It seems like Sen. Feinstein got a bit mixed up -- she asked this question twice:
Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
221–230 of 248 posts
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would they change though? As the original comment stated, they're being asked to do contradictory things by different parties. The defense isn't that "they didn't expect this to happen," it's that there's no way for them to win. People can't agree on what they did wrong if anything.
Sure, at this point various groups want very specific accommodations to "patch" specific perceived problems. But I think it's pretty clear that the overall problem is the algorithms which boost the distribution of certain kinds of content. Yes, conservatives get upset if posts are removed or flagged as inaccurate, but I don't think liberals would deem that necessary if it weren't the case that every doctored video th…
I think that only applies to Facebook. I know Twitter has an algorithmic timeline, but I think it's "Latest Mode" is still actually quite popular.
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably wasn't a death threat, but I could see how someone might interpret that way. In the past 10 years? Deliberate misinterpretation of a joke or sarcasm is not a new thing.
I mean, it's certainly not a plausible death threat. Steve Bannon isn't in charge of anything anymore, and I don't think he would be put in charge again, even if there was a second term. It could be a non-plausible death threat though. And it's probably glorification of violence. I'd hate to be an arbiter of policies like this though. There's a line here between legally sanctionable speech (which I don't think this q…
I'm not sure that not being in the government makes a death threat implausible. It may even make it more so. Whitey Bulger apparently ordered a few deaths that were carried out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/10/31/whitey...
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#224Earlier 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.
Nothing stops "people who don't have a voice" from posting misinformation, lying, etc to bring about the revolution faster.
Also, almost all of the people who have large followings in Twitter have large followings in real life. That is, they are people in power trying the use the platform to disseminate their propaganda.
In the case of the Twitter revolutions, they are revolutions in far away countries that align with American geopolitical interests, so an American would be inclined to agree with it (due to media, society, their own material interests) and consequently rationalize it.
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#225Sen Hawley was definitely playing for a setup.
As far as I can tell, Tasks is kind of like a giant kanban board. I know Asana is also basically the commercialized version of Tasks as well. It's kind of weird to see it used as a reference to colluding with Google and Twitter for content moderation. It's like saying, "do you use JIRA or email for colluding?" It makes no sense. He should have simply asked do you coordinate with Twitter and Google for content moderation.
But now it is front page on Foxnews.com
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/hawley-presses-zucker...
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it's certainly not a plausible death threat. Steve Bannon isn't in charge of anything anymore, and I don't think he would be put in charge again, even if there was a second term. It could be a non-plausible death threat though. And it's probably glorification of violence. I'd hate to be an arbiter of policies like this though. There's a line here between legally sanctionable speech (which I don't think this q…
I'm not sure that not being in the government makes a death threat implausible. It may even make it more so. Whitey Bulger apparently ordered a few deaths that were carried out. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/10/31/whitey...
Oh sure, but the quote was like 'the second term would start with firing ...' and then goes on to say the bit about the murdering. I would interpret that as a strong hypothetical 'if I were in charge, I'd do these things.' Just as he's not likely able to fire people, I would interpret it as he has no plans to murder them either.
There's certainly some interpretation there, but the bar for legal sanctions on a death threat in the US is pretty high, and I don't think this meets it. It's not too far off though, a couple of different word choices, and it might be.
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want cooperative questioning you need a true cooperative goal - otherwise the process is inherently adversarial no matter how much passive aggressive cloaking is applied.
It's not passive aggressive cloaking. If a CEO can't answer a question posed by Congress, running out the clock shouldn't be a viable strategy. "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." Why do the American people care about the next question, if the previous question wasn't answered? Which is more important, more questions or answers?
> "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..."
That quote is exactly what I mean by passive aggressive cloaking actually. You won't get the answers you want if the questioning process is adversarial as it turns into "Don't talk to the police." or deposition style of being unhelpful as possible instead of trying to actually inform because of incentives.
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#228These 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…
Once they did anything beyond the bare legal requirements they opened their own Pandora's box. Had they done nothing there would be no reason to question them. Once they did something they just anger both sides as too much or too little.
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#229Earlier 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…
Their earlier efforts was to let voices be heard which is to be lauded. Their current efforts against western democracies is to silence or stifle voices. Big difference.
Re: Watch live: Zuckerberg, Dorsey testify before Senate [video]
#230I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content…
> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. I agree with you. They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.
Yes let's support them having only invisible political machinations so we can all get even further away from any truth that may exist.