3 ms·

Who knew the day would come when I’d agree with and defend Zuckerberg. It’s not Facebook’s job to tell me what I can or can’t think. I can evaluate the claims o

Who knew the day would come when I’d agree with and defend Zuckerberg. It’s not Facebook’s job to tell me what I can or can’t think. I can evaluate the claims of Trump or any other politician myself, thank you very much.

rswail 6y ago
Except it has been proven that people using FB and whatsapp have incited violence in India and other places and that often people can't or won't evaluate claims with a focus on facts and evidence.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Then work on stopping people in India from being violent? Treating human beings like mindless automatons is not the right way forward.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  That is against laws and their terms of service. No one, not even Zuck is saying there should be zero moderation of illegal things. It’s the line of where “harmful” is. Some people would seriously argue every message from Trump is “harmful”, some that just want to game the system, some that really believe it, some that just don’t understand what power they are asking Facebook to take. The other day he had 800k likes from a tweet that just said “CHINA!”... I bet more people reported that as violence/harmful than seems reasonable.
banachtarski 6y ago
What an obtuse viewpoint. It's not just about you. Misinformation actively harms society as a whole. Anti-vax, fake remedies, Holocaust-denials, etc. The people taken in by such lies propagate damage beyond their immediate circles.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Yes, free speech has some negative consequences. That’s what it means to be in a free society. If your only solution to so-called misinformation (as defined by who?) is censorship and controlling of information, you’ve already lost. In case you forgot, this website is called Hacker News. Once upon a time, hacker culture was anti-authoritarian.
  - banachtarski 6y ago
    > Once upon a time, hacker culture was anti-authoritarian. Wanting to rely on experts to provide accurate information (reporting, history, medicine, science, weather/natural disasters) doesn't not make me pro-authoritarian. The stupid anti-establishment fever needs to stop somewhere. I think in a world with free speech, I can also have the reasonable expectation that the leaders to not promote violence, racism, or bigotry.
- reroute1 6y ago
  It's really not that obtuse, he wants the information and to decide for himself... Your way leaves a huge hole for someone to pull wool over your eyes
  - banachtarski 6y ago
    Facts and editorialism are not the same thing. I want my medical textbook (and the journalist reporting on it) to not lie to me. Whether I elect to choose the treatment after side effects are disclosed is up to me. I'd rather not have to make a medical judgement as to which of 10 pharmaceutical companies are making a false claim however.
    - reroute1 6y ago
      Who is disagreeing with this? The issue is that people disagree on what the facts are, so when twitter does a fact check some people would disagree, what if it's a close call? I'm not going to agree or disagree with their assessment I don't really care. I'm saying I don't give a shit what "twitter corp" thinks about X persons tweet. I want to read it and see for myself. Don't turn to Twitter for a medical issue... Who would do that? If you're looking in a textbook as mentioned you will find well referenced established science, or speaking to a medical professional. That is not Twitter and was never it's strength

rswail 6y ago

Except it has been proven that people using FB and whatsapp have incited violence in India and other places and that often people can't or won't evaluate claims with a focus on facts and evidence.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Then work on stopping people in India from being violent? Treating human beings like mindless automatons is not the right way forward.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
That is against laws and their terms of service. No one, not even Zuck is saying there should be zero moderation of illegal things. It’s the line of where “harmful” is. Some people would seriously argue every message from Trump is “harmful”, some that just want to game the system, some that really believe it, some that just don’t understand what power they are asking Facebook to take. The other day he had 800k likes from a tweet that just said “CHINA!”... I bet more people reported that as violence/harmful than seems reasonable.

banachtarski 6y ago

What an obtuse viewpoint. It's not just about you. Misinformation actively harms society as a whole. Anti-vax, fake remedies, Holocaust-denials, etc. The people taken in by such lies propagate damage beyond their immediate circles.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Yes, free speech has some negative consequences. That’s what it means to be in a free society. If your only solution to so-called misinformation (as defined by who?) is censorship and controlling of information, you’ve already lost. In case you forgot, this website is called Hacker News. Once upon a time, hacker culture was anti-authoritarian.
- banachtarski 6y ago
  > Once upon a time, hacker culture was anti-authoritarian. Wanting to rely on experts to provide accurate information (reporting, history, medicine, science, weather/natural disasters) doesn't not make me pro-authoritarian. The stupid anti-establishment fever needs to stop somewhere. I think in a world with free speech, I can also have the reasonable expectation that the leaders to not promote violence, racism, or bigotry.
reroute1 6y ago
It's really not that obtuse, he wants the information and to decide for himself... Your way leaves a huge hole for someone to pull wool over your eyes
- banachtarski 6y ago
  Facts and editorialism are not the same thing. I want my medical textbook (and the journalist reporting on it) to not lie to me. Whether I elect to choose the treatment after side effects are disclosed is up to me. I'd rather not have to make a medical judgement as to which of 10 pharmaceutical companies are making a false claim however.
  - reroute1 6y ago
    Who is disagreeing with this? The issue is that people disagree on what the facts are, so when twitter does a fact check some people would disagree, what if it's a close call? I'm not going to agree or disagree with their assessment I don't really care. I'm saying I don't give a shit what "twitter corp" thinks about X persons tweet. I want to read it and see for myself. Don't turn to Twitter for a medical issue... Who would do that? If you're looking in a textbook as mentioned you will find well referenced established science, or speaking to a medical professional. That is not Twitter and was never it's strength