Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#41

Post by sparrish »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #20
cobweb2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of your political ideas? You want a central authority to ban the spread of "blatantly false" ideas that you fear may cause plebians to vote the wrong way, yet you support affording plebians with the full right to vote? Would it not be simpler to bans plebians from voting, and therefore remove your worry entirely that they may vote the wrong way when hearing "b…

Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of yours ? Laws against defamation are exactly intended to prevent the spread of false ideas. Why not remove them, and let the plebeians figure things out themselves?

No, defamation laws are to protect someone who is defamed (unjustly harms their reputation, and usually constitutes a tort or a crime). They are not intended to protect you from false ideas. Can you sue for defamation if I publish an essay saying there are aliens on Pluto? Is it false? Yes. Has it defamed anyone? No.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#42

Post by modeless »

wayne_skylar wrote: post #22

Oh I think he does get it. Facebook is a tool uniquely designed to influence behavior. Before you had to advertise to a generic stereotype of a person whereas now -- thanks to facebook's treasure trove of user data -- you can target just the perfect audience to get your ideas spreading organically. Facebook sells the ability to do this to anybody who will pay. This is the core of how they make money. After a period o…

> The sad truth is that most people are too vulnerable to misinformation and the older centralized distribution of information is probably the best for stability.

So information can be dangerous and should be controlled for the sake of an orderly society? There's a rising superpower that shares your view: China. But at the rate support for socialism is rising around the world, I'm pretty sure that America will be there too in about 40 years.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#43

Post by pbreit »

aeturnum wrote: post #10
leftyted wrote: post #3

"Free speech is good" is not a "blithe techno-utopian narrative". The internet makes people uncomfortable because it lives somewhere in between the realm of public discourse (heavily regulated) and private discourse (mostly unregulated). On the internet, these realms mix, and people (especially in the press) have a hard time sorting out which is which. I don't know if "free speech is good" or if it "leads inexorably…

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that r…

How could you possibly ever accuse a website of being “used for ethnic cleansing”?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#44

Post by jakelazaroff »

pbreit wrote: post #43
aeturnum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that r…

How could you possibly ever accuse a website of being “used for ethnic cleansing”?

Have we so forgotten the lessons of the past that we think communications mediums cannot aid in genocide? Look up the role of Joseph Goebbels and the then-nascent radio on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#45

Post by dimator »

bambax wrote: post #39
PunchTornado wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) the GDPR is European and has a huge effect in changing policies for internet giants 2) are you defending the government currently imprisoning millions of people in indoctrination camps just because they believe in something?

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world , so they're not in a position to lecture any other country about freedom.

This is what-about-ism and it's dishonest. The US's incarceration rate has little to do with concentration camps where people are put because they're a ethnicity the government doesn't like. They can both be problems worth pointing out.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#47

Post by malvosenior »

yousajoe wrote: post #40
wnmurphy wrote: post #4

Facebook was used in 2016 by the Kremlin for disinformation warfare with the express purpose of swaying the results of our presidential election. Facebook recently adopted an official policy that they will not remove political ads which are blatantly, demonstrably false. This policy was drafted by Katie Harbath, Facebook's Public Policy Director of Global Elections, who was previously Chief Digital Strategist for the…

>Facebook was used in 2016 by the Kremlin for disinformation warfare with the express purpose of swaying the results of our presidential election As if a $100k ad buy [1] will sway voters. $100K is insignificant for social media ad spend and won't influence anything and marketers knows this, but the masses do not. Both candidates spent $81 Million on facebook ads [3] and $100K is a joke representing 0.05 of ad-spend.…

If Russia was really able to have significant influence with $100k vs $81M the techniques they used could be studied and duplicated. Every startup would love to have marketing that effective.

The truth is it had no measurable effect exactly as you’d expect.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#48

Post by willis936 »

malvosenior wrote: post #30
willis936 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a naively optimistic statement. If marketing didn’t work then billions wouldn’t be spent on it.

Yet it was Clinton who spent far more than anyone on marketing and Russia spent pretty much nothing. Only here we are talking about the impact "Russia" had and ignoring that the tens of millions Clinton spent didn't accomplish her goal.

And this somehow isn’t evidence of the effectiveness of undisclosed campaigns based around lies presented as truth? All Clinton did wrong was not involve foreign governments to operate guerrilla smear campaigns.

Oh wait. That isn’t wrong. What are you arguing in favor of again?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#49

Post by jakelazaroff »

sparrish wrote: post #41
jakelazaroff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not beginning to struggle with the contradictions of yours ? Laws against defamation are exactly intended to prevent the spread of false ideas. Why not remove them, and let the plebeians figure things out themselves?

No, defamation laws are to protect someone who is defamed (unjustly harms their reputation, and usually constitutes a tort or a crime). They are not intended to protect you from false ideas. Can you sue for defamation if I publish an essay saying there are aliens on Pluto? Is it false? Yes. Has it defamed anyone? No.

Yes, any suit must be brought on behalf of someone who was damaged. “Defamation” is the word for someone being damaged by false ideas.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#50

Post by malvosenior »

willis936 wrote: post #48
malvosenior wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it was Clinton who spent far more than anyone on marketing and Russia spent pretty much nothing. Only here we are talking about the impact "Russia" had and ignoring that the tens of millions Clinton spent didn't accomplish her goal.

And this somehow isn’t evidence of the effectiveness of undisclosed campaigns based around lies presented as truth? All Clinton did wrong was not involve foreign governments to operate guerrilla smear campaigns. Oh wait. That isn’t wrong. What are you arguing in favor of again?

Clinton not winning the election isn’t proof of Russian interference.
Post reply on HN