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

21–30 of 434 posts

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

#21

Post by nilkn »

pstuart wrote: post #19
nilkn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems reasonable to censor. Regardless of intent, that language clearly does promote hate. I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself.

Context is everything. The first case was a collection of half a dozen pictures of white people protesting that they want hair cuts, vs. half a dozen pictures of PoC asking not to be killed. > that language clearly does promote hate How does that promote hate? > I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself I'm criticizing the group I belong to. Words get misconstrued all the time. You just demonstrated that. E…

I think the context backs up my position. There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages. The image made its own point and didn't need to be coupled with hate speech. That definitely promotes hate and should've been removed, and you should've been (temporarily) banned, just as you were.

Everyone who promotes hate speech thinks they're just being misunderstood. You're not the first.

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

#22

Post by pstuart »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #11
pstuart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is quite happy to censor speech. Facebook banned me for 3 days for commenting on a previous ban where I had said "white people suck" and "white people are savages", both for pictures contrasting white people protesting vs PoC and First Nation people protesting. Disclaimer: I am very white. I was not promoting hate.

It just seems hard to believe that calling people savages isn’t intended to promote hatred of them.

It's a play on the fact that native americans have traditionally been referred to as savages, and this was my commentary on "the pot calling the kettle black".

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

#23

Post by air7 »

csense wrote: post #4
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.

We're getting onto our own slippery territory here. If I let someone into my living room, and that person makes political statements I don't like, I'm free to ask them to leave and not come back, or tell other people in my living room that I think the statements are factually incorrect. If Facebook lets someone onto their website, and that person makes political statements Facebook doesn't like, why can't Facebook as…

It would be more like if another guest demand that you ask that person to leave because they didn't agree with the comment.

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

#24

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

nilkn wrote: post #16
pstuart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is quite happy to censor speech. Facebook banned me for 3 days for commenting on a previous ban where I had said "white people suck" and "white people are savages", both for pictures contrasting white people protesting vs PoC and First Nation people protesting. Disclaimer: I am very white. I was not promoting hate.

That seems reasonable to censor. Regardless of intent, that language clearly does promote hate. I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself.

You miss the point. How hard is to find hate speech which isn't censored?

Out of interest I searched for "alt right" on Facebook, and it took about a minute to find a post that said "Social media has made too many of you comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the mouth for it."

The post is dated Feb 9, so it's been there a while. It's not unusual for that group.

And so on. It's one thing to have community standards, it's another to prove you're applying them fairly.

I see no evidence that Facebook is interested in doing that.

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

#25

Post by elwell »

dagmx wrote: post #9
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.

There are lots of options between full on censoring and not doing a thing. Displaying that certain prominent posts aren’t accurate is a good start, much like what Twitter did.

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"

[Warning this message is inaccurate]

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

#26

Post by tech-historian »

elwell wrote: post #20

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.

It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something?

Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?

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

#27

Post by quicklime »

banads wrote: post #17
whoopdedo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct analogy would be if someone is standing in the Walmart parking lot. And last I checked U.S. law permits Walmart to tell them to leave.

Are there any other non-corporate "parking lots" with anywhere close to the same network effects?

Not a parking lot, but a lot of suburban communities are built around large shopping malls, operated by companies like Westfield. It’s not exactly conducive to protests, as the malls are private property and there’s no significant pedestrian traffic anywhere else.

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

#28

Post by elwell »

tech-historian wrote: post #26
elwell wrote: post #20

> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive I find that interesting and dangerous.

It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something? Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees here care to comment?

Even if it wasn't the majority that felt that way, it's interesting to me that they felt "afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive". The situation is so polarizing and dramatic, we can't hope to find an optimal solution.

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

#29

Post by lanevorockz »

Free For All of Social Media censors won't last very long. It became mainstream to hate the internet and push for the end of platforms, effectively turning Twitter/Facebook/Google into publishers. By doing that they automatically loose the ability to claim to be platforms and become publishers.

As a publisher it is much harder to guaranteed that things said in the platform won't end up in the arrest of your employees. Zuckerberg is trying to find a middle ground where he does not push an agenda but at the same time can keep its advertisers by removing things based on a clear policy ( showing violence / pornography / etc ).

Don't forget the media as a whole does NOT have that benefit, if a company publishes or defames people they will be severely punished. We should think really hard before asking for Social media companies to breach that vote of confidence, there is real chances Twitter will be the first giant to fall regardless if Biden wins the election.

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

#30

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN