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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by bitcharmer »

pphysch wrote: post #156
bitcharmer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Reddit's value proposition (to shareholders) is astroturfing, for ads and other propaganda. Send us your message and we will make it look organic and popular. That's the service. There's no other way to make boatloads of money from an open, heavily-manipulated forum.

Funny how you hit the name on the head and still getting down-voted. Today I deleted my reddit account and sent a request to get my HN account removed as well. Moved to lemmy and not looking back.

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

#652

Post by lelanthran »

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.

> Censorship is something governments do.

Not exclusively, no. There's nothing in the definitions of the words 'censor' or 'censorship' that imply it is an act exclusive to governments.

Effectively, something can be censorship even if the government is not involved.

When the government is involved, then it's government censorship.

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

#653

Post by ragnese »

_heimdall wrote: post #633
VirusNewbie wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property taxes exist because we want to tax externalities like land use. Taxing fake wealth because you own a company and some VC assigns it a valuation is insane. Why should you dilute your ownership share just because of some arbitrary number?

I'd argue that property taxes exist because we still live in a system resembling the feudal system we evolved from, and governments believe it is their right to tax our property to pay for their projects.

Who--other than "governments"--decided that its "your" property and that you somehow deserve monopoly rights to a piece of the planet that you didn't create?

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

#654

Post by danans »

jmb99 wrote: post #515
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…

> Idea: tax loans taken out using assets as collateral at regular income tax rates. I don’t think it’s as simple as this. This will end up catching normal people (any mortgage, automotive loan, etc) but may result in tricky accounting/loan structuring to avoid having literal collateral for the billionaires you’re trying to hit. I don’t think that taxing unrealized gains is the solution either, but I also don’t think…

> This will end up catching normal people (any mortgage, automotive loan, etc)

So just have it kick in above $5M/year or something like that, and have it only apply to securities as assets. Not a lot of ordinary people are taking $5M+/year in loans against their stocks.

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

#655

Post by bob_theslob646 »

Malidir wrote: post #152

In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.

>Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says

Exactly this. It is incredible bizarre how his imagine has taken such a drastic turn from being a "hacker" to a "Jiu-Jitsu bro."

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

#656

Post by ragnese »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #599
ragnese wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I pay taxes on the unrealized gains of my house appreciating in value over the years. I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether various wealth tax ideas are good. But, I don't believe that the concept is as infeasible as some are making it out to…

Property taxes exist because we want to tax externalities like land use. Taxing fake wealth because you own a company and some VC assigns it a valuation is insane. Why should you dilute your ownership share just because of some arbitrary number?

> Taxing fake wealth because you own a company > [...] > Why should you dilute your ownership share

So... is owning piece of a productive company "fake wealth"? Is it fake when you can leverage that valuation to have access to more credit and use that to buy real stuff (like property...)?

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

#657

Post by notfed »

Zuckerberg should learn to plead the 5th when asked about political intervention questions.

He keeps apologizing, thinking it will gain him respect, but the general public only sees this as a grand admission of guilt (ostensibly for some crime they didn't know of until now, and still don't know any details about).

Many other CEOs get asked similar questions, and they refuse to engage in the discussion; the result is no news coverage.

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

#658

Post by [deleted] »

pndy wrote: post #593
diob wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience on all platforms is things have rapidly become slop. Quora, Facebook, Twitter, Threads. They all have a weird issue of random softcore sex stuff. I have nothing against sex content, but I do wish we could just click a button to say turn this off, like safe search. It can't be that hard to filter out all the weird shit, so I assume it makes them money.

I'm observing this happening for a while on mastodon and bluesky as well. And sometimes I'm having a feeling that there are groups who will actively drop their nsfw content in the places where it shouldn't be. Or create content that hangs on a thin line of legality that gives a dubious greenlight to stuff that is clearly explicit. I don't think there's any other way beside automatic content scanning how much I don't…

[deleted]

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

#659

Post by breck »

ekidd wrote: post #476
AlbertCory wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the gospel, for sure. However, look at the dead comments here and, for each, tell us why it would turn HN into a "cesspit."

Sometimes, the actual mods in charge of the site have heavily penalized certain accounts, either manually or via an algorithm (I don't know the details). The comments posted by these accounts appear to start off "dead", though they may be vouched for by high-karma users. This will make those comments appear normally. I've moderated a number of forums in my time. And the hardest users to deal with are the ones that in…

> And the hardest users to deal with are the ones that insist on breaking the rules 10% of the time, and who refuse to stop. Even if they contribute positively much of the rest of the time, they create far too much work.

There is _always_ a technical solution here. If you can't figure it out, keep thinking. There's never a reason to ban/moderate your core users for 10% rule violations. Instead, that shows a weakness of the software. More transparency helps.

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

#660

Post by cupcakecommons »

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.

Flat Earthers are legitimately questioning the science because no one has (or should have) the authority to arbitrate what is too stupid to question. Everything has tradeoffs and free speech has a lot of somewhat obvious downsides.
Post reply on HN