Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#71

Post by DuskStar » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #69

dimator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what-about-ism and it's dishonest. The US's incarceration rate has little to do with concentration camps where people are put because they're a ethnicity the government doesn't like . They can both be problems worth pointing out.

I actually can't tell if you're talking about China or the US. This is currently happening on the US' southern border.

Pretty sure people aren't put there for their racial or religious characteristics, but their nationality and/or legal status. Yes, there's a difference.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#72

Post by DuskStar » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #27

malvosenior wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All governments push propaganda. Russia's miniscule ad spend on FB had no measurable effect (please provide proof if you think this is wrong). Clinton and Trump spent many order of magnitude more on political advertising than any foreign nation and even that didn't assure their win. People aren't mindless robots, they vote for who they want to vote for.

That is a naively optimistic statement. If marketing didn’t work then billions wouldn’t be spent on it.

Billions are spent on it, which makes it silly to say that the millions spent by Russia were a significant factor.

Either Russian ad spend is magically hundreds of times more effective than domestic, or it didn't matter.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#73

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #67

aeturnum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that r…

Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that. Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that. It isn't attached to flying weapons platforms, it doesn't command an army. It cannot be used for ethnic cleansing in any sensible use of English, no more than paper and ink or radio can be "used for ethnic cleansing". So ye…

> Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that.

I mean this is so objectively false that I hardly know where to start. Facebook in its very early stages may have been “trivial”, but it isn’t know. Not even close.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#74

Post by Torwald » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #2

I think Zuck "gets it" much more than the reporter does: being evasive and dishonest can be extremely lucrative in today's world if you do it exactly right. Zuck has always seemed to possess a natural talent in this regard, and now has become a true master of the craft. That's why he travels in a private jet while reporters fly coach.

> I think Zuck "gets it" much more than the reporter does… This assumes the reporter is honest in his writing. Then, of course, it is apparent that Zuckerberg gets something the reporter doesn't understand, in the way you describe it.

But what if, not only is Zuckerberg "evasive and dishonest", but the reporter as well? Is it not to the profit of the reporter to pretend in his writing to not get what Zuckerberg is doing?

It very well is! That way the reporter gets to criticise Zuckerberg on the grounds of his actions. That is a case much easier to defend. The reporter may very well discern a form of pretending on the side of Zuckerberg, but how do you prove this? Very hard to do so and risky. It is better writing to be 'dishonest' and call Zuckerberg out on the surface level of his actions.

OTOH, it could very well be that the reporter is naive and doesn't discern the true motivations of Zuckerberg's actions. But how can we know?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#75

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 8:41 PM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #10

leftyted wrote: post #3

"Free speech is good" is not a "blithe techno-utopian narrative". The internet makes people uncomfortable because it lives somewhere in between the realm of public discourse (heavily regulated) and private discourse (mostly unregulated). On the internet, these realms mix, and people (especially in the press) have a hard time sorting out which is which. I don't know if "free speech is good" or if it "leads inexorably…

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that r…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#76

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

pbreit wrote: post #56

CydeWeys wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are being attacked with foreign propaganda by our long-term enemies. They are succeeding in destroying our position on the world stage. It's not something that can be turned a blind eye to under the guise of free speech (which it isn't).

Are they really a long time enemy? They were a core ally in the 40s. We operate a space station together. Did they really “attack” us by purchasing a few ads supporting the candidate most of us (outside California) voted for? It’s an extremely difficult argument that Russia had an impact on election.

The points you’ve made are cherry-picked. The USSR was an ally in the early 40s during WWII, but for the next half century we were staunch enemies who waged numerous proxy wars. We operate the ISS together, along with Japan, Canada and Europe. “Most of us” voted for Trump if you selectively ignore over 10% of the votes cast.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#77

Post by loceng » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #64

loceng wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just pointed to proof - the fact that you're ignoring or dismissing it doesn't change that.

I must have missed your link to proof? I don't see it in your comment.

