31–40 of 248 posts
> Coverage begins momentarily In this important event, I can only focus on how whoever wrote that doesn't know what "momentarily" means.
https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect is a treasure trove of such cases
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. 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. Considering that they are not even under oath, precisely zero. They can lie to the lawmakers' faces with no recourse. I very distinctly remember Jack telling congress the time before last that they "do not shadowban", and then screenshots of their admin dashboard were leaked[1] that show they explicitly did have multiple kinds of sha…
Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like. Regardless of how false or nonsensical.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Why do you assume these same people are somehow "professional" when no one is looking. The system operates as it is designed to.
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. 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…
Is Facebook bailed out?
Can any of you survive under a fed prime rate of 20% or above? Doing so would shore up pensions, and improve USA standing with Africa, Asia and South America, likely stopping a lot of wars.
What's the hiring process like at your company?
When the country desperately needed remote employment this past year, how many new hires did you make? Ford Motor Car and GM hired entire factory floors of workers at double the minimum wage.
Can any of you pass your own hiring process or answer just one of your technical interview questions?
You said your success was only due to a privileged upbringing. Isn't that by choice? You could have joined the Marines and get shot or blown up or burnt alive for everyone else, but you didn't. Now you want to burden the entire world. Why? Because you feel guilty? By the way, who said you wouldn't be shot yet?
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. 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 think most people on HN agree with you. Because these are televised, and MOST people will not watch the hearing, each senator is looking for their own sound bite which they can replay to show how tough they were. The illusion falls apart when you watch the actual hearing: the same question is asked over and over, the speakers are not given a real chance to reply, and there is no real dialogue. Of course it doesn't…
On the other hand, the meetings of the government should be open and transparent by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. Considering that they are not even under oath, precisely zero. They can lie to the lawmakers' faces with no recourse. I very distinctly remember Jack telling congress the time before last that they "do not shadowban", and then screenshots of their admin dashboard were leaked[1] that show they explicitly did have multiple kinds of sha…
The witnesses are under oath. Everyone that testifies before Congress is under oath and lying would constitute a federal crime. Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like. Regardless of how false or nonsensical.