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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by properpopper »

drdaeman wrote: post #499
Malidir wrote: post #152

In 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.

> In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson He also said that he doesn't visit Russia anymore, yet a recent FSB leak indicates that he was frequenting there. And before that he heavily marketed Telegram as ad-free forever. And before that there were quite weird populist PR tactics when professional cryptographers pointed out Telegram's crypto is a mess. YMMV, but I wouldn't trust a single word from this guy.

> professional cryptographers pointed out Telegram's crypto is a mess

They can earn a lot of money via Telegram Bug Bounty Program if they can prove it

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

#912

Post by properpopper »

torlok wrote: post #615
Malidir wrote: post #152

In 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.

Tuckster is an "anti-elite" heir to a fortune who grew up in a castle. The only job he ever had was outrage baiting naive people. People like him are against regulation, but will clap any time big tech is dragged in front of congress. It's all a scam. You're being had. Why are you treating any part of his interviews as valid information.

> Why are you treating any part of his interviews as valid information.

Why should I treat your comment as valid information?

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

#913

Post by properpopper »

preciousoo wrote: post #613
IncreasePosts wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Pavel nicked the entire concept of Facebook from Zuckerberg.

Hell even Telegram(esp in earlier days) looks like a Whatsapp re-skin to the untrained eye

Maybe they are now ( haven't used Whatsapp in a while ), but not 5-10 years ago

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

#914

Post by nirui »

pjc50 wrote: post #888
nirui wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you should put Twitter on the list among the rest, because it's completely on another league. I followed zero person on Twitter and has zero followers, currently on my Twitter feed: - Racist shit like: https://x.com/barrystantonGBP/status/1828414194548461801, https://x.com/WarMonitors/status/1828498157589938272, - People got bombed to shit: https://x.com/Nadira_ali12/status/1828380272322322536 - People…

He wanted "uncensored", so this is what he gets.

I would argue it's not about censorship. Twitter's previous administration are also anti-censorship, and user can post already almost whatever they wanted as long as it's legal before Musk. And yet this problem starts to occur after Musk.

After Musk took over, not only he removed the moderation team, he also introduced many policies that encourages extreme content (well actually, it encourages encouragements, but extreme content draws the most encouragements, which is a well-know phenomenon). For example the blue checkmark for sell and encouragement based revenue sharing.

Current problem that Twitter suffering is the result of those policies from Elon Musk himself. A YouTuber John Harris suspected that Musk is doing this to mock something (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQxG4KEzvo), but I think it's just incompetent/lack of understanding, a bullied child turned an asshole, it often happens.

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

#915

Post by intended »

jpadkins wrote: post #201
kmeisthax wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech billionaires kissing up to the far right isn't going to decrease censorship. Maybe make it more palatable to you.

a coalition that contains RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk are now far right?

Don’t assume based on the personalities.

The right are currently targeting facebook and tech firms because they want to be able to influence the ‘algorithm’ to support their policies.

They are current churning out concepts such as the ‘censorship industrial complex’, and finding ways to publicize blame on “liberal Californian tech firms”.

The right wing think tanks are posturing about this from the perspective of free speech - while avoiding getting down into the weeds of trust and safety decision making.

I am on board with better freedom of speech protections - but not someone pontificating on principles, but ignoring the massive amounts of failure when you run moderation on “principles”.

This is where they lose credibility for me, and the power grab becomes apparent.

This letter is almost certainly to appease the Republican Party so that Meta is not dragged into hearings near the election.

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

#916

Post by properpopper »

elpool2 wrote: post #768
Djdjur7373bb wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Sure, it’s ok for them to decide what kind of content they want on their own platform. Edit: not ok for govt to coerce them into it though

> Sure, it’s ok for them to decide what kind of content they want on their own platform.

Even political content?

When I visit Reddit's Popular page it's pretty obvious which party and candidates they are pushing.

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

#917

Post by beej71 »

renegade-otter wrote: post #687
beej71 wrote: post #107

From a practical standpoint, I feel this issue is largely moot with the emergence of AI bots. Will the government have the time to chase them all? And will Facebook have the ability to censor them all?

There are absolutely ways. It's not a "solvable once" problem, but it's solvable. When there is a need, there is a way. What was the last time you saw someone post porn on StackOverflow? Oh my, HOW do they do it?!

I think blocking porn is a lot easier than blocking subtle misinformation based on half-truths, e.g. "Trump said he wants to be dictator".

I also think the scale is different between FB and SO, and SO has a much narrower definition of "on topic", as well.

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

#918

Post by intended »

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…

There’s research reports from those halcyon days of nazi forums conducting attacks on Jewish communities / social groups. Heck, stormfront was famous even then.

Plus - nothing was at the scale of Facebook or social media during those halcyon days.

Do you think platforms WANTED to invest in manpower dependent labor?

Platforms started moderating because things got bad.

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

#919

Post by archagon »

nostromo wrote: post #816
PierceJoy wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where are you sourcing this from? Personally, I’ve only heard of the opposite happening. (For example, polling places getting shut down in some majority black areas in Georgia.)

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

#920

Post by intended »

normalaccess wrote: post #117
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #59

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. So you can lose credibility two ways, one by not doing any censorship because people on the internet will be the worst if you let them. Doing too much censorship is also bad because people don't like that either. Of the big causes of censorship cur…

Commenting on YouTube: Massive content sites like YouTube have a problem, the owners are a vanishingly small minority when compared to the population. If they ever have a proper public outcry they would lose in an instant. The "Algorithm" and "Automated Systems" are put in place by design to create a buffer in the minds of the people between content creators and staff. That's also why the rules are vague and sometime…

We wish it was that smart.

Between engagement driven metrics and the sheer ludicrousness of moderation, any sense of order is swiftly smashed.

There are more policy updates and clarifications in a year than there are days.

Why assume intelligence where randomness would achieve the same.

Post reply on HN