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

Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#441

Post by unethical_ban »

purpleblue wrote: post #391
unethical_ban wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Democrats are not trying to weaken the integrity of the Supreme Court.

They don't like the rulings that the Supreme Court has made, so now they are talking about limiting the term of justices, and packing the court with more judges. That is strengthening the integrity of the Supreme Court?

Yes.

Two justices are blatantly corrupt and should be removed from the court. Two more are there through GOP malfeasance, but there's nothing we can do about them at this point.

No other democracy has lifetime appointments for high court justices.

As far as packing the court, I am personally interested in any kind of reform that depoliticizes it somewhat, whether it be that the SCOTUS acts like the Appeals courts and is a rotation, or the appointed Justices choose a second tier of judges unanimously.

But process only does so much to prevent partisan political interference. At the end of the day, our amendment system and our Congress are broken. It will take something like a mild revolution or major systemic breakdowns to fix it.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#442

Post by throw_m239339 »

greenthrow wrote: post #180
throw_m239339 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already…

Country club membership is not a free speech issue. I thought this was an obvious enough example everyone could understand. But I guess the tech companies have polluted the definition and nobody remembers civics class.

> Country club membership is not a free speech issue. I thought this was an obvious enough example everyone could understand. But I guess the tech companies have polluted the definition and nobody remembers civics class.

Then why did you use that example at first place? Zuckerberg doing the white house's bidding in exchange for whatever perks Zuckerberg gets in return aren't a "country club". It isn't a private matter. It's absolutely a constitutional issue and a free speech issue.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#443

Post by mistermann »

swader999 wrote: post #371
lawlessone wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. It's brutal. (i know this is my own fault for arguing with once probably) I constantly get recommend stuff about flat earth, portals around the world. It's like this weird toxic mix of new age cult with maga. More generally to all media ... What happens when flat earthers start using AI to generate videos…

There are only a few hundred genuine flat earthers. They aren't a problem. It's more of a problem to tag anyone raising questions that threaten the status quo as 'like those flat earthers'.

Flat earther, conspiracy theory, good/bad faith, etc...simple memes like this are very effective in controlling both dumb and normatively "smart" people with simple rhetoric.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#444

Post by llm_trw »

sangnoir wrote: post #277
AlbertCory wrote: post #248

If you want to see what's been "moderated" away from you on Hacker News: Click your username at the upper right: Turn on "showdead": showdead: yes. (defaults to "no") There are a number of dead posts in this thread. I'd post some here (some of which don't appear to violate any HN guidelines, I'll note), but probably those same moderators would kill this one, too.

HN allows everyone with sufficient karma to vouch for dead comments (or flag comments), I suspect most of the comment-level moderation you see is crowdsourced to fellow commenters; a still-dead comment means most of those who see choose to keep it dead. HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation (including bans); any unmoderated forum devolves into a cesspit; and it only takes a surprisingly few bad apples to…

>HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation (including bans);

It was awesome. Then it jumped the shark when people realized they could flag posts they don't like with no repercussions.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#446

Post by sangnoir »

megous wrote: post #438
sangnoir wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't flag any of them; I do not owe you an explanation on behalf of the flaggers. Conversely - why didn't you vouch for each of the dead comments, if they are so great?

Vouching doesn't unflag reasonable comments.

https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/two-hn-announcements

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#447

Post by cempaka »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #436
cempaka wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your conspiracy theory makes the flat earthers look like Rhodes scholars. Seriously, you are out of your mind.

It's a far more plausible accounting of the facts than either mainstream narrative (there are two different ones being pitched to the pro- and anti-Trump camps in this case), but you're not going to accept that because of the level of cognitive dissonance it would generate with your existing perceptions of how the world works (particularly the idea that you're too smart to be fooled).

"Flat Earth" isn't an organic thing either, clearly an astroturfed movement meant to give people like you a handy example of why all such questioning is badthought.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#448

Post by cempaka »

orangecat wrote: post #430
cempaka wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is a fine example of an insane conspiracy theory which nevertheless should not be censored.

What's insane about it, exactly? I mean, almost the entirety of the post is actually just a recitation of observable and verifiable facts.

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#449

Post by ainiriand »

Gud wrote: post #400
silverquiet wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. I've always understood it as the algorithm is looking for engagement and will try some lowest common denominator tactics to engage in it. As someone who…

That Facebook would turn into a soft core porn site was pretty unexpected, at least for me.

Makes sense financially!

Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content

#450

Post by Sunspark »

alsetmusic wrote: post #365
hnpolicestate wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN crowd is far right but they would never admit it. Most people are unaware of how political parties shift in composition and ideology over the decades. The contemporary American software engineer resembles the professional class Reagan Republicans who dominated the suburbs in the 80's and 90's.

Center-right, I'd argue, but that's true of the Democratic party. HN is very far from far-right in that bigotry and racism isn't tolerated here (nor should they be). But HN is USA in origin and USA politics are further right than most of Europe.

The general problem with "racism" online is that people tend to use the word for things that they don't like hearing. E.g. there is an issue of some sort, let's say unemployment caused by subsidized temporary foreign workers being brought in to act as wage suppression for corporations. Saying that you have a concern with policy can often result in a response of "that's racist!".

This is a variation of the little boy who cried wolf. If "racism!" is cried for every single little thing that needs discussion, then one day it actually is racism and nobody will be listening.

Post reply on HN