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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by jasonlotito »

Key point here for me was that this was on FB, and no one else. Zuckerberg might regret doing this, but he did it. No one else. And, unless he is lying, he wasn't forced to do this. So, really, nothing more to add.

Should note:

The Supreme Court in June tossed out claims that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms into censoring users by removing COVID-19 content. The majority ruled that because Facebook "began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID-19 content" before the government pressure campaign began, platforms, not the Biden administration, bore responsibility for the posts being taken down.

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

#462

Post by danans »

brians wrote: post #317
danans wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster. Idea: tax loans taken out using assets as collateral at regular income tax rates. After all, that money gets used like regular income (living expenses). The taxed amount can then be added to the basis when the asset is sold. It would be like reverse of depreciation calculations. Set an asset and loan value floor so it only…

Yes, but we have to be careful about double-taxing mortgages for ordinary home-buyers. Those home purchases are already taxed by local municipalities—and in many places that hits the SALT cap.

> Yes, but we have to be careful about double-taxing mortgages for ordinary home-buyers.

In the context of home ownership, a loan using an asset as collateral translates to a home-equity loan or reverse mortgage. If you want to protect ordinary home-buyers, set an asset value floor of say $20M.

However, I think most share "pledging" [1] by the uber-wealthy is done using company stock as collateral, so you could restrict the tax further by having it apply only to loans taken against stock holdings over some similarly high value floor.

1. https://aaahq.org/portals/0/documents/meetings/2024/ATA/Pape...

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

#463

Post by sangnoir »

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

Awesome =/= objective moderation.

I claimed the former, not the latter.

IMO, there is no such thing as objective moderation. All editorial decisions are subjective, but this is besides the point.

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

#464

Post by llm_trw »

hnpolicestate wrote: post #339
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…

[flagged]

A long while ago I read an article predicting the downfall of all unpaid internet moderation because it would attract the type of person who both has copious free time and enjoys having power over others.

Reddit during covid showed us just how true that was. Moderation was so ridiculous you'd get banned from subreddits for posts which were the same as the CDC's advice at the time they were made.

HN has largely avoided that because it has at least partly paid moderators. The worst parts are the mass flaggings which I think are still a mistake. Not least because they now hilariously happen to every one of PG's posts.

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

#465

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

OK, so Facebook at the request of the Biden Harris administration censored the Hunter laptop story and knew it was not actually Russian disinformation.

It’s not like you could draw a straight line between this action and something you’d categorize as election interference.

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

#466

Post by cokeandpepsi »

_heimdall wrote: post #112
andy_ppp wrote: post #109

I wonder if this is coming up just before the election because of the Harris campaign’s suggested policy of capital gains tax on unrealised gains for people who have over $100m in assets? I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax including taking out loans against their own share portfolios. Worth thinking about what people are willing to do to not pay billions of d…

I'd much prefer seeing us close up the tax loop holes than create an even more complex system. Taxing unrealized gains will be extremely complex, and given that they aren't allowing us to deduct unrealized losses its a pretty shitty setup for the taxpayer. We need to drastically simplify our tax code rather than further increase its complexity.

[dead]

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

#467

Post by throwup238 »

simonmysun wrote: post #318
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.

Thanks for sharing this, otherwise I may never know tge meanings of the terms on HN. I hope there was a guide. Meanwhile I saw a dead post 0 minutes ago, is is true that someone flagged it immediately? I personally don't find the post evil but only little boring.

If they've been flag killed, it will say [flagged][dead] (and yes I've seen it happen within a minute of someone commenting on very popular threads). If it's just [dead], you should look at their comment history because chances are they've been banned by dang. Alternatively, some people register on HN via Tor which also auto-shadowbans them until enough people vouch for their comments.

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

#468

Post by immibis »

jpadkins wrote: post #176
NotAnOtter wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuck Vs Elon on the 2028 presidential ticket would be.... something

Elon was born in Africa and is not eligible to be president.

The rules don't apply to the people who make them. What do you expect is going to happen if he does show up on the ballot and the most people vote for him?

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

#470

Post by crystalmeph »

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.

I wonder if something like Slashdot's metamoderation system could be used to tamp down such abuse.

One problem with metamoderation is that once a particular forum becomes an echo chamber, even metamoderation will unconsciously but repeatably ignore "valid" information from the other side and amplify misinformation from their own side. But if the site owners specifically searched for good-faith users from multiple viewpoints to serve as the jury pool for metamoderation, this could be workable.

Post reply on HN