Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#71

Post by tqi »

What is the reasoning behind taking down or flagging the comments (looking for responses, not rhetorical)?

If it is to reduce distribution because it could incite violence, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of distribution/awareness is happening via traditional news outlets and 2) distribution and awareness is actually what you want to happen, since it is important that people be aware of the President's extreme rhetoric. If the reason is that the statement is immoral and platforms have a duty to take a stand / pick a side, then I would say that sounds reasonable to me but leaves me feeling a little uncomfortable. It feels like we are applying a Total War mentality to our political discourse, and that doesn't seem like something that could possibly end well.

Disclaimer: Former FB employee.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#72

Post by intended »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #70
nocturnial wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president? I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could p…

Calm down man, you're reading way too much into my use of the word "President" and trying to twist the words into some anti-Trump rant. The article was about Trump, my comment was on the article linked to here.

Not the same user - but that IS the issue.

Bolsanaro for example, says false things - would you know if you weren't brazillian?

How would FB achieve fairness in its policy if it put a flag on Trump and didn't on Bolsanaro, or other even worse world leaders?

What about some Random leader of a tiny nation somewhere who believes in witchcraft?

There are calls being made here which seem easy to Americans, but the processes behind it cannot be reapplied at scale.

How do Social Media firms handle that? How does anyone morally balance that out?

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#73

Post by nocturnial »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #70
nocturnial wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. When you said the president, did you mean _the_ president? I'm sure you know facebook is active in other countries. So when you say they should make an exception for the president, I think you actually meant _your_ president. I'm hammering on this distinction you've made because you could've as easily made the case that anyone could p…

Calm down man, you're reading way too much into my use of the word "President" and trying to twist the words into some anti-Trump rant. The article was about Trump, my comment was on the article linked to here.

I apologize if I came on too strong.

But my comment still stands, if our/your/whatever elected leaders are just people like us. Why treat them differently or expect facebook to treat them differently?

Your reason of him being elected doesn't make any sense to me. Saying it's the president makes even less sense. What about mayors, governors in the US? Do they get the same leniency as you give to president?

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#74

Post by bluedevil2k »

nocturnial wrote: post #73
bluedevil2k wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calm down man, you're reading way too much into my use of the word "President" and trying to twist the words into some anti-Trump rant. The article was about Trump, my comment was on the article linked to here.

I apologize if I came on too strong. But my comment still stands, if our/your/whatever elected leaders are just people like us. Why treat them differently or expect facebook to treat them differently? Your reason of him being elected doesn't make any sense to me. Saying it's the president makes even less sense. What about mayors, governors in the US? Do they get the same leniency as you give to president?

We'll have to cordially disagree then - I think world leaders should be treated differently, and you do not. No right or wrong opinions possible on that.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#75

Post by BobbyJo »

adt2bt wrote: post #35
BobbyJo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh no. The problem today isn't free speech, it's that the limits on how you transmit and disseminate it, favors the tiny, loud, misleading, ignorant few who can generate the most 'engagement'. Like you for instance. You're hear calling free speech dangerous, and that is such an absurd and ridiculous point of view I feel the need to respond. Free speech has worked great for 100s of years. You don't give up wheels beca…

It was all sarcasm.

Gotta use the /s homie.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#76

Post by rjkennedy98 »

entropyneur wrote: post #66
avancemos wrote: post #8

Free speech is overrated. Speech can be dangerous and therefore we need to regulate it on every level. Not just Facebook either; we need to ban speech and public commentary whenever it’s problematic. Books need to be screened too. Hopefully we’ll be able to monitor and correct people’s thoughts as well when the technology becomes available. When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.

I didn't realize this was sarcasm until I read the replies. In fact I'm still having slight doubts. Someone will probably comment soon to explain how your proposition is not at all absurd. A theater will be mentioned.

The number of people that are getting hypothetically trampled is too damn high!

Time to shut down the free speech.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#77

Post by damnyou »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #3

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this website, but I think anything the President posts on social media should be kept in place. Yes, I think he posts bad things sometimes, promotes violence, posts racist comments. But...he's the President. He's not like all the other users of Facebook/Twitter, and different rules should apply to him. Essentially the people who want his posts removed are forcing their own opinion of r…

You're correct that he should have a different standard applied to him, but it should be higher than normal, not lower.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#78

Post by lostmsu »

paxys wrote: post #48
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want a moral social network I want one that I can share by beliefs and views no matter what they maybe.

No social network (including offline ones) would be able to operate if they let everyone say whatever they wanted. There is an intense amount of moderation required, even here on HN, to remove low quality posts, abuse, threats, spam, porn, illegal content and lots more. So no, you don't really want one where anyone can share their beliefs no matter what. You just have your own opinion of what should/shouldn't be allo…

Unlike HN thought Facebook has a subscription model, so you can simply unsubscribe from whomever you don't like.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#79

Post by tick_tock_tick »

paxys wrote: post #48
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want a moral social network I want one that I can share by beliefs and views no matter what they maybe.

No social network (including offline ones) would be able to operate if they let everyone say whatever they wanted. There is an intense amount of moderation required, even here on HN, to remove low quality posts, abuse, threats, spam, porn, illegal content and lots more. So no, you don't really want one where anyone can share their beliefs no matter what. You just have your own opinion of what should/shouldn't be allo…

I, and I believe most other people that share a similar view to mine, are not arguing for true zero moderation. I feel like you're trying act like me admitting that any moderation would make me a hypocrite.

I'm ok with them filtering "illegal content" or rather I don't think that's a choice that they have and is something to address within the legal system rather then at a social network level.

Abuse of the system? Like they are sending too much traffic/spamming/malware/etc is fine to limit. Threats, allow users to block each-other; I'm fine with restricting people who attempt to circumvent other peoples blocks.

Porn meh; I don't think it's a real issue I think it's great to allow users to filter pornographic content if they don't want to see it.

My issue is when they start getting into filtering out "incorrect" statements, "dangerous" ideas, even "hate speech" (an every expanding category), etc. It's very distressing that Jack Dorsey thinks twitter has a moral responsibility to remove certain viewpoints from discussions and believes that these discussion will shape the future of our society.

Re: Civil rights leaders blast Facebook after meeting with Zuckerberg

#80

Post by zepto »

komali2 wrote: post #18
zepto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t agree more. Regardless of how bad he is, it is absurd to Muzzle the president in this way.

Muzzle is a strong word to use to describe a man who can call a press conference that will be attended by every major national and international news organization at the drop of a hat, and, failing that, can send an SMS to every phone in the USA.

Not really. We are afforded a window into how he thinks outside of these channels that are managed by his aides. Muzzling that denies us insight into who he is.
Post reply on HN