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

161–170 of 248 posts

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

#161

Post by smnrchrds »

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.

You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot of money in the process. I don't know if they took credit for it explicitly, but at least they never objected to the articles praising them for being humanity's saviours.

Twitter et. al. have been a political force for most of their existence. The only thing that has changed is that while in their early years, their political effects were concentrated in the developing world in faraway lands, in recent years they have started affecting western politics as well. Many people who praised the earlier effects are condemning the latter. But the fundamental forces and processes are the same; it is the target that has changed. And Twitter has known it was political at least since 2009, when revolutions were named after it and multiple countries blocked it from their internet for the fear of the havoc it may cause.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution

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

#162

Post by kordlessagain »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41
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…

If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?

1. Do you, personally, visualize? Meaning, do you form internal imagery in your mind of which you are consciously aware of "seeing"?

2. Is that limited to historic memories, such of people, or does it extend to the irrational, where you can see things that aren't real or don't exist yet? I suppose this could also include audio manifestations.

3. Are you aware of any means available which would completely halt all corporate and service functions of the entity you helped create and unleash on the world?

I suppose the last one is a bit of a leading question, but given the seriousness of their actions, meh.

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

#163

Post by BurningFrog »

blhack wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?

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…

The only practical way to do 1) is to publish all source code related to this, right?

Live, after each merge/release.

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

#164

Post by ehsankia »

smnrchrds wrote: post #161
vlunkr wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot…

I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda.

Also, realistically no one's gonna care too much if you ban one of those millions of people without a voice, but good luck trying to censor the president.

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

#165

Post by NikolaeVarius »

an_opabinia wrote: post #142
furyofantares wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not your fault that this is the top comment in the thread at this time, but I find it somewhat ironic that I watched the testimony on disinformation -- and it didn't go too much like this comment suggested it would -- and then came here to find the top post is dismissive, incorrect speculation about the content.

What counts as misinformation: generalization? Omission? There might be a partisan-associated divide among these forms of lying, but I don’t want to risk generalizing about Republicans and Democrats nor omitting that I didn’t watch the testimony either. The real takeaway is they should disseminate the transcriptions not the videos. One thing I feel comfortable generalizing about is, everyone should fucking read more.

At some point, I don't even think some of that nuance matters anymore.

Spin is out the window. Straight up lying with easily disprovable claims is in.

Anyway, I dont think the speculation is off the mark, since every previous session was pretty much just like what user said. Also, judging from this feed I'm reading, its not even far off.

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

#166

Post by BurningFrog »

justin66 wrote: post #146
crusso wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The Left and the Right used to agree that freedom of speech was fairly sacrosanct. Ha. "Agreed" only in the most superficial way. You might have caught people saying it occasionally. If you follow civil liberties debates and the politics thereof you know there's often a gap between what politicians (or just ordinary people) say about freedom of speech and what they actually believe and do. In the US the politics of…

As an immigrant, I find the Pledge of Allegiance pretty creepy.

I don't think it has anything substantial to do with freedom of speech issues.

Obscenity laws and flag burning are better examples.

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

#167

Post by smnrchrds »

ehsankia wrote: post #164
smnrchrds wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not remember Twitter revolutions [0]. When journalists were attributing a wave of protests ranging from Iran to Egypt to Syria (which were later come to be named Arab Spring) to the effect of social media, especially Twitter. Social media giants were hailed as saviours of humanity through spreading democracy. Social media executives were ecstatic: they were changing the world for the better and making a lot…

I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. Also, realistically no one's gonna care too much if you ban one of those millions of people without a voice, but good luck trying to censor the president.

> I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda.

I don't think Twitter revolutions were free of propaganda. I am sure all the superpowers and regional powers were fanning the flames of discontent and trying to steer the results in their favourite direction. The excuse many countries gave for blocking Twitter was that it was a foreign propaganda tool. I am not saying the entire thing was foreign agents and propaganda. I am saying that there was some of that then as it is now. We have just learned to see it, because now the propaganda is directed at us and we have a clearer view.

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

#168

Post by UnpossibleJim »

blhack wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?

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…

Not to be a naysayer, but when you get into legal terms, you have to be careful with terms like "addictive". Addictive implies a component of physicality (by the legal/medical definition, not the common definition). It's horribly habitual, which is as bad as, and hard to differentiate except in the physical symptomology of withdrawal.

I know this sounds like splitting hairs on message boards, but I can guarantee you that all of these people who have been called to testify have been briefed heavily by squads of lawyers.

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

#170

Post by ehsankia »

smnrchrds wrote: post #167
ehsankia wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. Also, realistically no one's gonna care too much if you ban one of those millions of people without a voice, but good luck trying to censor the president.

> I still think there's a big difference between giving a platform to the people who don't have a voice (Twitter revolutions), vs giving a platform to world leaders and people in power trying to use the platform to disseminate their propaganda. I don't think Twitter revolutions were free of propaganda. I am sure all the superpowers and regional powers were fanning the flames of discontent and trying to steer the resu…

Oh I absolutely agree, there always has and will be disguised propaganda, my second point still holds that pure lies and provable misinformation such as "Trump won the election" can get deleted when coming from an average user, but not when coming from someone in power.

Entire networks of bots spreading misinformation get removed every once in a while, but you won't see the same happening with world leaders purposefully spreading lies.

Post reply on HN