Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#91

Post by loceng » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #89

malvosenior wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've repeatedly said. It's on those who claim something happened to provide proof that it did. You haven't provided a single link of evidence to support your argument. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you haven't provided any. Certainly you've seen some data to back up your assertion? I know I haven't but I'm willing to look at anything anyone finds.

Re: Yang. I think he's a very interesting candidate! He's innovative and providing a fresh perspective. That doesn't have anything to do with the Russian "hacking" myth the media has been pushing full-blast though. $100k of Facebook ads is nothing . I'm 100% sure the media isn't pushing this to help Yang, but instead traditional mainstream politicians like Clinton.

It isn't just "100k of Facebook ads" as you're trying to gate keep the proof point to being.

Respond to every point I make even re: Trump leveraging mainstream media to his advantage.

It's odd, interesting to me, that you're expecting concrete quantitative data, yet trying to use qualitative proof points - while not accepting qualitative proof points that I'm outlining for you.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#92

Post by malvosenior » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #91

malvosenior wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Yang. I think he's a very interesting candidate! He's innovative and providing a fresh perspective. That doesn't have anything to do with the Russian "hacking" myth the media has been pushing full-blast though. $100k of Facebook ads is nothing . I'm 100% sure the media isn't pushing this to help Yang, but instead traditional mainstream politicians like Clinton.

It isn't just "100k of Facebook ads" as you're trying to gate keep the proof point to being. Respond to every point I make even re: Trump leveraging mainstream media to his advantage. It's odd, interesting to me, that you're expecting concrete quantitative data, yet trying to use qualitative proof points - while not accepting qualitative proof points that I'm outlining for you.

What Trump does with the mainstream media has absolutely nothing to do with so called Russian interference in the election.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#93

Post by malvosenior » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #90

malvosenior wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've repeatedly said. It's on those who claim something happened to provide proof that it did. You haven't provided a single link of evidence to support your argument. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you haven't provided any. Certainly you've seen some data to back up your assertion? I know I haven't but I'm willing to look at anything anyone finds.

My comment was the "link." You're still avoiding engaging with what I'm presenting to you in order to maintain your narrative. I can't tell if you're just spouting rhetoric or genuinely you aren't able to connect the ideas I'm presenting: do you not believe that mainstream media amplifies whatever news there is? Did you see no "Russia" news? Is that what you're arguing?

I'm arguing that the mainstream media made up the Russian story. Not one person has been able to provide any demonstration that the 100k in FB ads that were purchased from Russia (maybe by the government, maybe not) had any impact whatsoever. As someone who's worked in online ads for > 15 years, I will tell you that 100k in ads will not have a national impact. Especially when both other parties are paying hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg still doesn't get it

#94

Post by repolfx » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #78

repolfx wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you understand manipulation is a thing, right? Of course. But you're arguing here that Trump won because of massive scale manipulation to the extent that millions of voters don't have free will at all, which is just conspiracy theory thinking. By the way, what makes you think that Clinton voters weren't the manipulated ones? The press came out in full force for her, and they're the most obvious source of information…

Trump rallied people claiming immigrants were taking jobs, and that he was going to bring the manufacturing jobs back - as POTUS candidate Andrew Yang explains however it's automation that took the jobs - and those jobs lost aren't coming back. People believed Trump's words because he was rallying people emotionally yet didn't present any actual evidence or data. Do you consider that manipulation or not? Maybe you'll…

Do you think immigrants don't compete in the labour pool against American workers? I mean, you're very quick to label Andrew Yang's rhetoric as explanation and Trump's as manipulation, but if you think cheap immigrant and foreign labour had no effect on American workers at all I'm not sure what to say to you. Robots just aren't that powerful. Look at what happened when Tesla tried to use too much automation: Musk retreated licking his wounds.

Also, isn't Andrew Yang the man who is telling people "vote for me and everyone will get free money". This is economically illiterate in a way that makes Trumponomics look like the work of Greek philosophers; I'm not American and have no dog in that race but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Trump is manipulative for talking about jobs but Yang isn't for promising voters free money.

At any rate the original comparison was Trump v Clinton, not Trump v Yang. Clinton certainly engaged in a lot of emotional and manipulative rhetoric herself. The part where she adopted a policy of starting a war with Russia over Syria, but obfuscated it by claiming it wouldn't be a war because Russia would immediately surrender? That's what I remember the most.