9 ms·

I strongly recommend you give this your time and attention. Two things I find striking and admirable about her testimony, that absolutely make it worth watchin

I strongly recommend you give this your time and attention. Two things I find striking and admirable about her testimony, that absolutely make it worth watching even if you are already familiar with the controversy: 1. She is consistent and focused at explaining the issue as a systemic problem with incentives, not a question of good people versus evil people. 2. She is skillfully demonstrating how to deliver strong criticism without scorn but rather with empathy, compassion, and a spirit of collaboration toward all involved. These qualities are what really set this apart from other criticism of social media, and both are incredibly important and healthy in a world where Facebook and Twitter have normalized the opposite. And as a result, to my astonishment, both Republicans and Democrats are engaging with this more intelligently, patiently, and constructively than I have ever seen. It really has to be seen to be believed.

adventured 5y ago
It is an impressive performance on her part. She successfully navigated several primitive attempts by senators to frame the intent of people at Facebook as malevolent. A typical politician move to try to create a fictionalized supervillain to attack - a vapid rhetoric path. She dodged that multiple times and directed the conversation back to the substantive issues of privacy, algorithms, content.
- taurath 5y ago
  These folks are ooold. They don’t understand anything other than black and white because they’re just told it’s an issue. Average age of a senator is 63 years old.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
asabjorn 5y ago
It is significant that she is advocating for censorship of "hate speech". Considering that she donated to "critical social justice" activists [1], the increased centralized censorship she asks for is most likely another step to censor dissenters to critical social justice. This is neither measured nor moderate. Facebook already apply heavy censorship in a way that is arguably driving a lot of suspicion and division. Their content "supreme court" is currently largely staffed with establishment democrats [3]. "Hate speech" [2] as defined by critical social justice adherents could refer to anything that doesn’t proceed from a critical consciousness, i.e., that which accords with critical theories, especially those for “Social Justice,” possibly including microaggressions. That the GOP and DNC establishment are in alignment to censor dissenter in both ranks is not surprising. That being "Bernie bros", "Yang gang", "Trumpians", or any other flank. [1] https://thenationalpulse.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-donated-36-times-to-democrats-including-to-anti-primary-extremists-and-aoc/ https://thenationalpulse.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-don... [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-hate-speech/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-hate-speech/ [3] https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/facebook-supreme-court-packed-with-anti-trump-progressive-figures/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/facebook-supreme-c...
- Minor49er 5y ago
  These activists and programs work to serve the interests of people who identify as trans. Haugen is a transwoman, so is that really surprising?
  - jmcgough 5y ago
    Haugen is not transgender, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    For all I know Haugen is not trans. But even if she was that doesn't preclude her from not being a critical social justice (CRT) activist, so that is not the most significant fact. What she is aiming for by censorship of "hate speech" is CRT defined "inclusion" [1]. This means to not tolerate any speech (including symbolic displays or representation) that offends, might offend, or could be construed as being potentially offensive to any member of any marginalized group. Members of putatively marginalized groups [2] who do not claim to experience or suffer from the oppression critical social justice activists assign to them are dismissed as inauthentic. So in the end inclusion by censoring "hate speech" is a tool to ensure censorship of any opposing viewpoint. [1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/ [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-marginalization/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-marginalization/
comfysocks 5y ago
At work, we're trained to examine the _whole_ trade space with no forgone conclusions. To make trade studies rationally, not emotionally. To consider the needs of all relevant stake holders, not just your favorite cohort. Imagine if political discourse could be like that.
- taurath 5y ago
  In a way political discourse is like that, but the problem is everyone pretends that the parties who are stake holders and their relative positions of importance are vastly skewed. Like the need for politicians to be re-elected, the need to keep their donors happy, the need to do something media worthy to get more donors, and also all the business interests threatening to pull donations if the politicians don’t do what they want. Ultimately that’s why I’m so for both term limits and monetary election reform. We can’t have yearlong elections for house terms that only last 2 years.
bobthechef 5y ago
Discussion is generally favorable over war, as long as the truth isn’t being sacrificed for the sake of avoiding accusations. To say that Facebook hasn’t been engaged in bad behavior is, I think, a bit of a stretch though. “Systemic” can be used in the same way that bureaucracies do to avoid responsibility: no one is responsible for the actual state of affairs personally, at least that’s the claim. But ol’ Zuck has been aware of many problems, grilled over them, etc, etc, so we’re not dealing with innocent people here if there is any guilt here. I am not making accusations, but if I were feeling the heat, I might go into damage control and maybe “allow” a sympathetic whistleblower to steer change in a way that softens the outcome.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't think the content was impressive at all to be honest. The solution she proposes that former tech employees form a government body creates a very obvious conflict of interest and I dread that it doesn't get more criticism. This praise is neither objective nor factual, there aren't any leaked documents yet. She proposes solutions in favor of government. This should raise a lot of red flags.

