Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#61

Post by ren_engineer »

cipheredStones wrote: post #53
this_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about the company's recent course change, which includes Zuckerberg's Joe Rogan interview from last week. IMO this has a lot to do with the younger generations. Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election, and Zuck has probably realised that he needs to align Meta with them if they want to remain a relevant player in the social media space.

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.

Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin which is an absolute death sentence for the democrat party considering people only vote further right as they get older. For context Obama won that demographic by 20% in 2012, and won it by even more in 2008. If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections

https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latin...

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#62

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

thenaturalist wrote: post #41
gred wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Like any freedom in an interconnected society, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against. It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship. In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself: > Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an i…

[flagged]

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#63

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

thenaturalist wrote: post #54
llm_trw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when are we locking up everyone that's insulted Trump?

You know full well that Trump is a public figure. Where I live, different protections of personal rights exist for private people, such as typically engaged on social media and public figures. Neither is or ever was charging anyone who writes an insult online a proposed or practiced option but simply deleting derogatory comments.

Your notion of “private people” is entirety arbitrary and is an obvious loophole for abusing the system by depriving some of their rights.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#64

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

thenaturalist wrote: post #59
bdangubic wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

heavy coming from someone who wrote freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against with the straight face. your words have insulted me so imma hit up HN to have it be deleted and maybe file a lawsuit as well :)

Ridicule my words all you want, we both know full well that there are legal definitions of slander and that I did not mean censoring anything but legally valid infringements. That's what a (functioning) court system is there for. What's heavy is blowing up a nothingburger in so many words. :D Good luck with your lawsuit!

Ok so if a court system is what matters why do you support abusive censorship from private platforms that go well beyond what the law typically requires.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#65

Post by antonvs »

pessimizer wrote: post #40
fishstock25 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it's important not just that people do the right thing but also why they do it. Circumstances can change, but if people do the right thing for the "right reasons", then what they do won't change. Doing sth because of somebody's spouse is a bad reason, imagine the relationship goes sour and they face a divorce, boom they change their tune.

What's important is that we break these companies up so they aren't used as tools by the powerful. Neither Zuckerberg's or Musk's income streams should be allowed to have such an important effect on everyone's lives, but as long as these communication companies are allowed to exchange their obedience for a regime's lack of antitrust enforcement, our 1st Amendment rights are meaningless. > This is why it's important n…

A functioning government is not possible as long as money is speech, corporations are people, etc. That directly translates to government by the wealthiest people.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#66

Post by tw04 »

singleshot_ wrote: post #7
drewbug01 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the author worked at Facebook in the past. The "fifty years" bit is likely a reference to that company's recent policy change that explicitly re-authorizes the use of what are rightly considered slurs - even if they were common sentiment to express publicly fifty-some years ago.

Aye, that makes sense (not the slurs, but the explanation). Thanks.

[flagged]

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#67

Post by lgats »

tw04 wrote: post #66
singleshot_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aye, that makes sense (not the slurs, but the explanation). Thanks.

[flagged]

I think singleshot_ is saying the slurs do not make sense but drewbug01's explanation of the article's meaning is clear

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#68

Post by intended »

this_user wrote: post #20
wodenokoto wrote: post #9

> Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years. Way to upstage me, dude. I feel like there's a link to a story missing there

It's about the company's recent course change, which includes Zuckerberg's Joe Rogan interview from last week. IMO this has a lot to do with the younger generations. Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election, and Zuck has probably realised that he needs to align Meta with them if they want to remain a relevant player in the social media space.

Right wing streamers who are not part of Fox themselves put two and two together and came up with section 230.

They even said that Trump could threaten Facebook with specifically removing protections for the platform, and then turn around and not do it: resulting in damage to the platform without having to do anything.

I think everyone knows why Zuck is doing it. If there were any other republican government, the capitulation wouldn’t be this abject.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#69

Post by cipheredStones »

ren_engineer wrote: post #61
cipheredStones wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.

Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin which is an absolute death sentence for the democrat party considering people only vote further right as they get older. For context Obama won that demographic by 20% in 2012, and won it by even more in 2008. If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latin...

> Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin

Yes, which is not remotely the same claim as

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election [and therefore Zuckerberg needed to change political course for his social media to stay relevant]

which is the false claim I was responding to.

> If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections

Yes, it's certainly the case that if Democrats keep getting the same percentage of votes as in elections they lost badly, they'll keep losing elections.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#70

Post by intended »

sunshowers wrote: post #46
pessimizer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If wanting to kill yourself over your sex isn't mental illness, I have no idea why insurance or the state should be concerned about it. We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs, although they both may be upset about their bodies. We're also not labeling it as "life-saving." I don't understand how we can insist that these conditions are both the worst me…

Is pregnancy an illness, mental or otherwise? Should insurance or the state not cover the medical costs of pregnancy? What are your credentials, anyway? Why do you think you know more than decades of in depth research and millennia of anthropological evidence?

Why bring logic to an emotion fight.

They have a whole media ecosystem, the actual main stream media, giving them training and talking points to subvert these conversations and successfully move away from facts.

They only follow the style of debate, not its substance.

Limiting your self to the substance only weighs you down against an attacker of this nature.

Engage, but just waste their cycles.

Eventually there is always a missing definition, something extremely basic that’s being alluded to. Or a contradiction that shows up.

Point that out and you will get the “go google it yourself”, retreat flag show up.

Post reply on HN