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

Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 434 posts

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#161

Post by herenorthere »

raarts wrote: post #143
wldlyinaccurate wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here’s an idea... if you don’t like what somebody writes online, don’t read it. The problem isn't that people "don't like" what elected officials say. It's that people often take what elected officials say as truth without even considering that it might be false (they must be Smart and Good if they're in office, right?) Fact checking and censoring prominent figures isn't going to affect people who already have stro…

> is that people often take what elected officials say as truth Well educate them on that instead of trying to control the information flow. History taught us that will always backfire.

that is exactly what Twitter has done. they didn't block Trump's tweet, they added a box basically saying "be weary of this statement you should fact check it"

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#162

Post by jdhendrickson »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #152
bpyne wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a good thing to hold public figures accountable. Politicians, in particular, need to be held accountable due to the large amount of influence they have on our society. When Twitter, for example, places a warning on a Tweet to warn readers that it contains provably false statements, it holds the Tweeter accountable and that is enough reason to do it regardless of the changing minds argument. As far as cha…

> provably false statements Herein lies the rub. It’s extremely rare that a politician is tweeting about something so black-and-white that the tweet can be provably true or false. There is almost always a gray area between fact and opinion. In fact, people tend to vote for politicians because they agree with their interpretation and prioritization of a set of facts. So I think you’ll find the vast majority of politic…

Weird, I can think of at least one politician who constantly tweets, and most of it's easily proven false with the smallest modicum of research. It's almost like what you are saying has no basis in reality.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#163

Post by Lutger »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #91
babesh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass. It biases elections by giving them an even bigger microphone than the other people running. Apply the same standards to all.

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…

Cambridge Analytica and meddling in the elections by Russian trolls is what happened.

Also: a quite effective assault at climate action using misinformation, violent riots, a movement campaigning for civil war, ridiculous medical advise by the US president leading to deaths during a pandemic, etc.

This all happened and permanently changed the debate. Free speech is poisoned these days and we can't simply ignore that.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#164

Post by stefantalpalaru »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #145
babesh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to give elected officials a free pass. It biases elections by giving them an even bigger microphone than the other people running. Apply the same standards to all.

Why don't you just plainly state what your goal is: Top down control of the political discourse by the left.

> the left

What left?

https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#165

Post by bryan_w »

sultanofswing wrote: post #142
throwaway6274 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "when they start looting, we start shooting" Umm... except that’s not what he said though. If it was, I would completely agree with you that it is an incitement (more accurately, a proclamation) of violence. But what he actually said was: "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" And, per Wikipedia: "He said that he was not aware of the phrase's 'racially-charged history'. He added that he didn't know where th…

So at worst we have someone who is intentionally inciting violence. At best we have a leader of our country too irresponsible to do due diligence on his own posts to the entire free world. He has literally infinite resources at his disposal to communicate effectively about this. Being a hateful bigot and or an ignoramus should both be unacceptable positions for the leader of the US. Furthermore this isn't the first t…

> Being a hateful bigot and or an ignoramus should both be unacceptable positions for the leader of the US

That's something you take up at the ballot box or with your Congressperson/governer, not Facebook.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#166

Post by [deleted] »

stOneskull wrote: post #62
ve55 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a mistake to assume that anyone who doesn't want to fact-check/remove Trump's posts has to lean right politically. There's a lot of other reasons they can have. What if all of Trump's worst posts were removed, such that every potential voter reading them then has a less-aligned view of what he supports, and decides to vote for him, when they would not have had his posts not been selectively filtered? Jus…

i think that the president should be able to speak to the people, and half the people want to hear it. those who don't want to hear it shouldn't block it from the others. it's jiggled into such a drama. a headache over nothing. zuck was right, about transcending the feelings, and going by principles.

[deleted]

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#167

Post by wwweston »

danielfoster wrote: post #2

So 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.

You're worried about "whatever is the popular opinion of the day" but want to leave that job to voters?

You're talking about censorship as if it's something civil institutions have responsibility for, but private institutions shouldn't be doing?

Your comment is concerned about slippery slopes, but doesn't consider the one we're already skiing down where we discourage institutions from taking responsibility for accuracy?

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#168

Post by tossAfterUsing »

wwweston wrote: post #167
danielfoster wrote: post #2

So 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.

You're worried about "whatever is the popular opinion of the day" but want to leave that job to voters? You're talking about censorship as if it's something civil institutions have responsibility for, but private institutions shouldn't be doing? Your comment is concerned about slippery slopes, but doesn't consider the one we're already skiing down where we discourage institutions from taking responsibility for accura…

"censoring elected officials" is exactly the job of voters, no?

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#169

Post by throwquestion24 »

klahtnun wrote: post #147
throwquestion24 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if an elected official posts a picture of themselves naked or with their nipples out it won’t be censored?

Sure, why not? It is illegal for police to enforce laws on certain public officials in certain circumstances. IIRC members of congress can't be stopped for a traffic violation on the way to a vote, or something like that. The ancient Romans didn't allow prosecution of some public officials while in office for a similar reason. Their courts could too easily be abused as a political tool. It's not unreasonable to leave…

Because Facebook has already made some decisions on this topic and pretty much all nudity and female nipples are banned.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/01/19/facebook-nudi...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2012/08/06/faceboo...

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#170

Post by madeofpalk »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #115
Traster wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment doesn't even slightly reflect the law. I don't know why people keep spreading this. Section 230(c): > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Furthermore section 230 (c)(2) states: > any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material th…

Yes, and the debate is whether or not the companies are acting in bad faith and abusing this 1996 law by selectively altering their users posts and presenting their information thus acting like a publisher. Yes this is the current state, but the question is whether it's morally right and should we update it to reflect the current situation of the social media behemoths, this law was designed for small bulletin boards…

“Acting like a publisher” is completely irrelevant. Section 230(c) makes no exceptions or distinctions for publisher vs not.

Twitter and Facebook are publishers. Publishers still get protections afforded to them under 230(c).

Post reply on HN