adventured 5y ago

It is an impressive performance on her part. She successfully navigated several primitive attempts by senators to frame the intent of people at Facebook as malevolent. A typical politician move to try to create a fictionalized supervillain to attack - a vapid rhetoric path. She dodged that multiple times and directed the conversation back to the substantive issues of privacy, algorithms, content.

taurath 5y ago
These folks are ooold. They don’t understand anything other than black and white because they’re just told it’s an issue. Average age of a senator is 63 years old.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

asabjorn 5y ago

It is significant that she is advocating for censorship of "hate speech". Considering that she donated to "critical social justice" activists [1], the increased centralized censorship she asks for is most likely another step to censor dissenters to critical social justice. This is neither measured nor moderate. Facebook already apply heavy censorship in a way that is arguably driving a lot of suspicion and division. Their content "supreme court" is currently largely staffed with establishment democrats [3]. "Hate speech" [2] as defined by critical social justice adherents could refer to anything that doesn’t proceed from a critical consciousness, i.e., that which accords with critical theories, especially those for “Social Justice,” possibly including microaggressions. That the GOP and DNC establishment are in alignment to censor dissenter in both ranks is not surprising. That being "Bernie bros", "Yang gang", "Trumpians", or any other flank. [1] https://thenationalpulse.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-donated-36-times-to-democrats-including-to-anti-primary-extremists-and-aoc/ https://thenationalpulse.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-don... [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-hate-speech/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-hate-speech/ [3] https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/facebook-supreme-court-packed-with-anti-trump-progressive-figures/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/facebook-supreme-c...

Minor49er 5y ago
These activists and programs work to serve the interests of people who identify as trans. Haugen is a transwoman, so is that really surprising?
- jmcgough 5y ago
  Haugen is not transgender, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  For all I know Haugen is not trans. But even if she was that doesn't preclude her from not being a critical social justice (CRT) activist, so that is not the most significant fact. What she is aiming for by censorship of "hate speech" is CRT defined "inclusion" [1]. This means to not tolerate any speech (including symbolic displays or representation) that offends, might offend, or could be construed as being potentially offensive to any member of any marginalized group. Members of putatively marginalized groups [2] who do not claim to experience or suffer from the oppression critical social justice activists assign to them are dismissed as inauthentic. So in the end inclusion by censoring "hate speech" is a tool to ensure censorship of any opposing viewpoint. [1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/ [2] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-marginalization/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-marginalization/

comfysocks 5y ago

At work, we're trained to examine the _whole_ trade space with no forgone conclusions. To make trade studies rationally, not emotionally. To consider the needs of all relevant stake holders, not just your favorite cohort. Imagine if political discourse could be like that.

taurath 5y ago
In a way political discourse is like that, but the problem is everyone pretends that the parties who are stake holders and their relative positions of importance are vastly skewed. Like the need for politicians to be re-elected, the need to keep their donors happy, the need to do something media worthy to get more donors, and also all the business interests threatening to pull donations if the politicians don’t do what they want. Ultimately that’s why I’m so for both term limits and monetary election reform. We can’t have yearlong elections for house terms that only last 2 years.

bobthechef 5y ago

Discussion is generally favorable over war, as long as the truth isn’t being sacrificed for the sake of avoiding accusations. To say that Facebook hasn’t been engaged in bad behavior is, I think, a bit of a stretch though. “Systemic” can be used in the same way that bureaucracies do to avoid responsibility: no one is responsible for the actual state of affairs personally, at least that’s the claim. But ol’ Zuck has been aware of many problems, grilled over them, etc, etc, so we’re not dealing with innocent people here if there is any guilt here. I am not making accusations, but if I were feeling the heat, I might go into damage control and maybe “allow” a sympathetic whistleblower to steer change in a way that softens the outcome.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I don't think the content was impressive at all to be honest. The solution she proposes that former tech employees form a government body creates a very obvious conflict of interest and I dread that it doesn't get more criticism. This praise is neither objective nor factual, there aren't any leaked documents yet. She proposes solutions in favor of government. This should raise a lot of red flags.