4 ms·
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?
by 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 agoIt'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 agoIsn'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.