10 ms·

Let me give a preview for anybody who can’t tune in: Democrats all say that disinformation is a threat to democracy. Republicans say that freedom of speech is

by blhack 6y ago

Let me give a preview for anybody who can’t tune in: Democrats all say that disinformation is a threat to democracy. Republicans say that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy. Jack and Mark preface every answer with “senator thank you for this question” and don’t answer anything. They both insist that the humans making editorial decisions are somehow impartial. Republicans yell a lot. Somethings they say damn and hell, which are both now acceptable curse words. Democrats don’t yell and spend their time flattering the witnesses and saying something about election interference. Nothing happens. People continue getting more divided and hating each other more so that these two men can get unfathomably wealthy. The end. (Bonus points if Ted Cruz says something about the constitution electing presidents, not Silicon Valley tech companies.)

komali2 6y ago
Excuse me, constitutions don't elect presidents, presidents do. The president said so on Twitter yesterday, when he declared himself the winner of the election, after all. A message I can still read today.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?
- tensor 6y ago
  This is an interesting question! I'm not sure there is anything I need to hear from these two. That's not to say that polarization and disinformation being amplified due to social media bubbles isn't a serious problem. Rather, I don't think it's up to these two to fix it, nor even understand it. As a society we need to first understand the problem, then decide on what, if anything, we want to do to fix it. Fixes would most likely take the form of some sort of regulation. E.g. something like where in Canada, some percentage of media has to be from a Canadian source. That law is very contentious in Canada, but you could imagine a similar law for any system that does content recommendation. E.g. some percentage of the content has to be sampled from the total body of content, and not come from the recommender. Something like this might address polarization, but disinformation is a thornier problem. In any case, it needs to start first with understanding what is going wrong. Things like Mozilla's media bubble study is a good start. From that we need to form policy. There is no role for CEO opinions in all of this.
  - CodeGlitch 6y ago
    Some things are simply too destructive to be in society. I'll take smoking as an example: Of course you should have the option to put whatever you like into your body. But when it starts to seriously affect your health and the people around you, it calls into question whether your right to smoke is above the negative impact on society. This is how I see social media. (I realise a lot of HN folk work in this area) These CEOs brought social media into our world, and I expect them to take resposibility for it. If they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility, then I'm OK for The State to do that for them - like you said with regulations. Currently it looks like they don't want to take resposibility for the destruction they have caused. Sorry for the rant - but I'm seeing first hand the negative effects of QAnon/Consipracy Theories/Extreme Politics within family members.
    - procombo 6y ago
      I've recently conceded to the argument that it's impossible to solve the problem without first defining the role and function of the companies. I believe that should be at the center of Senate questioning, not because it's comfortable, but because it is necessary. I cooked eggs this morning. There is a diversity of wonderful eggs and even some bad eggs. Is the Twitter service a) the eggs, b) the pan, c) the stove, or d) the hen-to-table service of providing a delicious breakfast?
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths, they're fully aware of what they're doing, what the effects are and they simply do not care.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths Hearings have four audiences in decreasing order of importance: voters, regulators, the hearing participants and legislators. If you believe these men are irredeemable sociopaths, ask questions that show voters and regulators (e.g. prosecutors) that.
  - jedimastert 6y ago
    I don't think it's helpful to pretend to have a full view into the minds of these men. I think it's very possible that Zuckerberg genuinely has no idea why people would care this much about privacy and why people push back against Facebook because of it, just like I think there are people who actually have no idea why the phrase "if you have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide" is problematic.
    - danparsonson 6y ago
      He's pretty careful with his own privacy so I think he does understand - it might be more accurate to say he thinks the majority of us don't deserve it.
- pnut 6y ago
  Obviously they would be 3 good faith questions that must be answered only with the word "yes" or "no", with any other response resulting in being immediately charged with Contempt of Congress.
- blhack 6y ago
  1) We require food manufacturers to list on the side of their products the ingredients, as well as the nutrition facts so people can make an informed decision about what they are putting in their body. There is a growing pressure to require your companies to do something similar, and publish the algorithms and metrics you use to keep people on your services longer. Would you support this movement? 2) Do you believe your products are addictive (this was already asked. I hope it gets asked more.) 3) What does it mean to you for something to be true? Could you give an example of something that you find to be uncontroversially true?
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    These are actually good questions. There might be even more good questions; possibility too many. What's the best way to crowdsource such good questions and select a good sample and bring it to the attention of whoever organizes such hearings?
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Write your senator. All questions come from somewhere.
      - ithkuil 6y ago
        But then you don't inspire other people to come up with better questions if the question is only known to the senator ('s team) until eventually revealed to the public once asked.
  - gizmo385 6y ago
