7 ms·

I found interesting how during the podcast, Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. A snippet from the podcast (w

I found interesting how during the podcast, Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. A snippet from the podcast (with minor edits, starting from 7:25 of this video clip [1]): > Joe Rogan: is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story? > [...] > Zuckerberg: yeah yeah I mean it sucks because I mean it turned out after the fact...I mean the fact directors looked into it no one was able to say it was false right. So basically it had this period where it was getting less distribution > it sucks though I think in the same way that probably having to go through like a criminal trial but being proven innocent in the end sucks. Like it still sucks that you had to go through a criminal trial but at the end you're free > I don't know if the answer would have been don't do anything or don't have any process. I think the process was pretty reasonable you know. We still let people share it. But obviously you don't want situations like that [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ

oldgradstudent 4y ago
> Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.
- stuaxo 4y ago
  Yep, a person who is known for distributing misinformation and Zuckerberg who's platform does that on a huge scale.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court. You’re stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? Facts can’t be put on “criminal trial” or got to jail - the metaphor Zuckerberg used is terrible.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    > Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court. That's far better than the media censoring stories upon the suggestion of the secret police. > You're stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? Not really, I'm pointing out that Zuckerberg's comparison to a trial was disingenuous. > How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? What about the claim that this story was Russian disinformation? Did Facebook or Twitter make any attempt to stop amplifying it? Did Facebook and Twitter censor stories about Trump's pee tape? There were plenty of obviously false stories about Trump. Nobody cares about "amplifying false claims". It's a political weapon. The involvement of the FBI makes it even worse. Regardless of your politics, this is a terrible precedent.
    - andy_ppp 4y ago
      A list of random points on the matter: 1) the FBI are nothing like the secret police 2) I can understand an over correction this time is likely because they affected the result in 2016. 3) Facebook makes thousands of these judgements per day mostly automated otherwise their platforms would be cesspits 4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it 5) Hunter Biden isn’t a part of the election and really stories whipped up about him probably shouldn’t be amplified while an election is on I won’t be responding to this stuff anymore, I’ve said my bit. It’s getting far too political for round here anyway.
      - oldgradstudent 4y ago
        > 4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it Of course it is difficult without the power to compel discovery and depositions. I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though. For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion, or the claims that Hunter Biden story being Russian disinformation.
- johnywalks 4y ago
  > In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's be honest, it rarely works that way. However i agree, what facebook did here is "shoot fist, ask for forgiveness later".
- mrits 4y ago
  In a lot of cases the trial is worse punishment than the actual sentence.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    At least there's a trial in an adversarial system. Twitter and Facebook just censored until the end of the elections on the suggestion of the secret police.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  If you’re being tried for a crime, you can still be kept in jail, or otherwise restricted by bail conditions. And even if parts of the state may consider you innocent until proven guilty, having been indicted can be terrible for your employment either in the present (if being trialled means you can’t show up for work) or in the future (if, after background checks, employers wouldn’t like to risk touching you). So while it id true that there is an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ rule, the actual consequences of being indicted are not the consequences one would expect for someone who is actually assumed to be innocent. I think your comment is not a helpful way to discuss a nuanced topic.
  - oldgradstudent 4y ago
    At least the judicial system is adversarial, and the trial goes on before a jury, and you can present evidence, and cross examine your accusers. When a handful of social media companies decide to block a story, there's no one to turn to. They're judge, jury, and executioner.
- someguydave 4y ago
  > uncorroborated claims were enough ah but they were uncorroborated secret claims by a secret policeman acting under “politically neutral” state authority When someone is accused under the law “due process” means that the government has to explain what the charge is and provide evidence in public court. The secrecy is the key and the biggest concerning factor.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  Zuckerberg doesn't even understand the American judicial system
andy_ppp 4y ago
What he’s saying is extremely muddled, I think he’s just ham fisted-ly trying to say “the truth got out there eventually” rather than “our process was as good as a criminal trial and whatever the FBI says constitutes absolute truth until it’s disproven”. I’m really not sure what Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky for them.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  What truth got out? This still seems like an enormous effort to prove that Hunter Biden is a dirtbag, which was already proven for years. Like didn't he sleep with his brother's widow and stuff like that? Obviously they want to use the sins of the son to tarnish the father, but if there was actual proof of some sort of wrong-doing, it'd still be the number one story on Fox News every day. So really you just get to complain that Facebook and Twitter didn't run it the way you wanted them to. And sure you can complain about that, but it seems pretty disingenuous to then claim that you believe in free speech if you're also trying to compel private companies to carry whatever story you prefer.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    If this was a scandal involving one of the Trump children most of the media would be having a fit the FBI got involved like this… anyway I have literally no opinion on what the FBI (after affecting the election last time) or Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky to decide what is best.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      I have no idea what a scandal involving the Trump children would even mean either. Didn't Jared Kushner (who actually served in the White House) just get $2 billion from Saudi Arabia? And that was cool? So how many billions should Hunter get? And why should I care what the media (whoever that is) has a fit over?
      - andy_ppp 4y ago
itronitron 4y ago
What did you find interesting about that?
- beeboop 4y ago
  That Mark apparently thinks it's his prerogative to control media narratives until he comes to his own conclusion on what the "truth" is
  - itronitron 4y ago
    well, that is how they make their money

oldgradstudent 4y ago

> Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.

