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

41–50 of 434 posts

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

#41

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lanevorockz wrote: post #35
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.

I wouldn't say it is dangerous, more like it is obvious. I very rarely agree with everything my company does and yet I don't feel put off by that. The world of total conformity is the really scary thing, we will cease to be humans by then.

The danger is that what people think and what people are willing to say are systematically diverging. If true, that means that anyone who's trying to observe what people think and make decisions based on it will consistently get things wrong.

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

#42

Post by 54351623 »

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.

Most jobs in the world aren't going to require their employees to represent a company that is presenting itself as the arbiter or defining absolute of free speech. Hell, most jobs it matters very little who you vote for or what you believe, even in the government. If these employees are uncomfortable with the position their employer is putting them in they may want to reevaluate their life choices.

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

#43

Post by lanevorockz »

tomc1985 wrote: post #38
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.

I'd agree with you but private entities are not bound to freedom of speech. Only government forums

Sorry but you are incorrect. Platforms have protections while they act as a free and open forum. This protection ceases to exist the time you start fiddling with the content. Obviously, Terms of Service are there to filter the garbage out but any double standard can end up with your Platform credentials revoked and your business down the drain.

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

#44

Post by Verdex »

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?

Well, I don't they did this, but it's an interesting technique used for this sort of scenario. Unfortunately, I can't find a wiki article to explain it (I think it's something like the hugh-jones coin or something).

Anyway, I think the idea was someone needed statistics on how many people were stealing things after some sort of event, but obviously they couldn't just ask people because who would admit to breaking the law.

So what you do is you ask the question: "Are you stealing" then you have the person flip a coin out of your view. If the coin is heads then they answer honestly, but if the coin is tails, then they always answer yes. This way the person in question has plausible deniability (I didn't steal, I said that I did because the coin came up tails). Then once you have the data you just need to divide by half and maybe tweak some other parameters, but you end up with realistic data (or so the statisticians say).

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

#46

Post by Aunche »

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?

That was the perspective of a single Facebook employee that the reporter interviewed.

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

#47

Post by briffle »

trhway wrote: post #15
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.

>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…

Right, so the people that are registered with the US political Party ANP (American Nazi Party) Or many other parties you have never heard of could then check the box, and be free to say whatever they want. Or is Facebook going to police it only for a few popular political parties in the US, and not censor which political parties get speech?

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

#48

Post by ve55 »

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?

I think it's a mistake to assume that anyone who doesn't want to fact-check/remove Trump's posts has to lean right politically. There's a lot of other reasons they can have.

What if all of Trump's worst posts were removed, such that every potential voter reading them then has a less-aligned view of what he supports, and decides to vote for him, when they would not have had his posts not been selectively filtered? Just one of many possibilities

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

#49

Post by singhrac »

Verdex wrote: post #44
tech-historian wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, I don't they did this, but it's an interesting technique used for this sort of scenario. Unfortunately, I can't find a wiki article to explain it (I think it's something like the hugh-jones coin or something). Anyway, I think the idea was someone needed statistics on how many people were stealing things after some sort of event, but obviously they couldn't just ask people because who would admit to breaking the…

The method is called randomized response, iirc.

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

#50

Post by kec »

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.

The US president is the single most powerful person in the world. If he says "Hey $literally_any_media_outlet, I'd like to make a statement, want to swing by the rose garden in 20?" The media will fall over themselves to do so. I don't think you could come up with an example of someone who would be less harmed by being banned from social media than the potus.

Even if for some reason you don't buy that, social media could easily justify a ban by differentiating between his personal and official government accounts.

Post reply on HN