3 ms·

What has happened to Wired? Zuckerberg goes into the principles behind these kind of decisions in depth, in his own words, in a conversation with Yuval Noah Har

by ppod 6y ago

What has happened to Wired? Zuckerberg goes into the principles behind these kind of decisions in depth, in his own words, in a conversation with Yuval Noah Harari that for some reason nobody ever mentions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj9eD0Wug8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boj9eD0Wug8

take_a_breath 6y ago
Lots of folks don’t have time to watch 60-minute YouTube videos. Can you explain the principles he cites or give a time stamp?
- ppod 6y ago
  It's difficult to summarise but the last 30 minutes is where they have a really good argument, starting about here: https://youtu.be/Boj9eD0Wug8?t=3981 https://youtu.be/Boj9eD0Wug8?t=3981 It gets quite philosophical, and hinges on whether people basically come to lose their own free will if embedded in a powerful algorithmic communication engine. They disagree with each other and there are definitely weak points in Zuckerberg's argument, but it is an earnest and principled-sounding defence. I think he loses the debate overall, but it's easier to attack his position than propose a coherent alternative. There is also a part somewhere where Zuckerberg claims that when the platform takes actions such as marking a claim as untrue and linking to a source, that conspiracy theorists just use that to double-down and claim that the platform is trying to suppress their truth.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    Isn't the fact that his stance is un-summarizable kind of the point? If he had an actual position or policy, it wouldn't take 30 minutes of clawing at the edges to express it. This is the entire strategy. The invisible line can just be moved a little bit every time and we never have to cross it.
Karuhanga 6y ago
Anyone watching this would agree the question here isn't whether or not Zuck has a principle around it but rather whether that principle is 'good' for the future. Their perspectives here are clearly different.

by ppod 6y ago

take_a_breath 6y ago

Lots of folks don’t have time to watch 60-minute YouTube videos. Can you explain the principles he cites or give a time stamp?

ppod 6y ago
It's difficult to summarise but the last 30 minutes is where they have a really good argument, starting about here: https://youtu.be/Boj9eD0Wug8?t=3981 https://youtu.be/Boj9eD0Wug8?t=3981 It gets quite philosophical, and hinges on whether people basically come to lose their own free will if embedded in a powerful algorithmic communication engine. They disagree with each other and there are definitely weak points in Zuckerberg's argument, but it is an earnest and principled-sounding defence. I think he loses the debate overall, but it's easier to attack his position than propose a coherent alternative. There is also a part somewhere where Zuckerberg claims that when the platform takes actions such as marking a claim as untrue and linking to a source, that conspiracy theorists just use that to double-down and claim that the platform is trying to suppress their truth.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  Isn't the fact that his stance is un-summarizable kind of the point? If he had an actual position or policy, it wouldn't take 30 minutes of clawing at the edges to express it. This is the entire strategy. The invisible line can just be moved a little bit every time and we never have to cross it.

Karuhanga 6y ago

Anyone watching this would agree the question here isn't whether or not Zuck has a principle around it but rather whether that principle is 'good' for the future. Their perspectives here are clearly different.