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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by nostromo »

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

It's simply that people are posting less and less content publicly. That's all moved to private chats and "close friends" posts.

The content that's filling the void is just filler, be it AI, clickbait, memes, etc.

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

#812

Post by PierceJoy »

amy-petrik-214 wrote: post #775
PierceJoy wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He donated 400m to funding election infrastructure. How is that donating to Democrats?

the party that controls election infrastructure is the kingmaker thusly, if one observes the king that was made, one knows the party who decided see: GW Bush victory in FL see: Biden victory in >100% vote cities

Then how did Biden win in places where Republicans controlled the election infrastructure?

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

#813

Post by throw10920 »

dangus wrote: post #806
throw10920 wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive. This is emotional pleading, not a serious argument of any sort, based on the core premise of "this person has more money than me, and I don't like that, therefore I should get some".

It's a very serious argument, and it's somewhat insulting that you consider it to be emotional and meritless. Wealth and income inequality has well-studied negative effects on society. The ability for a single person to own over $100m in assets is not a human right. It's not a protected class or status. It's an abhorrent misappropriation of human resources. It is a societal mistake. And let's not forget, people like…

> It's a very serious argument, and it's somewhat insulting that you consider it to be emotional and meritless.

Because, factually, the statement "Well when you have over 100m in assets in your pile of gold in the dragon lair, its time to be extractive." is emotional and meritless. There's literally zero value here. It's an opinion. In fact, you doubled down on this throughout your response.

> It's an abhorrent misappropriation of human resources. It is a societal mistake.

This is also factless, meritless, emotional pleading.

> And let's not forget, people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg have multiple THOUSANDS of $100 million dollars in net worth...

As is all of this.

> It's not about demanding some of the money from the wealthy.

That's literally what you're doing.

> It's about the inherent power imbalance and exploitation that comes along with being excessively wealthy like this.

It's clearly not about the power imbalance and exploitation, because someone genuinely interested in curbing those effects would address them directly. The fact that everyone who claims to care about the destabilizing effects of concentrated wealth immediately goes to "we should take the wealth away" instead of "we should try to figure out why concentrated wealth is destabilizing and address that" is extremely strong evidence that the goal is, actually, to take money from the wealthy.

If you consider pointing out that you're not making logical arguments, and instead engaging in emotional pleading, to be insulting (especially when, upon that being pointed out, you can't make a rational argument and instead continue pleading), then you should take a step back, because there's a good chance you're engaging in advocacy and emotional manipulation as opposed to genuine, rational arguments in good faith.

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

#814

Post by epoxia »

amelius wrote: post #426
diob wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience on all platforms is things have rapidly become slop. Quora, Facebook, Twitter, Threads. They all have a weird issue of random softcore sex stuff. I have nothing against sex content, but I do wish we could just click a button to say turn this off, like safe search. It can't be that hard to filter out all the weird shit, so I assume it makes them money.

Don't worry, soon someone here will build an "HDMI-hole" that uses AI to directly filter unwanted content from a HDMI signal.

I've thought about this type of thing, and the first step would be to do this in the browser kind of like ublock cosmetic filtering. Most sites don't apply alt-text to their images, so filtering by the html does not work for images, for now. But, I'm too lazy to figure it out.

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

#815

Post by hnpolicestate »

hnpolicestate wrote: post #348
zooq_ai wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN crowd like reddit leans massively progressive/democratic. As such any thinking outside normal or contrarian views are massively suppressed. Classic contrarian (to HN) around WFH, Capitalism, Elon Musk, Tesla, Regulation is downvoted and even flagged

The HN crowd is far right but they would never admit it. Most people are unaware of how political parties shift in composition and ideology over the decades. The contemporary American software engineer resembles the professional class Reagan Republicans who dominated the suburbs in the 80's and 90's.

Because orthodoxy blinds the masses, the people upvoting this are the very far-right who LARP as leftists/liberals I'm referring to lol. The detractors are actually liberals who have been painted as far right. Ideology is such a powerful delusion. Nobody can be sure of who they are due to external labeling.

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

#816

Post by nostromo »

PierceJoy wrote: post #681
subsubzero wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, Zuck has zero integrity and I think he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November and is trying to say he was bullied into making alot of disastrous decisions that he and he only ordered for an administration/party that he personally donated $400M+ to.

He donated 400m to funding election infrastructure. How is that donating to Democrats?

There are concerns that they paid for infrastructure in deeply democratic areas and ignored areas that were republican-leaning, in effect making it a Democratic get out the vote initiative.

The media doesn't seem too interested in figuring out the actual impact, so I don't think any of us really know if it was balanced or not. But this doesn't strike me as the type of thing we want billionaires doing regardless.

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

#817

Post by johnfernow »

brezelgoring wrote: post #699
pndy wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather expect a HDMI cables that will display ads if you don't pay a subscription will come first. Pretty sure we had a thread on this not so long ago.

I’m waiting on Panasonic (Panasonic, was it?) to act on their trademark to have interactive ads on their TVs. You have to yell a product name or marketing keyword (McDonalds! PlayStation!) out loud if you want the ad to stop. It stays if you can’t or don’t yell :)

It's a Sony patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454?oq=8246454

But yeah the 10th image in the patent literally has

> Say "McDonald's" to end commercial

with a picture of a man standing up and shouting "McDonald's!" as an example.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b4/2e/a1/779dd8d...

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

#818

Post by hnpolicestate »

bodiekane wrote: post #484
hnpolicestate wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN crowd is far right but they would never admit it. Most people are unaware of how political parties shift in composition and ideology over the decades. The contemporary American software engineer resembles the professional class Reagan Republicans who dominated the suburbs in the 80's and 90's.

The HN crowd is far left but they would never admit it. Go watch Bill Clinton talk about illegal immigration and border security in the 90s. He'd be considered far right today. Read a book or newspaper from 50 years ago or 100 years ago and look at how much more freedom people had to build homes and businesses without a thousand licenses, permits, taxes and inspections. There was a time in America where the notion of…

I think you have it backwards. Open borders are a right-wing goal. See Bernie Sanders comments on the subject circa 2015. How the Koch brothers want open borders to weaken labors leverage.

The wealthy and powerful don't benefit from citizenship. When you have wealth you can just pay for what you need or want. It's the common person who needs the benefits and protections that come from citizenship.

You're on the right path, pointing out how counter-culture liberals won but they are in fact right-wing. They LARP as liberals/leftists.

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

#819

Post by Krssst »

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.

> better get it right 100% of the time

It turns out they were mostly right (at least the decisions were the best possible with the knowledge of the time). Vaccines were effective against infection at the time and became less so with new variants (still a very good idea to reduce illness severity and likelyhood of hospitalization), lockdowns had some side effects but all in all saved lives before we got the vaccine, and the like.

Now that misinformation is less harmful than before thanks to most people having some immunity, it's less controlled and more people start believing the misinformation to be the truth.

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

#820

Post by llm_trw »

sealeck wrote: post #305
rv3909i wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know you have over 100m in assets? One never really knows the worth of something until it's sold. (i.e. try selling a used car. there's what you think it's worth and what you get...) And once the asset is sold, that's a taxable event.

> How do you know you have over 100m in assets? If your bank determines that assets you post for collateral are worth 100mn or more, that's a pretty good indication.

Ah yes banks. The people responsible for the 2008 crash.
Post reply on HN