    > There is a growing pressure to require your companies to do something similar, and publish the algorithms and metrics you use to keep people on your services longer. Growing pressure from who? I've occasionally seen these suggestions within niche tech communities, but I've never heard a layperson suggest something remotely similar to this. I'm also unsure how useful it would be. How detailed would such disclosures be? Even if they list "We use this machine learning algorithm", that algorithm description seems like it would be largely meaningless without the training data (which I don't think you could convince them to publish at all). > Do you believe your products are addictive? What company CEO _wouldn't_ say yes to this? It feels, to me at least, like a fluff question that you already know the answer to and won't yield any interesting insight into the company or how the CEO thinks about the product. > What does it mean to you for something to be true? Could you give an example of something that you find to be uncontroversially true? I think this is a much better question, although I worry that it might yield itself to some "gotcha" moments from Senators. For example, if one of the CEOs were to say "The sky is blue", I think you might get a lot of Senators saying "Well what if it's raining". That might not be the best example, but just something off the top of my head. I agree that it might be hard to come up with a unequivocal definition of what is and is not true, as that's ultimately a complicated philosophical question, but I think we can approximate truth by relying on a variety of sources who we know will do their due-diligence on research and are examining the full context of issues.
- op03 6y ago
  How many people are required to moderate a 3 billion member network? How do you decide the number? How many do you currently employ city/state/country wise. Since the engagement algos/infinite scroll/like button/follower counts etc are meddling with the brains reward mechanisms, what determines such meddling is psychologically safe?
- ethbr0 6y ago
  1. Would you agree to fund an editorially-independent news organization (or partner with same), producing 1 hour of content-equivalent a night, with proceeds from your businesses? 2. What would you suggest the US Government do to help your company support free speech around the world, including in countries where it's limited? 3. Many of the negative effects of your platforms have been blamed on private ranking and/or broadcasting algorithms. What kind of transparency will you commit to with regards to these algorithms?
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  1. Do you, personally, visualize? Meaning, do you form internal imagery in your mind of which you are consciously aware of "seeing"? 2. Is that limited to historic memories, such of people, or does it extend to the irrational, where you can see things that aren't real or don't exist yet? I suppose this could also include audio manifestations. 3. Are you aware of any means available which would completely halt all corporate and service functions of the entity you helped create and unleash on the world? I suppose the last one is a bit of a leading question, but given the seriousness of their actions, meh.
the-dude 6y ago
Why are you posting this?
- dundarious 6y ago
  Seems like a lamentation on US political economy and its misplaced priorities -- and how this hearing is just continued pageantry that does not meaningfully seek to discover or improve anything. It's a perspective that might be very interesting to people who are vested in party politics, which is an increasing amount of people in the US.
dustingetz 6y ago
Maybe these two men actually aren't trying to become more wealthy. Perhaps they are trapped by promises and partnerships made in the past, where they consensually entered an unbreakable alliance.
- mxskelly 6y ago
  Is this a joke? Please tell me you're joking.
  - kemonocode 6y ago
    Many rich people are incredibly miserable and basically stuck in a position they cannot escape from. That doesn't mean they aren't doing a lot of harm (they are) or they aren't aware of it (again, they are) but they might not see a viable way out of it. I remember when Zuckerberg was just seen like a nerdy, awkward kid suddenly put in big boy pants and people empathizing with him, and not like the eldritch abomination/reptilian drone he's seen like these days.
    - mxskelly 6y ago
      Sorry but "rich people are miserable because they have too much money" is not a real problem and I feel exactly zero sympathy for anyone in that position.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      > a viable way out of it 1. Give Larry Page & Sergey Brin a call. 2. Ask them what to do when you have too much money, but don't want public attention anymore. If Zuckerberg is still in the public eye, it's because he makes a choice to be.
      - ludocode 6y ago
        Exactly. We're supposed to believe Zuckerberg is stuck in a position from which he cannot escape, and that he somehow deserves sympathy? Sorry, but no. He lives in a free country. He could walk away this minute if he wanted to. He could even spin it as a good thing, i.e. "My work is done and I'm leaving the company in more capable hands". Zuckerberg is in charge because he wants up be. There's a reason he negotiated his shares to have much higher voting power than common shares. He wanted control of his company, he still does, and he is responsible for everything it does.
j4yav 6y ago
I haven't been following closely, but isn't this the opposite positions of four years ago?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The positions of the politicians are the same, but Facebook and Twitter have invested in a lot more information shaping efforts than they had 4 years ago.
- crusso 6y ago
  The Left and the Right used to agree that freedom of speech was fairly sacrosanct.
  - elicash 6y ago
    What's funny about this comment is you can read it as claiming either side doesn't value free speech. One side says the right wants to use force of government threaten breaking up companies whose speech policies they disagree with. The other side arguing that left-wing social media companies have so much power they can essentially censor opposing views. Edit: clarity
    - crusso 6y ago
      If you watch the hearings, you'd know that both of your contentions are strawmen of what each side claims to want.
      - elicash 6y ago
