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

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #15

xalava wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having followed hearings related to Libra, sure there is a lot of posturing. However, first, some MP asks precise critical questions. Secondly, it seems that even for trained CEOs one hour of intense questioning takes a toll. I've rarely heard something new, but you can detect some of their personality, their contradictions, the important points for MP ...

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.

Post by sjg007 » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #165

an_opabinia wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by crusso » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #145

crusso wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans are pretty clearly wanting to remove legal protections of section 230 of the CDA for social media companies that are acting as quasi-publishers by suppressing the speech of users on their platforms. The Democrats want more effort made by social media companies to fight what they perceive as online misinformation... and are asking for more suppression of speech on social media platforms. Nobody is hidi…

I disagree, and am glad you clarified your position. My view is that these companies are privately run and online communities should be free to run them as they wish. If, say, Christian Mingle wants to ban atheists from using the platform to spread their message, they should be allowed to do that without suddenly taking on liability for things like copyright infringement. If a woodworking community wants to ban discu…

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

timdev2 wrote: post #174

BurningFrog wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The pledge itself is creepy but isn't a free speech issue. Compelled recitation of the pledge by agents of the state, like schools, at least to me, is.

Post by eplanit » Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 6:21 PM UTC

kordlessagain wrote: post #159

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.

Let's not forget that Jack's beard looks straight out of Lord of the Rings.