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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by sbsudbdjd »

andy_ppp wrote: post #120
Terretta wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups with rapidly increasing value but no way to take money off the table? It doesn't take much to cross "$100m in assets" as a startup, say, $2.5M in revenue at 40x valuation (or $5M at 20x, etc.), even while loss-making. How should the founders and equity investors in a bootstrapped high growth unicorn that is neither public nor profit-making handle this pr…

> Do "these people" include entrepreneurs with equity in startups No it doesn’t, you’re arguing using a straw man here. They need to be publicly traded securities to be taxed as I understand it. Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy.

"Also paying taxes is a public good, even if you’re exceptionally wealthy."

Can be a public good if it's spent well. The US has spent how many trillions killing innocents the last 25 years? How many trillion were spent building ridiculous layers of redundancy on our nuclear deterrent (that we then smashed)?

Public good!

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

#572

Post by mgiampapa »

silverquiet wrote: post #310
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

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…

There is actually a reasonable way to fix this as currently implemented. Engage with the platform in some popular areas that have their own targeted advertising. My feed is filled with STEM projects and gardening with a spritz of actual content from friends.

When the product is used as intended, it does a lot better than with zero engagement passively. The product is very tuned to people actually using it, which the average hacker news reader isn't.

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

#573

Post by TMWNN »

indoordin0saur wrote: post #187
ericjmorey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the original point was that this wasn't late. It was timed to be influential to the outcome of the election.

It's relevant right now because there's recent increase in the amount of government-directed censorship and propaganda on the social media platforms at the moment. Take a look at Reddit. Look at what's happening in the UK or with the EU threatening to imprison Musk for allowing Trump to be interviewed.

> or with the EU threatening to imprison Musk for allowing Trump to be interviewed.

?

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

#574

Post by consteval »

hintymad wrote: post #513
sirspacey wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the proof that the religion of “I believe in science” is not a friend to creating a culture of science appreciation It’s been the struggle for scientific progress, the breakthroughs are the exception not the rule and the reason is the culture of belief around the science of the time The lesson I’ve most learned from science is that the questions are more interesting than the answer and the answers we have are…

I find "I believe in science" as delivered on social platforms and the mainstream media hysterical in the past few years. I mean, how do we even know if "science" is right without questioning? I can understand that people believe that they are on the right side of the history during the Covid era, for lockdowns, for the efficacy of the vaccines (For those who get angry, I took vaccines by the way, so it's not about m…

[flagged]

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

#575

Post by [deleted] »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #537
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 think we should get substantially tighter reigns on where our tax dollars are going and stop the outflows considerably before we worry about taking more and more dollars from citizens. The government has lost billions in recent years. LOST BILLIONS. No one has been held accountable.

[deleted]

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

#576

Post by kcb »

andy_ppp wrote: post #363
kansface wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax I very strongly believe you to be wrong: 1. Unrealized gains is unworkable. Billionaires will spend tens or hundreds of millions yearly to avoid paying literally billions in taxes because the expected value is net positive. The IRS won't win chasing down money scattered across the globe. This is not a productive use of cap…

1. Capital gains tax is already essentially optional for the richest now with various tricks. Of course taxing people is difficult, are you saying because it’s hard let’s not bother? 2. Where will the capital go (all the best investments are in the US), if this happens lots of great businesses will be available to buy at a discount to people with smaller than $100m stock portfolios 3. Potentially true but I would sti…

> 3. Potentially true but I would still set up my business in the US and just pay the tax, if I make $100m it’s $20m for the government and I rate that as a great deal to be honest.

You've described the wrong type of tax. I make $100m and 20% goes to the government is not controversial. It's my business is valued at $100m and so I pay $20m to the government regardless of how much my company is "making".

> 4. Why is a one off 20% tax going to lose founders control, this is only about companies post IPO.

Got it. So no more IPOs and every public company is about to go private.

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

#577

Post by undersuit »

Volundr wrote: post #492
swader999 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

> There are only a few hundred genuine flat earthers. How true is this? To me this has the same feeling as people dismissing Trump as a joke candidate back in 2016. People dismissing opinions that can't get behind as 'trolling". I don't doubt some just trolling but I have the sinking feeling that if we could metric it we'd be pretty dismayed at how many are not.

It sounds like gate-keeping too me; like JRE saying there are only 250 real comics in the world or @LPNH deciding who is Libertarian enough on Twitter.

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

#578

Post by consteval »

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, because our current court is illegitimate. Even the conservatives know this. Trampling over precedent in an obviously partisan way and guaranteeing Trump can never face consequences for his actions? Come on now. The American People can only play stupid for so long.

As a side-note: I think limiting the term of justices would overall strengthen the supreme court's integrity and I think the right would agree. Or, at least, the right would regularly agree but they won't now - because they stuffed the court with cronies. Once the situation is in your advantage, surprise! The narrative changes.

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

#579

Post by flanked-evergl »

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 ?

By this logic nobody should ever publish anything.

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

#580

Post by carlosjobim »

wredue wrote: post #567
carlosjobim wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the challenge, cranks have freedom of speech. There is no such thing as "legitimately" in this question.

There is. People saying “the sun is the main driver of climate change “are not legitimately questioning the science”. Flat earthers are not “legitimately questioning the science” This is called JAQing off. “Just Asking Questions”. They’re not. They’re muddying waters, often knowingly.

Too bad that you don't like what some other people say or write. That's what public discourse is, most things said will be things you don't agree with. And since you're neither God nor the Supreme Ruler, you don't have the right to silence anybody else.
Post reply on HN