        I just edited for clarity, so maybe that helps? My entire point is that you were using such a vague straw man that it's impossible to know which direction you meant it. That's why I intentionally showed how it can be a straw man in either direction. Also, I've been watching the hearing. So you're correct, I suppose -- that's how I was able to accurately summarize. I'm assuming from comment history that you have a libertarian bent, so I'd imagine you're on this side of government staying the hell out of regulating social media companies? But who knows? That's my point.
elicash 6y ago
"Nothing happens" mostly because people disagree about things. As a result, seems like a good thing that these hearings broadcast different views on these issues so that the public can know how those views differ. Then, after knowing those views, people get to weigh in during election seasons. In this very recent election, of course, the public weighed in and likely delivered divided government, so we can expect some changes but nothing transformative. I don't think show hearings are necessarily bad. They can serve a valuable purpose, so long as they aren't the only thing being done.
- Aunche 6y ago
  If the Senators spent their time asking meaningful questions that don't know the answer to rather than grandstanding, they might be able to find something they can mutually agree on.
  - javert 6y ago
    They are behaving based on what they are rewarded for. Almost all of these people will be re-elected. We need to break out of the GOP/Dem stranglehold if we want to change this behavior. That stranglehold is not desired by the electorate and is also not up for a vote.
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    And if footballers could just stop struggling against one another then maybe they could all agree on which direction the ball should go. There's no room for agreement here. The sides are Republicans: stop censoring us Democrats: please censor Republicans even more
    - dang 6y ago
      Could you please not use HN for political and ideological battle? You've posted dozens of such comments already. We ban that kind of account because doing that destroys the curious conversation that the site is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of HN to heart, we'd appreciate it. Edit: actually you've broken the site guidelines so repeatedly and so badly already that I think we need to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
computerphage 6y ago
Democrats aren't going to mention election interference right now, but otherwise I think your gist is spot on.
snarf21 6y ago
The greatest trick social ever played was convincing everyone their neighbor is the enemy while the rich and powerful silently rape this country.
- javert 6y ago
  It's hard to think of rich people who are doing more harm than good. Sure, you could argue that for Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the Sackler family if you want to. But they are a tiny fraction of all rich people. "Silently rape" is a pretty harsh thing to say. Would you prefer we had no rich people? There are places like that.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    Really? You have a hard time thinking of rich people doing more harm than good? Do you recall the decades where the truth about tobacco was actively suppressed? How fossil fuel companies are doing the same thing right now about Global Warming? Or the dismantling of regulatory agencies like the EPA by the Trump admin? Or the various billionaires that fund "think tanks" to conduct "research" favorable to their economic positions? Or people like Rupert Murdoch using their billions to spread divisive propaganda at a loss over their media empire?
    - hallway_monitor 6y ago
      It seems less productive to focus on "rich people" and instead focus on "large corporations", because all of these actions are done in the name of the corporation. An adjustment to corporate law to put the responsibility for actions of corporations on to C-level execs could have positive effects for example.
      - DangitBobby 6y ago
        It is done in the name of corporations by rich people to protect the wealth of rich people. Not really sure why we are trying to speak in euphemisms.
- 6y ago
jb775 6y ago
Was just thinking the same thing. These things are such a joke and nothing comes out of them. And I love how they are afforded the right to answer these questions from the comfort of their homes. Make them go to DC!
pqoek 6y ago
I haven't watched this one, but I watched the previous ones (how many times will these guys have to testify really?) and there was more questions than answers. Most of the times the questioners wouldn't even let the testifiers answer the questions, it was just a show.
jonsno56 6y ago
Lol this feels like Groundhog Day
furyofantares 6y ago
It's not your fault that this is the top comment in the thread at this time, but I find it somewhat ironic that I watched the testimony on disinformation -- and it didn't go too much like this comment suggested it would -- and then came here to find the top post is dismissive, incorrect speculation about the content.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  What counts as misinformation: generalization? Omission? There might be a partisan-associated divide among these forms of lying, but I don’t want to risk generalizing about Republicans and Democrats nor omitting that I didn’t watch the testimony either. The real takeaway is they should disseminate the transcriptions not the videos. One thing I feel comfortable generalizing about is, everyone should fucking read more.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    At some point, I don't even think some of that nuance matters anymore. Spin is out the window. Straight up lying with easily disprovable claims is in. Anyway, I dont think the speculation is off the mark, since every previous session was pretty much just like what user said. Also, judging from this feed I'm reading, its not even far off.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Just watch it. @furyofantares is pretty much spot on here.
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  Let's not forget that Jack's beard looks straight out of Lord of the Rings.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    But that would insult Lord of the Rings. His beard and nose ring, with his smug manner, combined with the alien-looking Zuckerberg and his style, should provoke everyone's primal instincts to avoid anything these guys have built.

