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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by lupusreal »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #222
lupusreal wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If censorship is too "challenging" to do right then maybe you should knock it off.

Censorship is something governments do. What you're discussing is a business decision Facebook made. They deemed it to be in the best interests of their shareholders not to amplify those peoples opinions. Zuck now regrets that decision, but it was still his decision.

Call it what you like, if you can't distinguish between doctors and quacks then you shouldn't be banning people you think are quacks because you aren't qualified to do so.

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

#452

Post by Veserv »

pkaeding wrote: post #304
nightski wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you have to pay the loans back. Which requires income which is taxed. This would only work if you either don't spend any money (which then what is the point of the loan) or if your assets are always going up and increasing in value beyond that of the loan which inevitably will not be the case.

The actual loophole is the step-up basis for inheritance. This allows you to never realize gains, living off loans against them. Then, when you die, your heirs inherit the appeciated assets, and the liabilities. But, their cost basis for the assets is stepped up to the then-current fair value. So, they can sell off assets to pay the loans off, but have no realized gains.

Well, you still have to pay the estate tax, but you are probably arguing that is independent as it would need to be paid regardless of the step-up in basis.

Yeah, the real loophole is step-up in basis with no corresponding tax event. What should really happen is that every step-up in basis should correspond to a tax event or, somewhat more speculatively, only net changes in basis should result in tax events. Incidentally, this would also give everybody access to reduced taxes due to unrealized losses (tax loss harvesting) instead of just people with accountants.

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

#453

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

I would, but then I'd have to read comments that peers on this site have decided aren't worth my time, and more often than not they're right.

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

#454

Post by immibis »

llm_trw wrote: post #444
sangnoir wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was some post about Israel the other day (might have been Google's relationship to Israel or something) where every comment about the war starting last year was highly visible, while every comment about what happened prior to last year was dead.

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

#455

Post by usefulcat »

AlbertCory wrote: post #274
IncreasePosts wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably those accounts are dead because of repeated rule breaking, not because their specific post in this thread broke the rules. And there might be more dead comments here on average because politics+tech draws a lot of a certain type of commenter(the type of commenter that might get banned)

"Presumably" ?? which ones? How do you know?

Some context on a user (bigbacaloa) who made one of the dead comments you've referred to elsewhere:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421874

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37381905

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

#456

Post by chasing »

chasd00 wrote: post #46

When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

> Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

The opposite. Online communities can't be healthy without moderation. Cf. Twitter.

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

#457

Post by pupppet »

object-a wrote: post #184

It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. Twitter similarly requires aggressive use of block + mute to eliminate scams, clickbait, and other content I'm not interested in. I don't know if this is due to their changes in moderation policy, or if AI has overwhelmed them, but I vastly preferred the old news feeds

It's just Reddit now.

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

#458

Post by magicalist »

AlbertCory wrote: post #420
sangnoir wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HN is not at all "awesome" at moderating content objectively I made no such claim.

actually, you did, although you may have deleted it by now: "HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41369717

Those are different claims, though.

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

#459

Post by andrewmcwatters »

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.

You can't see which users Dan has down-weighed. Their posts are not autodead, but their comments decay rapidly to the bottom of threads.

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

#460

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #338
dilap wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spam is a real problem, but when your platform is doing things like disallowing linking to a NY Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop or mentioning the possibility that COVID originated from a lab-leak, then I think pretty clearly the term "censorship" is more apt than "moderation". Also, to the extent that a platform is surfacing content based on a friend or follow model, then that itself is intrinsically sufficie…

Sounds like it's the FBI's credibility that is shot - imagine Facebook had done nothing and it HAD been a Russian propaganda operation ?

> HAD been a Russian propaganda operation

But it wasn’t.

And everyone who looked the videos of Hunter smoking crack, and his text messages discussing Joe Biden involved in business dealings, and his relationship with his 24yo niece knew it wasn’t “Russian Disinformation”.

It was obviously real, and hidden from everyone in order to influence the election.

It was censorship at request of the government and election interference.

We don’t need the WHAT-IF it wasn’t.

Post reply on HN