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

721–730 of 1001 posts

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

#721

Post by jaykru »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #636
jaykru wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telegram's crypto is a mess Telegram's crypto may be weird, as the professional cryptographers you allude to have pointed out; I don't know, not being a cryptography expert. But MTProto 2.0 has been shown to enjoy many nice security properties (including a version of forward secrecy, though one afaik not as good as that enjoyed by Signal): formal proofs available here https://github.com/miculan/telegram-mtproto2-ve…

Ironically, just being able to produce a valid proof is hardly proof that an implementation has those properties, it just means they put some effort into it.

This would be a valid point if the client source code wasn't available; you can build the app from source and sideload it onto your Android phone or verify [0] that the build available for your platform matches the code you've audited for compliance to the protocol. Granted I don't know if anyone's performed such an audit, but it's at least an option.

[0] https://core.telegram.org/reproducible-builds

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

#722

Post by paradox460 »

pndy wrote: post #594
amelius wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, soon someone here will build an "HDMI-hole" that uses AI to directly filter unwanted content from a HDMI signal.

I'd rather expect a HDMI cables that will display ads if you don't pay a subscription will come first. Pretty sure we had a thread on this not so long ago.

SCART has had the ability to do this since it's inception

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

#723

Post by seoulmetro »

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 due to them choosing to make it like this.

Why does this come up so much? Yes... Google, Facebook, Instagram, they're all hamstringing their experience to spite you. They benefit and you lose.

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

#724

Post by guywithahat »

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…

It’s probably because they got in serious legal trouble last election for donations in support of Biden, and now the whole thing is starting over again as RFK is suing federal agencies for pressuring tech companies to suppress his election campaign.

The only way to win with politics in social media is to avoid it or promote free speech

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

#725

Post by NickC25 »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #537
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…

I think we should get substantially tighter reigns on where our tax dollars are going and stop the outflows considerably before we worry about taking more and more dollars from citizens. The government has lost billions in recent years. LOST BILLIONS. No one has been held accountable.

I'll go with that.

Starting with the pentagon, who hasn't ever passed a real audit. Their budget is nearly $1 trillion.

I wonder how much of that goes to kickbacks, fraud, graft, etc.

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

#726

Post by tboettch »

marcuskane2 wrote: post #439
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'm pretty sure that whole notion of these magical loans to avoid taxes is a made up internet conspiracy theory. A) Loans need to be paid back, with interest. The person must either be selling assets or drawing in other (taxed) income to pay back the loan. A loan could delays the taxes to a future year to let someone buy a house or yacht or whatever without the full tax burden in year 1, but they still ultimately pay…

If I'm reading the IRS data[1] correctly, "debts and mortgages" are considered a deduction on the estate valuation, which means any money left in the estate (i.e. instead of in a trust) solely to cover loans would not be taxed. I think the idea is that you would roll the debts until death, at which point the estate can sell the securities with their stepped up cost basis, thereby avoiding (nearly all) capital gains tax.

I'm not an expert on this, and I could be misunderstanding some subtlety here.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-estate-tax-fili...

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

#727

Post by jdswain »

Gud wrote: post #400
silverquiet wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That Facebook would turn into a soft core porn site was pretty unexpected, at least for me.

The trouble is there is no way to turn it off. I've nothing against that kind of thing in the right place, but for me Facebook is not that place, and it sneaks in no matter how hard you try and prevent it.

Here's some funny fail videos...of girls in bikinis. Here's some sport images for the sport you are interested in, with far too revealing angles/images.

So I don't use Facebook any more, and feel much better for it.

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

#728

Post by egypturnash »

winternett wrote: post #597
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

The feed is normally manipulated by information suppression concerning undesirable posts concerning their commercial interests (partners and advertisers) normally anyway, I don't see where the regret comes from by having to suppress posts concerning requests from government officials and agencies. Truth is, once a platform becomes that large, everyone and their peers jockeys to control their image upon it, whether it…

As far as I know the closest thing to an ad you’ll find on a Mastodon server is an occasional post from your admin saying “hey if you have some money to burn, we run partially on donations”.

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

#729

Post by someonehere »

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…

Do you honestly think all the billionaires supporting Harris are actually for that? They’re going to be tons of loopholes and exceptions to these billionaires that give to her. If anything it’s attack on the middle class.

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

#730

Post by mondrian »

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.

There's a gradient of risk, though. Suppose someone is sitting on 5 billion dollars unrealized gains by holding the index fund VT. The idea of "risking 100% loss" in VT is ludicrous.

Maybe unrealized gains tax can be formulated as "cushy gains tax" if riskiness can be quantified in a reasonable way based on an asset's age and metrics over time. Then if an asset's risk score is above X, you don't pay tax. If it drops below X, you start to pay tax.

This would probably lead to more innovation and fewer monopolies, as people are incentivized to invest in riskier companies, and companies are incentivized to self cannibalize to maintain a healthy risk score.

Post reply on HN