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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by cruffle_duffle »

pton_xd wrote: post #343
nemothekid wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> It's very bizarre that COVID is the poster-boy for social media censorship. The whole thing seems incredibly contrived; no one actually cares about COVID censorship I agree, it is bizarre. Why weren't we allowed to discuss theories about how Covid was created? What's so wrong with proposing that it may have escaped from a lab? Shouldn't we be allowed to debate the pros and cons of taking medication or wearing a mas…

The whole Covid thing gave a lot of people an excuse to have control over others. Turned a lot of people into power tripping sanctimonious busy bodies.

Scare the shit of people, convince them that “The Science” is on their side and the others are all your enemy and boom… there you go.

It was a huge eye opener for me. I’ll never again trust the government nor will I ever fully trust “the science”. And how many people bought into the narrative and how aggressive they got scared the shit out of me. All it would have taken is some “expert” to give permission to physically hurt “anti-maskers” or anybody who didn’t go along with the narrative and things would have gotten much, much much worse. Hell many so-called progressive areas even set up numbers you could call to dime out your neighbors and family for violating all the nonsense the government enacted.

It really opened my eyes to how things like the holocaust happened. How you can convince ordinary people to commit some very horrible things. There are several people I know for a fact would have happily tossed me and my family into the gas chamber over Covid. And that isn’t even hyperbole at all. Given the chance they absolutely would have done so… some are even close family.

…suffice to say my stance on gun ownership has changed considerably since 2020.

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

#702

Post by randerson »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #169
ryandrake wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were already doing censorship, just for different things - there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan which is not advertiser-friendly. If you look at every attempt to create "The Uncensored Free Speech Version Of [ANY_SERVICE]," they all, inevitably turned into a 4chan-like trashfire. You've got to have some kind of moderation.

This is where I really feel my age. Every message board and chatroom (bbs, forums, irc, icq, aol, et all) on the young internet was virtually uncensored and a 100% free for all, yet we all mostly got by. You went to the places you knew to go to. The communities mostly self moderated by kicks/bans. It worked really well. So whats changed? Well, I have my thoughts, but one thing is for sure, as soon as the platform its…

One big change since then is the monetization of content.

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

#703

Post by sakopov »

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…

You know what else was a "great idea" that was supposed to be only for the wealthy class? The income tax [1]. 100 years later and all of a sudden everyone is paying it.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/the-income...

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

#704

Post by at_a_remove »

chasd00 wrote: post #46

When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

I will step a bit to the side of "censorship" and just talk about "misinformation."

The trouble with labeling something "misinformation" is that you also need to be one hundred percent right, forever or you need to be ready to make prominent retractions and groveling mea culpas. With this is mind, one ought to tread lightly on topics such as fast-moving science (especially the softer ones) and matters of policy recommendations. COVID was both of these. Yes, masks! No, don't use masks! Yes, masks. Yes, masks, haha you caught us we just didn't want you to buy up all of the masks. Yes, masks, but they really only prevent you from giving the virus to others.

My undergraduate was in the harder sciences, so it is not like I am some anti-science loon. I just think that acting with Total Certainty and If You Don't Agree You Are Killing People, on certain classes of topic, is a recipe for eventually being as believable as the numerous food pyramids which, once taken as gospel, now are simply shrugged aside.

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

#706

Post by ssalka »

chrisco255 wrote: post #240
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…

Unrealized gains taxes is an extractive and totalitarian tax. Someone is always risking 100% loss until they realize those gains. It's an affront to entrepreneurial risk-taking and it's capricious. It would be just as ridiculous to allow someone to write-off unrealized losses.

If it goes through I bet you are going to have all sorts of people trying to claim unrealized losses for a tax break, that is gonna be a fun time for the courts.

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

#707

Post by coffeecloud »

sakopov wrote: post #703
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…

You know what else was a "great idea" that was supposed to be only for the wealthy class? The income tax [1]. 100 years later and all of a sudden everyone is paying it. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/the-income...

Yup I totally agree, because bad things can happen we shouldn't try to do anything. Much simpler.

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

#708

Post by buzzert »

andy_ppp wrote: post #312
nomel wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s simpler than that. People here tend to enjoy, and have careers around, understanding complex systems. “Consideration” for rich people isn’t required for thinking about the possible impacts of this, especially when the government has a near perfect track record in eventually shifting policies down to the working class.

The impacts could be extremely positive, some people are starting to believe the very richest having an optional tax system in the US is bad for everyone.

The first order effects may be extremely positive, but what about the second and third order effects?

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

#709

Post by LightBug1 »

Fatnino wrote: post #665
SoftTalker wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they had shown you pictures of men whose penises were obviously showing through their pants? Why was Facebook not being gender-neutral with this tactic?

Because fb knows the user is male and odds are this would attract a click.

click looks remarkably like dick when set in this context.

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

#710

Post by krapp »

Timber-6539 wrote: post #61
krapp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation is an expression of free speech. Coerced speech is not free speech.

Moderation exists as a form of farce to free speech.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ free speech is free speech even when you don't like the way it's used. Your right to say what you want doesn't supersede my right not to grant you a platform or even give you the time of day. Even Ben Franklin "moderated" the content of his newspaper. He didn't feel that free speech obligated him to print anything he was given. So this isn't a radical new concept.

Freedom of speech and freedom from speech are two sides of the same coin, just as freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Moderation isn't a violation of free speech, nor is it a farce. It's free speech being exercised as it was intended.

Post reply on HN