by blhack 6y ago

komali2 6y ago

Excuse me, constitutions don't elect presidents, presidents do. The president said so on Twitter yesterday, when he declared himself the winner of the election, after all. A message I can still read today.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

If you were to write three questions for someone on that panel, what would they be and why?

tensor 6y ago
This is an interesting question! I'm not sure there is anything I need to hear from these two. That's not to say that polarization and disinformation being amplified due to social media bubbles isn't a serious problem. Rather, I don't think it's up to these two to fix it, nor even understand it. As a society we need to first understand the problem, then decide on what, if anything, we want to do to fix it. Fixes would most likely take the form of some sort of regulation. E.g. something like where in Canada, some percentage of media has to be from a Canadian source. That law is very contentious in Canada, but you could imagine a similar law for any system that does content recommendation. E.g. some percentage of the content has to be sampled from the total body of content, and not come from the recommender. Something like this might address polarization, but disinformation is a thornier problem. In any case, it needs to start first with understanding what is going wrong. Things like Mozilla's media bubble study is a good start. From that we need to form policy. There is no role for CEO opinions in all of this.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  Some things are simply too destructive to be in society. I'll take smoking as an example: Of course you should have the option to put whatever you like into your body. But when it starts to seriously affect your health and the people around you, it calls into question whether your right to smoke is above the negative impact on society. This is how I see social media. (I realise a lot of HN folk work in this area) These CEOs brought social media into our world, and I expect them to take resposibility for it. If they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility, then I'm OK for The State to do that for them - like you said with regulations. Currently it looks like they don't want to take resposibility for the destruction they have caused. Sorry for the rant - but I'm seeing first hand the negative effects of QAnon/Consipracy Theories/Extreme Politics within family members.
  - procombo 6y ago
    I've recently conceded to the argument that it's impossible to solve the problem without first defining the role and function of the companies. I believe that should be at the center of Senate questioning, not because it's comfortable, but because it is necessary. I cooked eggs this morning. There is a diversity of wonderful eggs and even some bad eggs. Is the Twitter service a) the eggs, b) the pan, c) the stove, or d) the hen-to-table service of providing a delicious breakfast?
formerly_proven 6y ago
What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths, they're fully aware of what they're doing, what the effects are and they simply do not care.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > What'd be the point? Both of these are sociopaths Hearings have four audiences in decreasing order of importance: voters, regulators, the hearing participants and legislators. If you believe these men are irredeemable sociopaths, ask questions that show voters and regulators (e.g. prosecutors) that.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  I don't think it's helpful to pretend to have a full view into the minds of these men. I think it's very possible that Zuckerberg genuinely has no idea why people would care this much about privacy and why people push back against Facebook because of it, just like I think there are people who actually have no idea why the phrase "if you have nothing to fear then you have nothing to hide" is problematic.
  - danparsonson 6y ago
    He's pretty careful with his own privacy so I think he does understand - it might be more accurate to say he thinks the majority of us don't deserve it.
pnut 6y ago
Obviously they would be 3 good faith questions that must be answered only with the word "yes" or "no", with any other response resulting in being immediately charged with Contempt of Congress.
blhack 6y ago
