4 ms·

Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even news

Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even news? It is agitation for a desired outcome. It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the right side of this issue. Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?

rumanator 6y ago
> Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Is it possible that the civil rights leaders misunderstood meeting for something it was not. For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact ( it works, why I should I break it ). I suppose that means we are in agreement. I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your petition will be acted upon.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights leaders. > Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      It is possible I am misreading your post. Correct me as needed. US absolutely has had overt lobbying efforts to ensure that slaves remain slaves. There are interest groups in US today that directly benefit from fanning the flames of racism. I will stop here.
    - etherael 6y ago
      > Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form. Except this assumes that's what both sides of the argument are actually about. Just checking but do you realise this is an artificial construct that exists entirely in your own head? Zuckerberg in this particular instance, and the free speech absolutist argument in general does not imply acceptance that it's reasonable to support racial violence. Equating the two shows either an intent to deceive or quite intense confusion on the subject.
  - jhowell 6y ago
    Is it your opinion that the people who met with Zuckerberg were props, and his intention was to positively influence the public's opinion of his actions with respect to the protests and civil unrest happening in the country today? Seems a questionable tactic. Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity? Do you feel your opinion is widely shared?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      Hmm. << Is it your opinion that the people who met with Zuckerberg were props In a sense that he used them less subtly than Trump used the bible? Yes. << his intention was to positively influence the public's opinion of his actions with respect to the protests and civil unrest happening in the country today No. The entire company is built on a more virulent version of old 'if it bleeds, it leads'. It is silly to think otherwise. Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity? Hell no. I shared an unpopular opinion on LinkedIn once. The mob immediately descended. <<Do you feel your opinion is widely shared? I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter?
      - jhowell 6y ago
        > Hell no. I shared an unpopular opinion on LinkedIn once. The mob immediately descended. I am glad your convictions are not strongly held. As you charge forward with this perspective, you may find more disagreements with those behind you than those in front. Bringing feelings to the surface is part of the healing and self discovery process. > I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter? I was curious about how you see your opinion reflected in the world. You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise. If not, I imagine you'd be in another forum right not having a much different conversation than can be had here. "There are no strangers. There are only versions of ourselves, many of which we have not embraced, most of which we wish to protect ourselves from." - Toni Morrison
        A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        <<I am glad your convictions are not strongly held Define strongly. Am I willing to lose my job to be right on the internet? No. But I think it is a mistake to think that those voices lose strength when hidden. Quite the opposite. <<You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise I am looking for a reasonable rationale. Frankly, I do not understand some of the decisions people make. That said, I am hesitating to play amateur psychologist online, but you may be projecting a little.
jhowell 6y ago
For some people this type of rhetoric is simple rhetoric. For others it represents a very real threat to their physical, emotional and psychological safety. For those who are most impacted by these words and pursuant actions, they represent a death sentence, they are no longer with us. "The disaster ruins everything, all the while leaving everything intact." - Maurice Blanchot
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Words have power. I can agree with that. But all the arguments fall flat the moment the rules are not enforced uniformly.
  - jhowell 6y ago
    > But all the arguments fall flat the moment the rules are not enforced uniformly. Is this not the point of the unrest?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      I am not sure how to respond here. The answer is yes, but I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
      - jhowell 6y ago
        We are, but then we stop because... logic...
crispyambulance 6y ago
> Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive? You're right, it's "their platform", but, a significant fraction of all human beings are "in" this platform. That's a staggering amount of power in the hands of very few people with virtually no accountability. This is without precedent. It becomes offensive when the same machinery used for advertising and marketing can just as easily be used by third parties (FB's actual customers) who want to spread disinformation, propaganda or exercise control in some way.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  What is your solution then? I don't use FB and Twitter for the same reasons. They both propagate disinformation and propaganda. Or are you more concerned about wrong propaganda and misinformation ( I apologize in advance about sounding like this, but it is actually relevant to the point here )? If we want to move past this, we need some sort of working guidance we can all agree on. In its absence, I might as well default to full free speech defense.
  - crispyambulance 6y ago
    > What is your solution then? There is not going to be any silver-bullet solution here. If we ever resolve it, it's going to involve a lot of different approaches. I don't think anyone has a complete answer. For one thing, putting more power in the hands of users to control how their information get used is a step in the right direction. For example, it should be possible to easily identify and search-for any entity who's paying money to put something in front of our eyeballs or who is buying our data. Even better, it should be possible to strictly limit who or what gets our information.

