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

121–130 of 248 posts

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

#121

Post by cycrutchfield »

nailer wrote: post #118
elicash wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So your argument is that AP and NBC are not allowed to "call" these elections based on results tabulated by each state? Seems like you're really grasping at straws here.

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

#122

Post by Balgair »

vlunkr wrote: post #103
Closi wrote: post #79

These hearings just show how they have an impossible task. * Question 1: Why did you put labels on the president's tweets? What gives you the right to determine that? Putting a label on is completely outrageous! * Question 2: You labelled the presidents tweet as 'potentially misleading' - but this didn't go far enough, as it was fully misleading! Why are you not harsh enough on fake news?! There needs to be a separat…

Yeah I really don't envy them. They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money. I'm sure they never thought they would be at the center of national discussions about free speech, defending themselves against senators on TV, or being in the no-win situation of having the President use your platform to share obvious lies.

> They're just guys who built some websites trying to make money

Maybe before Tahrir Square that was true, but they've been at this fulcrum for ~9 years now. They know what they're doing and what their part is in the play staging today.

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

#123

Post by __s »

Closi wrote: post #79

These hearings just show how they have an impossible task. * Question 1: Why did you put labels on the president's tweets? What gives you the right to determine that? Putting a label on is completely outrageous! * Question 2: You labelled the presidents tweet as 'potentially misleading' - but this didn't go far enough, as it was fully misleading! Why are you not harsh enough on fake news?! There needs to be a separat…

Twitter is doing what I wish all services would do with misinformation. Avoid putting misinformation into feeds, attempt to direct people to rectifying information, but let the misinformation exist so as not to martyr it

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

#124

Post by nailer »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #121
nailer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

So your argument is that AP and NBC are not allowed to "call" these elections based on results tabulated by each state? Seems like you're really grasping at straws here.

No my argument is that NBC and AP are not official sources and are being presented as such.

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

#125

Post by nailer »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #68
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…

This doesn't even make sense. The electoral college doesn't meet until January. The AP and NBC sources collate the results of the elections from each individual state, which comes directly from the Secretary of State websites for each state. What in there is disinformation?

The electoral college meets on Dec 14.

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

#126

Post by ethbr0 »

kemonocode wrote: post #85
mxskelly wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? Please tell me you're joking.

Many rich people are incredibly miserable and basically stuck in a position they cannot escape from. That doesn't mean they aren't doing a lot of harm (they are) or they aren't aware of it (again, they are) but they might not see a viable way out of it. I remember when Zuckerberg was just seen like a nerdy, awkward kid suddenly put in big boy pants and people empathizing with him, and not like the eldritch abominatio…

> a viable way out of it

1. Give Larry Page & Sergey Brin a call.

2. Ask them what to do when you have too much money, but don't want public attention anymore.

If Zuckerberg is still in the public eye, it's because he makes a choice to be.

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

#127

Post by cycrutchfield »

nailer wrote: post #124
cycrutchfield wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is that AP and NBC are not allowed to "call" these elections based on results tabulated by each state? Seems like you're really grasping at straws here.

No my argument is that NBC and AP are not official sources and are being presented as such.

The "official sources" are the election results tabulated by each state. NBC and AP collate this data and show that Biden has enough electoral votes to win. That is what is meant by "call".

A "call" is what happens before the electors meet to vote. To suggest that you need to wait until January 6th or whenever in order to "call" the election is absurd.

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

#128

Post by cycrutchfield »

nailer wrote: post #125
cycrutchfield wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't even make sense. The electoral college doesn't meet until January. The AP and NBC sources collate the results of the elections from each individual state, which comes directly from the Secretary of State websites for each state. What in there is disinformation?

The electoral college meets on Dec 14.

My mistake. The votes are counted on January 6th. It's an irrelevant detail here though.

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

#129

Post by esja »

komali2 wrote: post #111
esja wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

I happen to agree but now you're making a different argument, which is that Bannon was not being literal, but that such speech is dangerous anyway because of the sorts of people who might take it literally (as you did).

It's hard to know where to draw the line. Twitter and Facebook will find it very difficult to detect hyperbole, sarcasm, etc. And neither platform seems interested in spending their billions to hire the type and number of people required for proper monitoring.

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

#130

Post by danparsonson »

jedimastert wrote: post #86
formerly_proven wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths, they're fully aware of what they're doing, what the effects are and they simply do not care.

I don't think it's helpful to pretend to have a full view into the minds of these men. I think it's very possible that Zuckerberg genuinely has no idea why people would care this much about privacy and why people push back against Facebook because of it, just like I think there are people who actually have no idea why the phrase "if you have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide" is problematic.

He's pretty careful with his own privacy so I think he does understand - it might be more accurate to say he thinks the majority of us don't deserve it.
Post reply on HN