1) We require food manufacturers to list on the side of their products the ingredients, as well as the nutrition facts so people can make an informed decision about what they are putting in their body. There is a growing pressure to require your companies to do something similar, and publish the algorithms and metrics you use to keep people on your services longer. Would you support this movement? 2) Do you believe your products are addictive (this was already asked. I hope it gets asked more.) 3) What does it mean to you for something to be true? Could you give an example of something that you find to be uncontroversially true?
- ithkuil 6y ago
  These are actually good questions. There might be even more good questions; possibility too many. What's the best way to crowdsource such good questions and select a good sample and bring it to the attention of whoever organizes such hearings?
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Write your senator. All questions come from somewhere.
    - ithkuil 6y ago
      But then you don't inspire other people to come up with better questions if the question is only known to the senator ('s team) until eventually revealed to the public once asked.
- gizmo385 6y ago
  > There is a growing pressure to require your companies to do something similar, and publish the algorithms and metrics you use to keep people on your services longer. Growing pressure from who? I've occasionally seen these suggestions within niche tech communities, but I've never heard a layperson suggest something remotely similar to this. I'm also unsure how useful it would be. How detailed would such disclosures be? Even if they list "We use this machine learning algorithm", that algorithm description seems like it would be largely meaningless without the training data (which I don't think you could convince them to publish at all). > Do you believe your products are addictive? What company CEO _wouldn't_ say yes to this? It feels, to me at least, like a fluff question that you already know the answer to and won't yield any interesting insight into the company or how the CEO thinks about the product. > What does it mean to you for something to be true? Could you give an example of something that you find to be uncontroversially true? I think this is a much better question, although I worry that it might yield itself to some "gotcha" moments from Senators. For example, if one of the CEOs were to say "The sky is blue", I think you might get a lot of Senators saying "Well what if it's raining". That might not be the best example, but just something off the top of my head. I agree that it might be hard to come up with a unequivocal definition of what is and is not true, as that's ultimately a complicated philosophical question, but I think we can approximate truth by relying on a variety of sources who we know will do their due-diligence on research and are examining the full context of issues.
op03 6y ago
How many people are required to moderate a 3 billion member network? How do you decide the number? How many do you currently employ city/state/country wise. Since the engagement algos/infinite scroll/like button/follower counts etc are meddling with the brains reward mechanisms, what determines such meddling is psychologically safe?
ethbr0 6y ago
1. Would you agree to fund an editorially-independent news organization (or partner with same), producing 1 hour of content-equivalent a night, with proceeds from your businesses? 2. What would you suggest the US Government do to help your company support free speech around the world, including in countries where it's limited? 3. Many of the negative effects of your platforms have been blamed on private ranking and/or broadcasting algorithms. What kind of transparency will you commit to with regards to these algorithms?
kordlessagain 6y ago
1. Do you, personally, visualize? Meaning, do you form internal imagery in your mind of which you are consciously aware of "seeing"? 2. Is that limited to historic memories, such of people, or does it extend to the irrational, where you can see things that aren't real or don't exist yet? I suppose this could also include audio manifestations. 3. Are you aware of any means available which would completely halt all corporate and service functions of the entity you helped create and unleash on the world? I suppose the last one is a bit of a leading question, but given the seriousness of their actions, meh.

