Does this mean that Facebook's internal analysis predicts a Trump victory? That's how I read it.
Or panicking and trying to turn the wave like CNN'n'co.
Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
711–720 of 1001 posts
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#712If you want to see what's been "moderated" away from you on Hacker News: Click your username at the upper right: Turn on "showdead": showdead: yes. (defaults to "no") There are a number of dead posts in this thread. I'd post some here (some of which don't appear to violate any HN guidelines, I'll note), but probably those same moderators would kill this one, too.
It's very easy to claim censorship these days when in fact it's usually more benign than that, companies with large communities generally like to avoid anything inflammatory. Even still, like it or not, you don't have a right to say whatever you like most places on line. It's a privilege. Right or wrong that's just how it is.
Authors note :
It's super interesting to see the sentiment on this comment. During EU hours, it was upvoted a surprising amount, and then when the US active time zones come in, it's downvoted pretty significantly.
What a beautiful little bellwether from a place (hn) where I appreciate the discourse I really appreciate. I actually expected the opposite.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#713The thing I'm getting out of this Zuckerberg letter is that we've basically learned nothing. It's a nakedly partisan letter designed to signal to Republicans that he's not taking sides. Which I guess is fine, but I'm thinking about Paul Graham's recent tweet about the next round of social networks being designed to be built in to combat trolling, and it makes me think. This time there was valid concern about issues l…
> This time there was valid concern about issues like the lab leak theory being censored on social media You need to be very clear about what you mean by "lab leak theory" because that term has a number of definitions that are very different. There's the definition where COVID was the result of gain of function research that leaked from a lab through negligence. There's also a definition that it was an entirely natur…
> You need to be very clear about what you mean by "lab leak theory"
Why? Are you implying that it was okay to censor discussion of some versions and not others?
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least for me, this is even worse. I would rather have a clear separation between the content being foisted on me and the content I'm there to actually see.
If you give no signals, you get the lowest denominator content... boobies and click/ragebait.
[deleted]
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an awful idea. Startups need cash that cash, now. Wasting it on tax bills for evaluations that don’t become reality would just make everything worse and reduce runways.
if they need more cash they can sell more stock. Taxing entrepreneurs will lead to worse outcomes for entrepreneurs. That is obvious. Every tax has a cost. But we need to fund the government and it is not fair for workers to pay for everything while much wealthier investors and entrepreneurs do not.
I don't think you have a grasp on how businesses work or how the markets work.
This line of thinking is so far away from reality that while I believe in your heart you think it's right, it's clearly an emotional action and not one based on factual data.
The market volatility, job volatility, international competitiveness, and impact on innovation and entrepreneurship, that this will cause will be absolutely chaotic.
Assuming it works out exactly as you believe, do you believe this will solve the US's financial issues and burdens? Everything i've read say they expect $300-$500 billion over ten years. Let's just go wild and say we get 1 Trillion a Year, currently the deficit for just 2023 is estimated at 1.5 trillion. Again wouldn't solve this issue, and that's assuming we spent 0 on any more social programs or other welfare programs.
Instead, why not focus on specific tax laws you feel are lax and more importantly hold your representatives accountable for the run-away spending? I assume based on your position you would be encourage to spend more on social programs than we currently do? It's noble.. where's the money coming from though? It's all a bit too communistic to me.
We have seen time and time again that laws passed end up impacting the middle class. Congrats, currency inflation continues to run rampant, your house value is through the roof now.... And because you don't have the capital we're going to seize it for non-payment of unrealized gains.
I have yet to see a well thought out logical response to the impacts this sort of emotional lawmaking will bring.
Can you counter the above genuinely? I truly want to understand.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#716Earlier 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.
The Uncensored Free Speech Original™ can remain decent for surprisingly long—or at least it could in the old days. Community norms can shout down or ignore the bad actors, so long as they remain uncoordinated. However, uncensored alternates are magnets for those who shit up the moderated original.
One thing to remember is that the old days had much narrower demographics: computers cost a lot more as a function of income, and connectivity was even more expensive in the dialup era so it skewed well-educated, professional, etc. You had cranks, of course, but they were less likely to find a critical mass audience and nobody was trying to use them to reach a large audience.
Also, community norms massively included censorship. BBSes booted people who annoyed the sysops, Usenet had moderation even if it wasn’t very secure and some servers aggressively filtered the feeds they carried for reasons in addition to space consumption.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#717In 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 Vs Elon on the 2028 presidential ticket would be.... something
For a while it seemed like they might have it out in a cage match, can we just do that instead?
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#718Wait a minute... Censorship requests from the Biden administration before the 2020 election? There was no Biden administration before the 2020 election. Something doesn't quite add up here.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#719I 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…
Tax on unrealized gain is total BS. It's BS right in the name. Why don't they just say collateral assets are taxable, so the loan pegged on these assets will get taxed. The way they are going with is pure stupidity.
Re: Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
#720Earlier 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…
> 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
That’s nostalgia - the BBS world, Usenet, IRC, etc. absolutely had norms and people who violated them were routinely blocked. Where I grew up there were some BBSes run by e.g. evangelical Christians who aggressively restricted the FidoNet channels they carried and the files allowed to be uploaded, and later some of the business-focused ISPs sharply limited things like Usenet (which had its own moderation system). When I ran a FidoNet node, I had to agree to community standards with the boards I peered with because the operators didn’t want to deal with certain types of hassle.
What was different is federation: back in the early online era, someone who was booted off of one system would go somewhere else. The problem with services like Twitter is that they’re centralized and so when people break their terms of service don’t want to go somewhere else, so they complain about censorship when they really mean “free hosting and promotion”.