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

Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 248 posts

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#111

Post by komali2 »

esja wrote: post #73
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote in full context ( https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-... ) was: -------- "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone — time to stop playing games. Blow it all up, put [Trump aide] Ric Grenell to…

I listened to the podcast in question and the following one where he elaborated further. It was very clearly not intended to be taken literally. It was no different to the sorts of things you hear in pubs when people are talking about football referees.

Maybe it was clear to you because you think it would be crazy to start beheading government advisors for the crime of trying to do their job.

However, we've seen plenty of instances where this kind of rhetoric can enable the less stable elements of the population. Pizzagate resulting in a guy holding up a pizza shop he was convinced had child sex slaves in the basement immediately comes to mind. A plot to kidnap a governor comes to mind. Fantasizing about running over protesters, and then James Alex Fields Jr. doing just that and murdering Heather Heyer comes to mind.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#112

Post by MereInterest »

elicash wrote: post #87
crusso wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Left and the Right used to agree that freedom of speech was fairly sacrosanct.

What's funny about this comment is you can read it as claiming either side doesn't value free speech. One side says the right wants to use force of government threaten breaking up companies whose speech policies they disagree with. The other side arguing that left-wing social media companies have so much power they can essentially censor opposing views. Edit: clarity

One side is actively telling people to "rise up" [0] in a state that recently had a terrorist plot to kidnap the governor [1]. And that had an armed occupation of the house of government [2]. And who were recently told by the President to "stand by" [3].

The other side is saying not to actively invite violence. I'm pretty sure those are not equivalent positions.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/trump-advisor-te...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514

[3] https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-...

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#114

Post by whatshisface »

leftyted wrote: post #109
whatshisface wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If their motivations were to do their real jobs, they would do their real jobs regardless of the cameras. The presence of the cameras reveals that they prefer posturing to doing their jobs, but that does not imply that doing their jobs is the priority immediately below posturing. If the cameras were gone, do you think they would ask real questions, or would they start doing things far worse than posturing in front of…

Let's run an experiment by moving cameras into the Supreme Court -- actually all courtrooms -- and the rooms where juries deliberate and all Cabinet meetings. We'll be able to tell that I'm right after our government stops working. Or we could save ourselves the trouble and ask ourselves why it is that we don't allow cameras in those places to begin with. And then we could extend that reasoning to Congress. Turns out…

Judges are motivated in part by the esteem of their peers. In congress, "esteem of your peers" means agreeing to the right pork projects. Public approval is the best metric we're going to get. Take that carrot away, and all remaining carrots will lead in worse directions. At least public approval has some correlation with policy quality.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#115

Post by realce »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #100
vb6sp6 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These CEOs seems really skilled at using a lot of words to say and commit to very little and it seems like all these questions could be pretty easily dodged.

I bet they've had training on this. If you watch Zuck's earlier interviews, he really squirms.

Mark's way worse than Jack is IMO. Jack's go-to is to say they made a mistake last time and they'll try to do better, which is kind of a dodge but at least he gives up a bit of ground.

Mark never admits a single failing and remarks on how "meaningful" your interaction with his service is.

Like yeah - smoking crack is pretty meaningful when you're a crack addict.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#116

Post by jonsno56 »

blhack wrote: post #28

Let me give a preview for anybody who can’t tune in: Democrats all say that disinformation is a threat to democracy. Republicans say that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy. Jack and Mark preface every answer with “senator thank you for this question” and don’t answer anything. They both insist that the humans making editorial decisions are somehow impartial. Republicans yell a lot. Somethings they say d…

Lol this feels like Groundhog Day

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#117

Post by ethbr0 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #35
ethbr0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be nice to see more cooperative questioning. If no answer is given, have the next questioner ask the same question again. At some point, that's going to get under even Zuckerberg's skin.

If you want cooperative questioning you need a true cooperative goal - otherwise the process is inherently adversarial no matter how much passive aggressive cloaking is applied.

It's not passive aggressive cloaking.

If a CEO can't answer a question posed by Congress, running out the clock shouldn't be a viable strategy.

"Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..."

Why do the American people care about the next question, if the previous question wasn't answered? Which is more important, more questions or answers?

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#118

Post by nailer »

elicash wrote: post #104
nailer wrote: post #57

The fascinating thing with Twitter is their 'corrections' to Trump's tweets say 'official sources' dispute them. Clicking on the corrections gives a pointer to AP and NBC. Technically they're incorrect. AP and NBC are by no means official sources for the results of US elections. The Electoral College is the official source for the results of US elections. In this way, Twitter itself spreads disinformation - and somew…

Are you referring to the "Multiple sources called this election differently" disclaimer? Or the "Official sources may not have called the race when this was tweeted" one?

"Official sources called this election differently" is the exact message I'm discussing (the message then refers to the AP and NBC)

1. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em8ByxrXMAEN_Mi?format=jpg

2. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em8By4-XcAIUY2D?format=jpg

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#119

Post by ethbr0 »

ithkuil wrote: post #80
blhack wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) We require food manufacturers to list on the side of their products the ingredients, as well as the nutrition facts so people can make an informed decision about what they are putting in their body. There is a growing pressure to require your companies to do something similar, and publish the algorithms and metrics you use to keep people on your services longer. Would you support this movement? 2) Do you believe y…

These are actually good questions. There might be even more good questions; possibility too many. What's the best way to crowdsource such good questions and select a good sample and bring it to the attention of whoever organizes such hearings?

Write your senator. All questions come from somewhere.

Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]

#120

Post by DangitBobby »

javert wrote: post #91
snarf21 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest trick social ever played was convincing everyone their neighbor is the enemy while the rich and powerful silently rape this country.

It's hard to think of rich people who are doing more harm than good. Sure, you could argue that for Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the Sackler family if you want to. But they are a tiny fraction of all rich people. "Silently rape" is a pretty harsh thing to say. Would you prefer we had no rich people? There are places like that.

Really? You have a hard time thinking of rich people doing more harm than good?

Do you recall the decades where the truth about tobacco was actively suppressed? How fossil fuel companies are doing the same thing right now about Global Warming? Or the dismantling of regulatory agencies like the EPA by the Trump admin? Or the various billionaires that fund "think tanks" to conduct "research" favorable to their economic positions? Or people like Rupert Murdoch using their billions to spread divisive propaganda at a loss over their media empire?

Post reply on HN