the-dude 6y ago

Why are you posting this?

dundarious 6y ago
Seems like a lamentation on US political economy and its misplaced priorities -- and how this hearing is just continued pageantry that does not meaningfully seek to discover or improve anything. It's a perspective that might be very interesting to people who are vested in party politics, which is an increasing amount of people in the US.

dustingetz 6y ago

Maybe these two men actually aren't trying to become more wealthy. Perhaps they are trapped by promises and partnerships made in the past, where they consensually entered an unbreakable alliance.

mxskelly 6y ago
Is this a joke? Please tell me you're joking.
- kemonocode 6y ago
  Many rich people are incredibly miserable and basically stuck in a position they cannot escape from. That doesn't mean they aren't doing a lot of harm (they are) or they aren't aware of it (again, they are) but they might not see a viable way out of it. I remember when Zuckerberg was just seen like a nerdy, awkward kid suddenly put in big boy pants and people empathizing with him, and not like the eldritch abomination/reptilian drone he's seen like these days.
  - mxskelly 6y ago
    Sorry but "rich people are miserable because they have too much money" is not a real problem and I feel exactly zero sympathy for anyone in that position.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    > a viable way out of it 1. Give Larry Page & Sergey Brin a call. 2. Ask them what to do when you have too much money, but don't want public attention anymore. If Zuckerberg is still in the public eye, it's because he makes a choice to be.
    - ludocode 6y ago
      Exactly. We're supposed to believe Zuckerberg is stuck in a position from which he cannot escape, and that he somehow deserves sympathy? Sorry, but no. He lives in a free country. He could walk away this minute if he wanted to. He could even spin it as a good thing, i.e. "My work is done and I'm leaving the company in more capable hands". Zuckerberg is in charge because he wants up be. There's a reason he negotiated his shares to have much higher voting power than common shares. He wanted control of his company, he still does, and he is responsible for everything it does.

j4yav 6y ago

I haven't been following closely, but isn't this the opposite positions of four years ago?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The positions of the politicians are the same, but Facebook and Twitter have invested in a lot more information shaping efforts than they had 4 years ago.
crusso 6y ago
The Left and the Right used to agree that freedom of speech was fairly sacrosanct.
- elicash 6y ago
  What's funny about this comment is you can read it as claiming either side doesn't value free speech. One side says the right wants to use force of government threaten breaking up companies whose speech policies they disagree with. The other side arguing that left-wing social media companies have so much power they can essentially censor opposing views. Edit: clarity
  - crusso 6y ago
    If you watch the hearings, you'd know that both of your contentions are strawmen of what each side claims to want.
    - elicash 6y ago
      I just edited for clarity, so maybe that helps? My entire point is that you were using such a vague straw man that it's impossible to know which direction you meant it. That's why I intentionally showed how it can be a straw man in either direction. Also, I've been watching the hearing. So you're correct, I suppose -- that's how I was able to accurately summarize. I'm assuming from comment history that you have a libertarian bent, so I'd imagine you're on this side of government staying the hell out of regulating social media companies? But who knows? That's my point.

elicash 6y ago

"Nothing happens" mostly because people disagree about things. As a result, seems like a good thing that these hearings broadcast different views on these issues so that the public can know how those views differ. Then, after knowing those views, people get to weigh in during election seasons. In this very recent election, of course, the public weighed in and likely delivered divided government, so we can expect some changes but nothing transformative. I don't think show hearings are necessarily bad. They can serve a valuable purpose, so long as they aren't the only thing being done.

