I actually subjected myself the the entire 30 minute video of his speech and there’s little else I can say other than that it was embarrassing, bordering on disgusting in its western chauvinism. And I don’t just mean castigation of Chinese government policy: he quite literally said it’s in the worlds best interest for Americans to continue controlling the censorship policies for the entire internet.
Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
11–20 of 94 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#12Zuck gets it just fine, he's following the money. If you think a guy running a multi-billion dollar company doesn't understand something basic it is more than likely that you are simply not understanding him.
What else is he going to do? Do the right thing and shut Facebook down starting a year before any election?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#13I actually subjected myself the the entire 30 minute video of his speech and there’s little else I can say other than that it was embarrassing, bordering on disgusting in its western chauvinism. And I don’t just mean castigation of Chinese government policy: he quite literally said it’s in the worlds best interest for Americans to continue controlling the censorship policies for the entire internet.
1) the GDPR is European and has a huge effect in changing policies for internet giants
2) are you defending the government currently imprisoning millions of people in indoctrination camps just because they believe in something?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#14“Whatever Mark says, Sheryl is inclined to agree”
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of your political ideas? You want a central authority to ban the spread of "blatantly false" ideas that you fear may cause plebians to vote the wrong way, yet you support affording plebians with the full right to vote? Would it not be simpler to bans plebians from voting, and therefore remove your worry entirely that they may vote the wrong way when hearing "b…
It doesn't have to be the same authority. You could have an independent ombudsman.
This is laughable; as well say "you could have an independent ruler".
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#16The New Yorker slamming the printing press and the idea of the inevitable march of progress was a bit of a surprise. Who's the "neo-reactionary" now?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#17Facebook was used in 2016 by the Kremlin for disinformation warfare with the express purpose of swaying the results of our presidential election. Facebook recently adopted an official policy that they will not remove political ads which are blatantly, demonstrably false. This policy was drafted by Katie Harbath, Facebook's Public Policy Director of Global Elections, who was previously Chief Digital Strategist for the…
Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of your political ideas? You want a central authority to ban the spread of "blatantly false" ideas that you fear may cause plebians to vote the wrong way, yet you support affording plebians with the full right to vote? Would it not be simpler to bans plebians from voting, and therefore remove your worry entirely that they may vote the wrong way when hearing "b…
We are being attacked with foreign propaganda by our long-term enemies. They are succeeding in destroying our position on the world stage. It's not something that can be turned a blind eye to under the guise of free speech (which it isn't).
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#18I actually subjected myself the the entire 30 minute video of his speech and there’s little else I can say other than that it was embarrassing, bordering on disgusting in its western chauvinism. And I don’t just mean castigation of Chinese government policy: he quite literally said it’s in the worlds best interest for Americans to continue controlling the censorship policies for the entire internet.
1) the GDPR is European and has a huge effect in changing policies for internet giants 2) are you defending the government currently imprisoning millions of people in indoctrination camps just because they believe in something?
1) and that’s a great thing. watch the video and you’ll see it begins with the claim that “no one wants to live in a world where tech companies control what you can say” and ends with “but we should keep doing exactly what we’re doing”. GDPR would never pass here partially because interests like Zuck’s don’t want it to.
2) quite explicitly I am NOT saying that. What I’m saying is that neither the government that disappears protestors NOR the government running concentration camps in the open NOR the government outright banning climate protests should be deciding what qualifies as dangerous to say.
EDIT on 2) just because I’m critical of the claim that the west and America specifically has any moral high ground here doesn’t mean in any way that I condone human rights violations by China. I think that’s an unreasonable implication.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#19Facebook was used in 2016 by the Kremlin for disinformation warfare with the express purpose of swaying the results of our presidential election. Facebook recently adopted an official policy that they will not remove political ads which are blatantly, demonstrably false. This policy was drafted by Katie Harbath, Facebook's Public Policy Director of Global Elections, who was previously Chief Digital Strategist for the…
> They are using it as an excuse to protect the spread of disinformation.
I really don't think so. They want usage, period. They don't want to actively spread disinformation. They probably find that editorializing and censoring information annoys users. There's been no proof whatsoever that Russia had any impact via FB on the 2016 election. Most people know this and reject larger narratives that push centralized manipulation of freely publishable information.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it
#20Facebook was used in 2016 by the Kremlin for disinformation warfare with the express purpose of swaying the results of our presidential election. Facebook recently adopted an official policy that they will not remove political ads which are blatantly, demonstrably false. This policy was drafted by Katie Harbath, Facebook's Public Policy Director of Global Elections, who was previously Chief Digital Strategist for the…
Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of your political ideas? You want a central authority to ban the spread of "blatantly false" ideas that you fear may cause plebians to vote the wrong way, yet you support affording plebians with the full right to vote? Would it not be simpler to bans plebians from voting, and therefore remove your worry entirely that they may vote the wrong way when hearing "b…
Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of yours? Laws against defamation are exactly intended to prevent the spread of false ideas. Why not remove them, and let the plebeians figure things out themselves?