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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by alex1138 »

axus wrote: post #523
rnd0 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. Same experience. Then, after ignoring that, I've started getting posts from mystery people who seem like they could be aquaintences (because hobbies) bu…

How about a choice for which social circle you'd like to view at one time. We could call it "Circles".

By far the biggest thing people remember about Google+ was the hamfisting of it (several people lost their Youtube accounts) and yet people also reported that it was otherwise a good experience (compared to the Facebook feed); one thing Google had to contend with was Facebook not offering access to the social graph so they had to build the network effects by a more difficult route

eg Facebook replacing people's email addresses, one wonders if it was partly a way to fight Google+ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433

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

#732

Post by kareemm »

crystalmeph wrote: post #481
andy_ppp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love your consideration for the financial problems of some of the most privileged people in all of human history. I just don’t really care that much if they get a big tax bill (I’m sure they’ll find a way to pay) and for a variety of reasons it will be good for society.

A large part of the United States' economic leadership is specifically concentrated in the tech startup sector. Whether or not you think any of the companies funded by YCombinator[0] are actually worth their valuation, you have to realize that there will be fewer such startups if a tax on unrealized capital gains is passed, and that VC activity, along with the future startups chasing their money, absolutely will move…

> you have to realize that there will be fewer such startups if a tax on unrealized capital gains is passed, and that VC activity, along with the future startups chasing their money, absolutely will move to countries without such a tax.

That's a bold claim. The tax-averse amongst us say that, but in my experience investment flows to the best ideas / best distribution / best businesses. If those people are in the US because they're citizens, the capital will flow to the US, and investors will take the hit.

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

#733

Post by travisb »

alasdair_ wrote: post #646
tracker1 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel an exchange tax that included loans would probably be a much better approach. Taxing seated/parked assets, especially on the very wealthy seems like a recipe for disaster. So you have to sell, or leverage the property to pay taxes. What would trying to sell billions in stock at once, or leverage hundreds of thousands of rental properties look like to the larger economy, and what would the effect be? Also, who…

One solution to deciding how much an asset is worth is to let you declare any value you want for it, with the caveat that if someone is willing to pay you more than the declared value, you must sell it to them. Now obviously things like transaction fees need to be factored in, and timing should matter - you should have the option to increase your stated value if something changes (or even to say "yes, okay, it's real…

That's very open to malicious actors though. Suppose you set a fair market value on your house or car. If I'm evil it may be worth a small loss on my part to 'out-bid' you simply to take that asset away from you by force, perhaps at a very disruptive time.

It also has all the other problems with estimating the true value of an asset.

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

#734

Post by tonymet »

"Why this, why now, why you?"

Why did Zucc stamp his name on this now, after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020, and willingly censor in favor of the 2020 Biden campaign (covid + Hunter biden).

You've got to wonder why he seems to be signaling to the Trump campaign that he is taking sides.

My guess is either hoping for kickbacks or to thwart retribution for 2020.

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

#735

Post by cogman10 »

Denzel wrote: post #672
object-a wrote: post #184

It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. Twitter similarly requires aggressive use of block + mute to eliminate scams, clickbait, and other content I'm not interested in. I don't know if this is due to their changes in moderation policy, or if AI has overwhelmed them, but I vastly preferred the old news feeds

What's hilarious is that my business account has been suspended by Facebook's automated fraud detection no less than 4 times in the past 5 months. Every time, they send a standard automated message saying some term was violated from a list of rules that's unavailable, and then ask me to upload a "selfie" to verify my business account. A selfie, to verify... my business account where I only add or post things to do wi…

A decent number of those fraud alarms are now fake which is extra fun. It's not just a bot problem, it's a bot mimicking the anti bot problem.

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

#736

Post by Loughla »

sbsudbdjd wrote: post #562
imgabe wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are not an automatic good. There are things we want the government to do. It costs some amount of money to do those things. We should figure out what that amount of money is, tax enough for it, and the rest belong to the person who earns it. Why do people assume we always have to give more and more money to the government? What have they done with the $6 trillion they spend every year so far? What evidence is t…

Ppl's obsessions (on both sides) on taxes is so weird. Governments can fund themselves in numerous ways, not just taxes. Either way you'll pay. The key issue is do we want a federal government expenditure of 20-25% of the economy? I'd say no.

What other ways are there?

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

#737

Post by celdon25 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #478
celdon25 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you have no way to see what that really means in it's totality. I think people would push back a lot if they could see that somehow. I’ve watched enough Mark Dice videos to know how bad it is, and I regret not taking the blue pill sometimes. He’s shown just about every notable case of it happening (with proof). Though he knows how to game the system to resist being taken offline and you could say it’s part of h…

[flagged]

Did you get that information from Wikipedia?

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

#738

Post by calgarymicro »

tonymet wrote: post #734

"Why this, why now, why you?" Why did Zucc stamp his name on this now, after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020, and willingly censor in favor of the 2020 Biden campaign (covid + Hunter biden). You've got to wonder why he seems to be signaling to the Trump campaign that he is taking sides. My guess is either hoping for kickbacks or to thwart retribution for 2020.

> after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020

This is false; he donated to state and local election offices, not Biden's campaign.[0]

[0]https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-ele...

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

#739

Post by tantalor »

seydor wrote: post #490
gwbas1c wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment specifically uses the word "congress," and the President is not congress. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amen…

but if the president had the power to censor, that power should come from a law that the congress made. it wouldnt make sense otherwise

It's a moot point; FB said it was 100% their decision to suppress speech.

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

#740

Post by travisb »

rendang wrote: post #205
_heimdall wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much prefer seeing us close up the tax loop holes than create an even more complex system. 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. We need to drastically simplify our tax code rather than further increase its complexity.

I've wondered if it wouldn't be better to shift the tax code to bias companies toward paying dividends, as used to be more universal among profitable firms. Then the shareholders will have the appropriate progressive income tax bracket applied.

The reason companies pay in shares and not dividends anymore is _because_ doing paying out profits using a share (buyback) is more tax efficient. Especially for recipients who want to let it ride in the stock market.

It doesn't seem like a genie you'll be able to put back into the bottle without reducing the net tax take.

Post reply on HN