Aunche 6y ago
If the Senators spent their time asking meaningful questions that don't know the answer to rather than grandstanding, they might be able to find something they can mutually agree on.
- javert 6y ago
  They are behaving based on what they are rewarded for. Almost all of these people will be re-elected. We need to break out of the GOP/Dem stranglehold if we want to change this behavior. That stranglehold is not desired by the electorate and is also not up for a vote.
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  And if footballers could just stop struggling against one another then maybe they could all agree on which direction the ball should go. There's no room for agreement here. The sides are Republicans: stop censoring us Democrats: please censor Republicans even more
  - dang 6y ago
    Could you please not use HN for political and ideological battle? You've posted dozens of such comments already. We ban that kind of account because doing that destroys the curious conversation that the site is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of HN to heart, we'd appreciate it. Edit: actually you've broken the site guidelines so repeatedly and so badly already that I think we need to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

computerphage 6y ago

Democrats aren't going to mention election interference right now, but otherwise I think your gist is spot on.

snarf21 6y ago

The greatest trick social ever played was convincing everyone their neighbor is the enemy while the rich and powerful silently rape this country.

javert 6y ago
It's hard to think of rich people who are doing more harm than good. Sure, you could argue that for Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the Sackler family if you want to. But they are a tiny fraction of all rich people. "Silently rape" is a pretty harsh thing to say. Would you prefer we had no rich people? There are places like that.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  Really? You have a hard time thinking of rich people doing more harm than good? Do you recall the decades where the truth about tobacco was actively suppressed? How fossil fuel companies are doing the same thing right now about Global Warming? Or the dismantling of regulatory agencies like the EPA by the Trump admin? Or the various billionaires that fund "think tanks" to conduct "research" favorable to their economic positions? Or people like Rupert Murdoch using their billions to spread divisive propaganda at a loss over their media empire?
  - hallway_monitor 6y ago
    It seems less productive to focus on "rich people" and instead focus on "large corporations", because all of these actions are done in the name of the corporation. An adjustment to corporate law to put the responsibility for actions of corporations on to C-level execs could have positive effects for example.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      It is done in the name of corporations by rich people to protect the wealth of rich people. Not really sure why we are trying to speak in euphemisms.
6y ago

jb775 6y ago

Was just thinking the same thing. These things are such a joke and nothing comes out of them. And I love how they are afforded the right to answer these questions from the comfort of their homes. Make them go to DC!

pqoek 6y ago

I haven't watched this one, but I watched the previous ones (how many times will these guys have to testify really?) and there was more questions than answers. Most of the times the questioners wouldn't even let the testifiers answer the questions, it was just a show.

jonsno56 6y ago

Lol this feels like Groundhog Day

furyofantares 6y ago

It's not your fault that this is the top comment in the thread at this time, but I find it somewhat ironic that I watched the testimony on disinformation -- and it didn't go too much like this comment suggested it would -- and then came here to find the top post is dismissive, incorrect speculation about the content.

an_opabinia 6y ago
What counts as misinformation: generalization? Omission? There might be a partisan-associated divide among these forms of lying, but I don’t want to risk generalizing about Republicans and Democrats nor omitting that I didn’t watch the testimony either. The real takeaway is they should disseminate the transcriptions not the videos. One thing I feel comfortable generalizing about is, everyone should fucking read more.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  At some point, I don't even think some of that nuance matters anymore. Spin is out the window. Straight up lying with easily disprovable claims is in. Anyway, I dont think the speculation is off the mark, since every previous session was pretty much just like what user said. Also, judging from this feed I'm reading, its not even far off.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Just watch it. @furyofantares is pretty much spot on here.
kordlessagain 6y ago
Let's not forget that Jack's beard looks straight out of Lord of the Rings.
- eplanit 6y ago
  But that would insult Lord of the Rings. His beard and nose ring, with his smug manner, combined with the alien-looking Zuckerberg and his style, should provoke everyone's primal instincts to avoid anything these guys have built.