stuaxo 4y ago
Yep, a person who is known for distributing misinformation and Zuckerberg who's platform does that on a huge scale.
andy_ppp 4y ago
Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court. You’re stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? Facts can’t be put on “criminal trial” or got to jail - the metaphor Zuckerberg used is terrible.
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  > Not really, in the justice system you are put on trial on social media first and everyone believes what they want to believe rather than the decision of a court. That's far better than the media censoring stories upon the suggestion of the secret police. > You're stating that fact validation should have the same level of scrutiny as a criminal trial except instantly? Not really, I'm pointing out that Zuckerberg's comparison to a trial was disingenuous. > How do you stop false claims from being amplified without being cautious immediately? What about the claim that this story was Russian disinformation? Did Facebook or Twitter make any attempt to stop amplifying it? Did Facebook and Twitter censor stories about Trump's pee tape? There were plenty of obviously false stories about Trump. Nobody cares about "amplifying false claims". It's a political weapon. The involvement of the FBI makes it even worse. Regardless of your politics, this is a terrible precedent.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    A list of random points on the matter: 1) the FBI are nothing like the secret police 2) I can understand an over correction this time is likely because they affected the result in 2016. 3) Facebook makes thousands of these judgements per day mostly automated otherwise their platforms would be cesspits 4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it 5) Hunter Biden isn’t a part of the election and really stories whipped up about him probably shouldn’t be amplified while an election is on I won’t be responding to this stuff anymore, I’ve said my bit. It’s getting far too political for round here anyway.
    - oldgradstudent 4y ago
      > 4) your idea that this is politically motivated is not proven, it’s a conspiracy theory and one I don’t even know how you’d prove it Of course it is difficult without the power to compel discovery and depositions. I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though. For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion, or the claims that Hunter Biden story being Russian disinformation.
johnywalks 4y ago
> In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's be honest, it rarely works that way. However i agree, what facebook did here is "shoot fist, ask for forgiveness later".
mrits 4y ago
In a lot of cases the trial is worse punishment than the actual sentence.
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  At least there's a trial in an adversarial system. Twitter and Facebook just censored until the end of the elections on the suggestion of the secret police.
dan-robertson 4y ago
If you’re being tried for a crime, you can still be kept in jail, or otherwise restricted by bail conditions. And even if parts of the state may consider you innocent until proven guilty, having been indicted can be terrible for your employment either in the present (if being trialled means you can’t show up for work) or in the future (if, after background checks, employers wouldn’t like to risk touching you). So while it id true that there is an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ rule, the actual consequences of being indicted are not the consequences one would expect for someone who is actually assumed to be innocent. I think your comment is not a helpful way to discuss a nuanced topic.
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  At least the judicial system is adversarial, and the trial goes on before a jury, and you can present evidence, and cross examine your accusers. When a handful of social media companies decide to block a story, there's no one to turn to. They're judge, jury, and executioner.
someguydave 4y ago
> uncorroborated claims were enough ah but they were uncorroborated secret claims by a secret policeman acting under “politically neutral” state authority When someone is accused under the law “due process” means that the government has to explain what the charge is and provide evidence in public court. The secrecy is the key and the biggest concerning factor.
throwoutway 4y ago
Zuckerberg doesn't even understand the American judicial system

andy_ppp 4y ago

What he’s saying is extremely muddled, I think he’s just ham fisted-ly trying to say “the truth got out there eventually” rather than “our process was as good as a criminal trial and whatever the FBI says constitutes absolute truth until it’s disproven”. I’m really not sure what Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky for them.

hotpotamus 4y ago
What truth got out? This still seems like an enormous effort to prove that Hunter Biden is a dirtbag, which was already proven for years. Like didn't he sleep with his brother's widow and stuff like that? Obviously they want to use the sins of the son to tarnish the father, but if there was actual proof of some sort of wrong-doing, it'd still be the number one story on Fox News every day. So really you just get to complain that Facebook and Twitter didn't run it the way you wanted them to. And sure you can complain about that, but it seems pretty disingenuous to then claim that you believe in free speech if you're also trying to compel private companies to carry whatever story you prefer.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  If this was a scandal involving one of the Trump children most of the media would be having a fit the FBI got involved like this… anyway I have literally no opinion on what the FBI (after affecting the election last time) or Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky to decide what is best.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    I have no idea what a scandal involving the Trump children would even mean either. Didn't Jared Kushner (who actually served in the White House) just get $2 billion from Saudi Arabia? And that was cool? So how many billions should Hunter get? And why should I care what the media (whoever that is) has a fit over?
    - andy_ppp 4y ago

itronitron 4y ago

What did you find interesting about that?

beeboop 4y ago
That Mark apparently thinks it's his prerogative to control media narratives until he comes to his own conclusion on what the "truth" is
- itronitron 4y ago
  well, that is how they make their money