I am starting to appreciate Zuckerberg more than I thought I would be. I think his mild autism helps him to cut through all the politics and hysterics. I won't be surprised if deep down he believes in a much more classic liberal values like many of his peers who are too afraid to speak up because of the leftist mob in silicon valley.
Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
101–110 of 434 posts
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
You called them savages. In addition to making wild accusations against me in your latest edit of your previous comment, you are now being disingenuous about what you wrote in order to make yourself seem more innocent.
> You called them savages. Yeah, I did. Please connect the dots from that comment in that specific context to where actual hate comes into play, and more importantly, where that supposed hate translates into a pathway to discrimination, violence, or other ramification of real hate speech. I'm not trying to be innocent. I make mistakes all the time. If I do an edit, I append and keep the original content intact (save…
Your hate speech is ok. Theirs is bad. Got it.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#103> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.
This is an entirely unsurprising result of eliminating reasonable discussion and rendering it professionally untenable to support the president. Welcome to the life of a conservative in tech. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of us, but I have no way of knowing for sure, because it's clear that speaking about our political beliefs can lead to negative repercussions in our career. Good luck getting a job or investment a…
I do not think we should make people who spread hate feel comfortable spreading that hate. The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence. He should not be able to do that when doing that is against the TOS of the site he is doing it on. Said another way, why does he get to incite violence on twitter, yet I do not?
There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#104Free For All of Social Media censors won't last very long. It became mainstream to hate the internet and push for the end of platforms, effectively turning Twitter/Facebook/Google into publishers. By doing that they automatically loose the ability to claim to be platforms and become publishers. As a publisher it is much harder to guaranteed that things said in the platform won't end up in the arrest of your employees…
It is becoming easier and easier to argue that these platforms are actually publishers. They are all making more editorial decisions on what posts to show and hide, where to show what, and they all have rules about what content is allowed and what's not. Those sound like the activities of a publisher to me.
You are explicitly permitted to do this by the law without being classified as a publisher.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what would help. More alternatives. What if Instagram, WhatsApp, Youtube, etc were all still independent or there was interopability between Google Circles, Facebook and whatever else? Watch how fast Facebook would adapt and be monitoring news and trying to conform to the public opinion if they felt they needed to compete. The only reason we're in this position is because a reduction in real competition in t…
Social Media are the real monopolies. For the first time we have a business that are provided for free and that are based on the concept of monetising its users. There is zero accountability and it is the closest we will get to a natural monopoly. It's interesting how they also collude with each other by defaming competitions and circularly maintaining this monopoly. Good example is Apple/Google process to accept new…
Phone books existed long before the internet.
I feel old writing this, but once a upon a time, phone-book companies (often the phone company, but not always) would deliver a phone book to every address with a phone. This was paid for almost-entirely by the advertising sold by the phone-book company.
If a company or person wasn't in the phone book, they pretty much didn't exist.
All of this has happened before, all of it will happen again.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're using the word "attack" to refer to a legal action, I think that is something that is very important for voters to be aware of.
Not legally, sticks and stones.
Then the speech is illegal and not an example of a reason the dichotomy would be false.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#107So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and Congress. It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.
We're getting onto our own slippery territory here. If I let someone into my living room, and that person makes political statements I don't like, I'm free to ask them to leave and not come back, or tell other people in my living room that I think the statements are factually incorrect. If Facebook lets someone onto their website, and that person makes political statements Facebook doesn't like, why can't Facebook as…
First, the rules are different in commerce than they are for private property.
Second, some entities are so big they constitute a public good, even if they are not recognized as such. If Google Search started to openly promote one side of politics and not the other, the regulations would hit hare and fast.
Third, this idea of 'populism' is a little warped. People agree or disagree with the nature of the protests to varying extent. Don't assume that the press and those writing letters to FB, or definitely FB employees themselves, are in any way representative of anything.
Fourth, it's in the company's interest to try to remain 'neutral in whatever terms that might mean.
Finally - it's in everyone's interest for said platforms to have consistent, objectively applied, and hopefully independently monitored criteria and operations for managing what they take down and not. Zuck should not be involved in any of the day to day operations, and should not be commenting on any specific situation or post.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#108> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.
I want to clarify that this is in NO way verifiable.
There were 0 company polls taken about this on a grand scale.
Most vocal position so far has been large scale dissatisfaction with this decision. But no way to actually know if that is just a ‘vocal’ minority.
So unless this person they ‘surveyed’ did some sort of independent analysis where they sampled a significant portion of the company independently, they are full of shit.
To be clear I am not advocating for either position in this post (though I do have an opinion), but this is just a bold faced lie.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd agree with you but private entities are not bound to freedom of speech. Only government forums
Sorry but you are incorrect. Platforms have protections while they act as a free and open forum. This protection ceases to exist the time you start fiddling with the content. Obviously, Terms of Service are there to filter the garbage out but any double standard can end up with your Platform credentials revoked and your business down the drain.
> Platforms have protections while they act as a free and open forum. This protection ceases to exist the time you start fiddling with the content
This is a popular belief among people who feel some viewpoints are being "censored" but it has no basis in law or reality. My cynical perspective is that if enough people spread this lie, it will become true in the court of public opinion, which is what the people being "censored" are hoping for. (the scare quotes are because "censorship" is a scary word used in place of "moderation" or "community management" or "spam removal")
Platforms are 100% allowed to take down material that they find objectionable for whatever reason.
The other reply to your comment has posted a link to the actual law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23408218. I'd encourage you to take a look.
Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
A free pass on what exactly? This has gotten so crazy, I can’t believe people are protesting Facebook for not censoring a politician. Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it. Do people really think that censoring, or even annotating, the President’s words will change how people feel about them? Like someone is going to read Trump’s message, think “oh right, mail-in ballots could…
I think the person you're responding to is talking about an asymmetry of rules - current politicians can say anything, everyone else has to follow rules. In that situation, current politicians can lie about their opponents, but opponents cannot lie back.
Actually it seems like social media companies are choosing who can't lie and who can. Normal users and even most politicians lie on social media everyday, who cares. The problem I see is social media companies targeting specific leaders and what they see as "lies" while ignoring others.
And most importantly, who decides what is a lie?
Either take 230 away from the company and no-one can lie on the platform, or stop censoring/altering users and allow everyone to say what's in their legal right to say.
There's a meme about nothing being true on the internet, why do we need a Ministry of Truth now?