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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by somewhat_drunk »

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.

"There are concerns"

Can you link to something describing the basis for these concerns?

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

#942

Post by murphym »

duxup wrote: post #375

Actions speak louder than words. Just log onto Facebook and see what he wants you to see. I don't know what he thinks he is selling folks on, but it's mostly spam and garbage...

funnily enough, that's the name of their recent recommendation algorithm paper

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.17152

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

#943

Post by dang »

bbqfog wrote: post #306
AlbertCory wrote: post #248

If 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.

[flagged]

HN has had plenty of major threads on Israel-related topics.

Your submissions are getting flagged and moderated, not because they're Israel-related, but because you're using the site primarily for political battle and flamewar. In fact it looks like you've been using HN exclusively for that. We ban accounts that do that, whichever side of whichever issue they're doing it about, because it goes completely against the intended spirit of the site. That ought to be obvious to anyone who has read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I'm not going to ban you right now, but if you keep this up, we're going to have to.

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

#944

Post by [deleted] »

woooooo wrote: post #189
norir wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25% is a completely arbitrary number and context dependent. I can guarantee you can find many communities that have majority views that you find abhorrent and would not want to be a part of your community discourse. The problem is that social media gives the illusion of a broad town square where all opinions are heard, but that is not what happened. Everyone on social media is filtered into silos based on what the al…

Yes, it's arbitrary, 20 would also make the same point, 0.1 would not. If you're saying "we must censor abhorrent viewpoints for the good of society", I'll just counter that your viewpoints are horrible and must be suppressed, while mine are good and must be amplified. For the good of society.

[deleted]

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

#946

Post by Nasrudith »

jmb99 wrote: post #528
donmcronald wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would trying to sell billions in stock at once Let them pay their taxes with stocks. Problem solved.

Ignoring the many other reasons why that would be problematic, what happens when the US government suddenly owns notable (or even controlling) stakes in companies?

You would effectively have corruption. Governments would be more reluctant to take actions which could be negative when they have direct ownership vs their normal "indirect ownership" via taxation.

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

#947

Post by [deleted] »

chrisco255 wrote: post #240
andy_ppp wrote: post #109

I 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…

Unrealized gains taxes is an extractive and totalitarian tax. Someone is always risking 100% loss until they realize those gains. It's an affront to entrepreneurial risk-taking and it's capricious. It would be just as ridiculous to allow someone to write-off unrealized losses.

[deleted]

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

#948

Post by Nasrudith »

wsve wrote: post #937
00_hum wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we tax the super rich then the list of extremely powerful people will be one item long: politicians. i think its telling that they are going after rich conservative people rather than break up blackrock et al.

That sounds like a good thing to me. I would prefer the people who hold power in our society be the ones democratically elected, not the ones who lucked into a leviathan amount of money and can now buy Twitter for fun.

Separation of powers is a very important reason not to limit the power to just politicians. Just like how we would prefer not to have media moguls also be politicians, leaving control of the media to just the government is a bad thing for democracy as it just compounds power towards the existing holders.

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

#949

Post by dlivingston »

chasing wrote: post #456
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.

> Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail. The opposite. Online communities can't be healthy without moderation. Cf. Twitter.

There is a strong distinction between moderation, which is the removal of low-effort noise / spam / etc., and censorship, which is the suppression of ideas.

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

#950

Post by aiisjustanif »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #935
theptip wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that none of these guys are risking 100% of anything. Meta stock is liquid. You can sell it or hedge. You might slip 10% but it’s vanishingly unlikely to lose 100%. The well-known tax dodge is to avoid realizing gains by borrowing against your stock. Say you pledge $1b as collateral on a loan. If interest rates are lower than your stock appreciation, the loan is free. So you don’t ever need to realize th…

Borrowing against your assets might make mathematical sense, but I think it’s kind of stupid to burden yourself with that kind of debt. The tax you pay is your peace of mind and the interest in the loan. Paying taxes on the sale of your investments is simpler, and if you’re living off your assets, you can afford it. You’re also introducing the risk of being liquidated if there’s a big drawdown in the asset. If you bo…

> Borrowing against your assets might make mathematical sense, but I think it’s kind of stupid to burden yourself with that kind of debt.

Only for the little man

Post reply on HN