rumanator 6y ago

> Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Is it possible that the civil rights leaders misunderstood meeting for something it was not. For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact ( it works, why I should I break it ). I suppose that means we are in agreement. I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your petition will be acted upon.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights leaders. > Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    It is possible I am misreading your post. Correct me as needed. US absolutely has had overt lobbying efforts to ensure that slaves remain slaves. There are interest groups in US today that directly benefit from fanning the flames of racism. I will stop here.
  - etherael 6y ago
    > Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form. Except this assumes that's what both sides of the argument are actually about. Just checking but do you realise this is an artificial construct that exists entirely in your own head? Zuckerberg in this particular instance, and the free speech absolutist argument in general does not imply acceptance that it's reasonable to support racial violence. Equating the two shows either an intent to deceive or quite intense confusion on the subject.
- jhowell 6y ago
  Is it your opinion that the people who met with Zuckerberg were props, and his intention was to positively influence the public's opinion of his actions with respect to the protests and civil unrest happening in the country today? Seems a questionable tactic. Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity? Do you feel your opinion is widely shared?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Hmm. << Is it your opinion that the people who met with Zuckerberg were props In a sense that he used them less subtly than Trump used the bible? Yes. << his intention was to positively influence the public's opinion of his actions with respect to the protests and civil unrest happening in the country today No. The entire company is built on a more virulent version of old 'if it bleeds, it leads'. It is silly to think otherwise. Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity? Hell no. I shared an unpopular opinion on LinkedIn once. The mob immediately descended. <<Do you feel your opinion is widely shared? I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter?
    - jhowell 6y ago
      > Hell no. I shared an unpopular opinion on LinkedIn once. The mob immediately descended. I am glad your convictions are not strongly held. As you charge forward with this perspective, you may find more disagreements with those behind you than those in front. Bringing feelings to the surface is part of the healing and self discovery process. > I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter? I was curious about how you see your opinion reflected in the world. You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise. If not, I imagine you'd be in another forum right not having a much different conversation than can be had here. "There are no strangers. There are only versions of ourselves, many of which we have not embraced, most of which we wish to protect ourselves from." - Toni Morrison
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        <<I am glad your convictions are not strongly held Define strongly. Am I willing to lose my job to be right on the internet? No. But I think it is a mistake to think that those voices lose strength when hidden. Quite the opposite. <<You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise I am looking for a reasonable rationale. Frankly, I do not understand some of the decisions people make. That said, I am hesitating to play amateur psychologist online, but you may be projecting a little.

jhowell 6y ago

For some people this type of rhetoric is simple rhetoric. For others it represents a very real threat to their physical, emotional and psychological safety. For those who are most impacted by these words and pursuant actions, they represent a death sentence, they are no longer with us. "The disaster ruins everything, all the while leaving everything intact." - Maurice Blanchot

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Words have power. I can agree with that. But all the arguments fall flat the moment the rules are not enforced uniformly.
- jhowell 6y ago
  > But all the arguments fall flat the moment the rules are not enforced uniformly. Is this not the point of the unrest?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I am not sure how to respond here. The answer is yes, but I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
    - jhowell 6y ago
      We are, but then we stop because... logic...

crispyambulance 6y ago

> Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive? You're right, it's "their platform", but, a significant fraction of all human beings are "in" this platform. That's a staggering amount of power in the hands of very few people with virtually no accountability. This is without precedent. It becomes offensive when the same machinery used for advertising and marketing can just as easily be used by third parties (FB's actual customers) who want to spread disinformation, propaganda or exercise control in some way.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
What is your solution then? I don't use FB and Twitter for the same reasons. They both propagate disinformation and propaganda. Or are you more concerned about wrong propaganda and misinformation ( I apologize in advance about sounding like this, but it is actually relevant to the point here )? If we want to move past this, we need some sort of working guidance we can all agree on. In its absence, I might as well default to full free speech defense.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  > What is your solution then? There is not going to be any silver-bullet solution here. If we ever resolve it, it's going to involve a lot of different approaches. I don't think anyone has a complete answer. For one thing, putting more power in the hands of users to control how their information get used is a step in the right direction. For example, it should be possible to easily identify and search-for any entity who's paying money to put something in front of our eyeballs or who is buying our data. Even better, it should be possible to strictly limit who or what gets our information.