5 ms·

> 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 r

> 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.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        > I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though. It's quite mysterious to me why anyone would believe the FBI, an organization that has never been directed by a Democrat in its entire existence, would be politically motivated to tilt the scales toward Democrats. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. > For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion The thing about a conspiracy theory is that when it is investigated, and the theory pans out, then it transitions into simply a conspiracy. The claims of Russian Collusion were investigated by Robert Mueller and the Republican-chaired Senate Select Intel Committee, and they found that: 1) Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian spy along with Don Jr. and Jared Kushner at Trump's residence. They discussed an exchange of dirt on Clinton for relaxed Russian relations -- which both materialized. When this meeting was discovered they tried to cover it up, and lied about what they talked about. 2) Trump's campaign manager exchanged internal campaign data with a Russian GRU officer, which helped them target US voters in their psyops campaign. 3) The Russian GRU was responsive to Trump's public invitation to hack Hillary Clinton, and the GRU did hack the DNC. Trump loudly trumpeted those hacked materials during the campaign. Roger Stone, through a backchannel to Assange, had advance notice of the hacked materials and lied about his knowledge to Congress and the FBI, for which he was prosecuted, convicted, and later pardoned by Trump. 4) Trump himself claimed neither he nor his campaign had any contacts with Russians, and no business in Russia whatsoever. In fact, the investigation revealed that during the campaign, Trump was working on a Trump Tower Moscow deal with a penthouse dedicated to Vladimir Putin. 5) In fact, Trump's campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russians and lied about them all, including Jeff Session the attorney general who lied under oath to Congress about his contacts. 6) And finally, Trump obstructed the investigation, and lied about obstructing it. Then his hand-picked attorney general Bill Barr put his finger on the scale in the decision to indict Trump based on that obstruction. Barr subsequently lied about doing so to the public and in court filings. The evidence proving that element was unsealed just last week. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read the Mueller Report, Senate Intel Report, the Roger Stone court documents, and the recently released OLC memo. I don't know what you want to call the Trump Campaign working directly with a Russian GRU officer, but that sounds a lot like collusion to me. As far as the whole thing being a "hoax", the Durham investigation has turned up next to nothing aside from an acquittal, and has gone on longer than the Mueller investigation at this point. It's sad to me so many are clinging onto the "witch hunt" and "hoax" line at this point. In fact, we were right all along, just as we were right about Trump being a aspiring despot who was willing to hang onto power at any cost.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Weird, I thought it was a decent metaphor.
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

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.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > I think the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, though. It's quite mysterious to me why anyone would believe the FBI, an organization that has never been directed by a Democrat in its entire existence, would be politically motivated to tilt the scales toward Democrats. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. > For some reason, the term "conspiracy theory" is never applied to things which are clear conspiracy theories like the claims about Russian Collusion The thing about a conspiracy theory is that when it is investigated, and the theory pans out, then it transitions into simply a conspiracy. The claims of Russian Collusion were investigated by Robert Mueller and the Republican-chaired Senate Select Intel Committee, and they found that: 1) Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian spy along with Don Jr. and Jared Kushner at Trump's residence. They discussed an exchange of dirt on Clinton for relaxed Russian relations -- which both materialized. When this meeting was discovered they tried to cover it up, and lied about what they talked about. 2) Trump's campaign manager exchanged internal campaign data with a Russian GRU officer, which helped them target US voters in their psyops campaign. 3) The Russian GRU was responsive to Trump's public invitation to hack Hillary Clinton, and the GRU did hack the DNC. Trump loudly trumpeted those hacked materials during the campaign. Roger Stone, through a backchannel to Assange, had advance notice of the hacked materials and lied about his knowledge to Congress and the FBI, for which he was prosecuted, convicted, and later pardoned by Trump. 4) Trump himself claimed neither he nor his campaign had any contacts with Russians, and no business in Russia whatsoever. In fact, the investigation revealed that during the campaign, Trump was working on a Trump Tower Moscow deal with a penthouse dedicated to Vladimir Putin. 5) In fact, Trump's campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russians and lied about them all, including Jeff Session the attorney general who lied under oath to Congress about his contacts. 6) And finally, Trump obstructed the investigation, and lied about obstructing it. Then his hand-picked attorney general Bill Barr put his finger on the scale in the decision to indict Trump based on that obstruction. Barr subsequently lied about doing so to the public and in court filings. The evidence proving that element was unsealed just last week. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read the Mueller Report, Senate Intel Report, the Roger Stone court documents, and the recently released OLC memo. I don't know what you want to call the Trump Campaign working directly with a Russian GRU officer, but that sounds a lot like collusion to me. As far as the whole thing being a "hoax", the Durham investigation has turned up next to nothing aside from an acquittal, and has gone on longer than the Mueller investigation at this point. It's sad to me so many are clinging onto the "witch hunt" and "hoax" line at this point. In fact, we were right all along, just as we were right about Trump being a aspiring despot who was willing to hang onto power at any cost.
DangitBobby 4y ago
Weird, I thought it was a decent metaphor.

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