First how about you define what you mean by measurable, then we can see how you're gatekeeping the use of that term. Then define what you mean by impact to see how you're gatekeeping that quantification. Then maybe there can be a conversation.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#78

Post by loceng » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #70

loceng wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No measurable effect" is a weak argument - especially considering we're talking about it, and it massively influenced the narrative - amplified by the mainstream media, just like Trump used effectively. "They vote for who they want to vote for" - you understand manipulation is a thing, right? And that people will believe lies, and that people are often irrational - and therefore when they "decide" who to vote for it…

you understand manipulation is a thing, right? Of course. But you're arguing here that Trump won because of massive scale manipulation to the extent that millions of voters don't have free will at all, which is just conspiracy theory thinking. By the way, what makes you think that Clinton voters weren't the manipulated ones? The press came out in full force for her, and they're the most obvious source of information…

Trump rallied people claiming immigrants were taking jobs, and that he was going to bring the manufacturing jobs back - as POTUS candidate Andrew Yang explains however it's automation that took the jobs - and those jobs lost aren't coming back. People believed Trump's words because he was rallying people emotionally yet didn't present any actual evidence or data.

Do you consider that manipulation or not? Maybe you'll argue "Trump just didn't know any better" - and that's not a form of manipulation, lying to people?

I didn't argue that it was one or the other set of voters who were manipulated. And yes, the two-party system has been very bad for democracy - why POTUS candidate Andrew Yang will implement Democracy Dollars among other policy to breakup the two-party system; https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#79

Post by aeturnum » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #67

aeturnum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that r…

Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that. Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that. It isn't attached to flying weapons platforms, it doesn't command an army. It cannot be used for ethnic cleansing in any sensible use of English, no more than paper and ink or radio can be "used for ethnic cleansing". So ye…

I suppose I could respond in a point-by-point way, but I think that we're engaging from very different frames and so it might help to establish some shared ground.

What sources of knowledge do you generally trust for finding methods to approach problems that you don't know how to solve?

Do you believe that "harm reduction" approaches (i.e. making bad outcomes less likely though still possible) are useful?

>I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that.

I did not say anyone was being dishonest and if you think I am being dishonest I would appreciate you pointing out how I am being so.

I suppose I do want to say that paper and ink and radio have all been used for ethnic cleansing and the US treats the sale of military radio equipment as the sale of weapons[0]. There is a lot of history of sanctioning those who provide groups engaged in immoral acts with mundane equipment. If a warlord is using Facebook to help execute a genocide I do think it's a good idea to pressure Facebook to kick them off Facebook. I'm kind of surprised you think it isn't? Though I could be misreading what you've said. If that is the case I apologize.

[0] https://www.nknews.org/2017/03/what-the-glocom-scandal-tells...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#80

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #67

aeturnum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment and Zuckerberg’s framing of the issue hides the ball in a way that appears dishonest, though I do not think that is your intent. For instance, what do you mean by this?: > But I do think that any cure will be worse than the disease Because it all depends on what "cure" and "disease" mean, right? Free speech is good is blithe and techno-utopian in the sense that it makes a blanket statement that r…

Facebook used for ethnic cleansing? I'm not sure you should criticise others for hiding the ball or being dishonest when phrasing it like that. Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that. It isn't attached to flying weapons platforms, it doesn't command an army. It cannot be used for ethnic cleansing in any sensible use of English, no more than paper and ink or radio can be "used for ethnic cleansing". So ye…

> Facebook is a website, a pretty trivial one at that. It isn't attached to flying weapons platforms, it doesn't command an army. It cannot be used for ethnic cleansing in any sensible use of English, no more than paper and ink or radio can be "used for ethnic cleansing".

This is logic that can be used to exculpate any accessory to a crime. Facebook may have known people were using its website to incite violence, but people are the ones who damage things. IBM was aware Nazis were using their technology to identify people to murder in the Holocaust, but they can sleep easy — it’s not like punchcards can be “used for ethnic cleansing”!

This logic only works, of course, if you completely ignore the capability of technology to amplify human capabilities.

As with the sibling commenter, if you don’t believe communication mediums can be used as tools of genocide, I encourage you to learn about Joseph Goebbels and the radio’s impact on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.