Live data from Hacker News

Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

theverge.com

391–400 of 434 posts

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

#391
post #176

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's a huge misinformation problem with these platforms. Having the ability to present believable false information isn't something that used to be possible, but now it is. It could lead to censorship, which would be terrible, and we should let people post whatever is legal. A way around this would be to combat the misinformation by making sure the reader has quick access to the facts like Twitter's fact checking.

Believable false information has always spread and always will.

I grew up in a rural city and was taught to believe that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams, aliens were real and the government was hiding them, farms were being oppressed by liberal government in favor of factory farms, ghosts were real, cellphones cause cancer, vaccines cause autism.

This shit was always here, but now people completely ignorant to the fact of it spreading now know.

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

#392
post #15

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.

>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials. It would help to make things clear if FB in their terms of service would specifically and explicitly excluded public officials from limitations on hate, violence inciting and other otherwise prohibited on the platform speech,and marked that speech accordingly. Or let an official to explicitly checkbox such exception in his/her profile or m…

Read section 2 of their Community Standards about Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. Then read the definition of a terrorist. They really do have exceptions for this.

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

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they can't censor as they are. Yes >A private company cannot censor No. They are common carriers. Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.

> No. But you said "Yes" two lines above. > They are common carriers. These common carriers are private companies, not public companies. They aren't owned by the government. They are owned by private shareholders. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are private companies or non government entities. > Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not. I never claimed twitter and the vast majority of companies are. I o…

They can indeed censor, I think what the prior poster was saying is that if they choose to censor, their regulation changes.

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

#394
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't they? For every single grocery store in the world to starve the population of people who do not vote for decreasing their taxes? No, I am pretty sure that society would do something about that, if this happened.

I’m not sure I follow this line of thought. If all the grocery stores did this, then I agree society would certainly take action: build better, more open grocery stores. surely the same principle applies here, A business like Twitter can choose to block a group of ideologies. If there is enough want in the part of people to propagate those ideologies, they’ll build a better forum and if those ideas are successful, th…

> build better, more open grocery stores.

Not necessarily, no. Many grocery stores have a bit of a monopoly in certain areas. It may not be possible for competitors to replace them instantly.

And a lot of people would starve before perfect competition, which doesn't exist, comes around to eventually replacing them.

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

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is your opinion, then why not go even further? If you don't support lowering Walmart's taxes, along with all other grocery stores, then why shouldn't they be allowed to permanently ban you for all places to buy food from, forever?

One of these is clearly not like the other, in multiple ways. You're at the very least misrepresenting why these people are being banned. Tax policy is not anywhere close the tweets at issue which often amount to terroristic threatening. If you started verbally abusing other customers in a grocery store, perhaps even implying you'll murder them, then yes, you'll be banned. To the rest of your comment, are you serious…

> You have a fundamental right to food, not to have your opinions transmitted by others

At least in the US, it is the opposite.

There isn't a constitutional amendment protecting your rights regarding food. But there is a constitutional right related to your rights regarding speech.

Many people think that these rights regarding speech are pretty darn important. Possibly even the most important rights that a person can have.

So I would absolutely say that they are comparable, and that people's right regarding transmitting speech are possibly even more important than any other rights out there.

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

#396

If Facebook and Zuckerberg personally did not profit from such acidic and destructive kind of free speech they would fix that pronto, it's as simple as that and it appears fruitless to me to spend a lot of words to counterargue them without considering this. Karl Popper would be going nuts by now were he alive today, I'm afraid.

Kara Swisher has said it again and again. The best thing for a company to do business-wise is to ban Trump off their platform after the events of the last week.

I’m twisting her words because she heavily disagrees with Facebook, and I want to respect that, but this is a non-argument if you actually take a business perspective on it.

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

#397
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by putting "parking lots" in quotations, I was meaning to ask for the alternative digital equivalent to major platforms like FB and Twitter.

If we're continuing the parking lot analogy, it's like there's an almost unending grid of parking lot after parking lot, and you can travel to any of them instantaneously and for free. Some parking lots have a lot of people, so you'd rather go there if you want to be heard, but nothing is stopping you from setting up shop in an empty lot, and nothing is stopping people from visiting your lot. Now, given that major so…

Thanks for the clarification. You're right, access to the internet at large is more or less egalitarian; having your voice heard (and not hidden), is not though, and therein lies the problem.

If a tree falls on the forest, and no one is there to hear it, did it even make a noise?

Also relevant is this very interesting research experiment conducted ~5 years ago on social media manipulation, in which they dubbed the term "Censorship 2.0"

https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/38wl43/we_used_sock...

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

#398
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The network effects are somewhat irrelevant and GP's comment is correct. If you do not use a retailer or service provider's business in a manner that they like, they are normally free to discontinue your service and ask you to leave. The same principle should apply to Facebook as they are a service provider like any other which has not (to my knowledge) explicitly been designated as having special status in legislati…

^This response is so blandly generic.

>You can't decide Facebook is subject to a different set of laws or has fewer rights

Oh but we can, that's what democracy and law makers are for, and if you've been keeping up with the news at all for the past few years, you'll know that's where we are increasingly likely to be heading.

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

#399
post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ. I wonder how many of them are aware of the thousands of deaths that have occurred because of BLM's falsehoods.

Please go on.

They're responsible for 2015-2019 spike in the murder rate in black communities that has killed 10,000 extra people.

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

#400
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d expend effort to prevent people from learning? A democracy requires an educated electorate, so you are anti-democracy?

>You’d expend effort to prevent people from learning? I won't prevent people from learning rather I won't force them to learn if that what they prefer. >A democracy requires an educated electorate, so you are anti-democracy? Democracy doesn't require an educated electorate, it only require majority. If the majority is 'stupid' (stupid is relative) then stupid it is.

So do you think putting a link to more info next to a presidents tweet is “forcing” people to learn?

A democracy ruled by an ignorant majority winds up as authoritarian, but you already knew what that quote I paraphrased means. Keep deflecting.

Post reply on HN