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

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#111

Post by DiggyJohnson »

sunshowers wrote: post #10
senkora wrote: post #2

This seems to be the reason for writing about the topic right now: > So, yes, in June 2015, I slowed down the whole company [Facebook] by a second. > Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years [by ending fact checking?]. Way to upstage me, dude.

The fact checking is the tip of the iceberg — it's what the marketing machine led with because it's the least objectionable. Far far worse is letting queer people like myself be called mentally ill, though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Yes, it's part of the common discourse, but the common discourse is objectively morally abhorrent. I worked at FB for a decade, and I now am rooting for its complete des…

I don’t think (most) queer people nor (most) religious people should be called mentally ill at work or on social media. However, I also don’t think a standalone policy should address either case specifically. Professional decorum and the typical “no hate speech” should cover it. What say you to that position?

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#112

Post by DiggyJohnson »

playa06 wrote: post #81
sunshowers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Should insurance or the state not cover the medical costs of pregnancy? Do you think pro-natalist policies (anything that can be seen as incentivizing the act of having more children) need to come from a desire to see more equality, or human dignity? In fact some of the most evil people of the 1900s thought it was good to support the medical costs of pregnancy, and even thought you should /pay families if they had…

Do you at least acknowledge that some people hold that position for not-evil reasons. That seemed like the missing razor in your final couple sentences.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#113

Post by dani__german »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #21
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.

I don't buy it, Gen Z hasnt swung right, but the young left has swung apathetic. Zuck has his own reasons for sucking up to Trump and it's not to stay popular with the kids, who have already moved on from Meta properties.

Gen Z exit polling data from the 2024 US Presidential Election shows a significant rightward shift among gen Z voters. Instagram is still popular with "the kids", and it does tend to have more lax moderation. It leans somewhat conservative/right favored through inaction/sheer mass of posts.

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-genz-kamala-harris-trump-...

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#114

Post by DiggyJohnson »

gortok wrote: post #50
llm_trw wrote: post #35

That policy change reads like a more liberal version of Obama's first term compaign platform on social issues. Lets not pretend that the current climate in SF isn't both way outside the Overton window for most of rest of the US and most of California until ten years ago.

With this comment you seem to be putting the Overton window farther right than I’ve seen it in recent memory —- outside of very rural areas.

Eh, that’s more an overstatement than you’re claiming of GP. Just my opinion, but yea I guess I don’t see how this isn’t a return to the centrist-status-quo-liberal perspective of like 2005-2014. Massive hand waving implied

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#115

Post by forgetfreeman »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #109
onemoresoop wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be bots as well

That’s a dangerous assumption to habitualize in its own right…

And yet it can't be dismissed out of hand either. AI's contributions to society are truly multi-faceted.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#116

Post by dani__german »

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?

pregnancy is certainly a condition, though to call it an illness wouldnt be appropriate. Additional care should be provided to pregnant mothers from any human organization of any variety that hopes to continue existing.

He doesnt need credentials. No one needs credentials to be correct, their statements should be evaluated on their merits alone. Credentialism is a choking ideology, leading to higher prices and possibly higher quality in many things.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#117

Post by CrimsonRain »

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…

I insult you. What now?

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#118

Post by freeone3000 »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #111
sunshowers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact checking is the tip of the iceberg — it's what the marketing machine led with because it's the least objectionable. Far far worse is letting queer people like myself be called mentally ill, though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Yes, it's part of the common discourse, but the common discourse is objectively morally abhorrent. I worked at FB for a decade, and I now am rooting for its complete des…

I don’t think (most) queer people nor (most) religious people should be called mentally ill at work or on social media. However, I also don’t think a standalone policy should address either case specifically. Professional decorum and the typical “no hate speech” should cover it. What say you to that position?

It would be if those were not specific exceptions to the hate speech policy: “ Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.””

Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/h...

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#119

Post by rad_gruchalski »

lesuorac wrote: post #58
Diggsey wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "right to not be insulted" is literally censorship.

I do think this is the wrong way to look at this. Prohibiting slurs is like prohibiting nudity in public parks. You're prohibiting an action so that people don't self-prohibit themselves from visiting.

It starts with words. Then come books, movies, comedy. ”right not to be insulted”… feeling insulted is an emotion. Learn to deal with your emotions.

Yeah, I know… everybody is a winner and what not.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#120

Post by sunshowers »

dani__german wrote: post #116
sunshowers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

pregnancy is certainly a condition, though to call it an illness wouldnt be appropriate. Additional care should be provided to pregnant mothers from any human organization of any variety that hopes to continue existing. He doesnt need credentials. No one needs credentials to be correct, their statements should be evaluated on their merits alone. Credentialism is a choking ideology, leading to higher prices and possib…

Gender dysphoria is also a condition, not an illness.

Having studied or lived through something makes you far more likely to be correct than simply thinking about it with your giant brain. You don't need them to be correct, but they really help.

Post reply on HN