in getting people riled up than having a discussion.

> The fourth is a bit more borderline The vast majority of comments on political/social topics fit your description. If you're thinking of the one I'm thinking of (not mine, if it matters), I can't think of any reasonable test that would conclude "this should be dead, but all those others can stay." Edit: it's bigbacaloa's

I took the time to find it and dig why they were banned.

Here is dang’s explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421874

It sounds a fair banning for me.

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

#408

Post by [deleted] »

somewhat_drunk wrote: post #359
subsubzero wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, Zuck has zero integrity and I think he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November and is trying to say he was bullied into making alot of disastrous decisions that he and he only ordered for an administration/party that he personally donated $400M+ to.

>he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November Things are headed strongly in the opposite direction you're implying.

[deleted]

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

#409

Post by gosub100 »

JohnMakin wrote: post #232
lawlessone wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> What happens when flat earthers start using AI to generate videos claiming the earth is flat, this is definitely already happening but not how you think. within flat earth “communities” it consists of a few types of users - true believers/morons (maybe less than 5-10%), people who are only there to make easy “dunks” on the first group (50+%) and then a third large group trolling the second group by pretending to be…

It's the verbal equivalent of an M.C. Escher work.
Post reply on HN