7 ms·

'You have blood on your hands', US senator tells Zuckerberg [video]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gtvwill 3y ago
Imagine being able to keep your entire product suite safe for kids by just forcing your users to prove via id who they are and enforcing an actual age limit. Honestly the companies and their board members need jail. Simple fix to all the illegal material and actions performed on ya platform. ID the people who do it by forcing ID verification at signup. You want anon wild west esque communication? Cool go to 4chan. Stop allowing the largest social media platforms to have it. All it does is promote criminal activities and puts my kids at risk.
- vdaea 3y ago
  Your kids are at risk because you refuse to do some parenting. Instead of asking for authoritarian, privacy-invasive laws, do some parenting.
  - out-of-ideas 3y ago
    agreed; and added a little education will go a long way. online is a service provided by the parents; parents should probably know what the kids are doing online; though a kid will do whatever pleases them anyways - so thats where more education should help not to downplay/say that FB/"social media" is innocent here, as their products are meant to be addicting (what was the experiment with FB and having intentional phone-app-crashes to see how fast folks bounce back into the app?) EDIT: clarification (too many thoughts; this is a big philosophy rabbit hole with many tangets to other things - one could spiral into sugar here too lol) what would fred rogers do?
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I'd rather not show id to visit web pages. It puts my kids at risk.
- cherryteastain 3y ago
  What a silly notion. Criminals use fake/stolen IDs all the time. This'd only serve to make surveillance worse for normal people, while criminals would be undeterred.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  There are so many issues when it comes to ID verification to access online services: - How do we check this information is accurate? It could be a fake ID, photoshopped, or just a friend's ID. - What system is in place to verify it is correct? As every US state uses different ID systems, would online platforms need 50 different ID systems to verify them? - What about people who don't have an ID? - What about other countries with different regulations or just don't have a national ID at all? America, Australia, the UK, Canada, Denmark, Japan, India, etc all don't use national IDs. - Where is this information stored? If, like you say, Meta is responsible for IDing those posting illegal material to their platform, then Meta will need to keep the ID information on file. What happens if they are hacked? Does that mean that now my name, height, weight, eye color, address, organ donor status, etc are now available to anyone with 15 minutes of free time and an onion browser? I can't imagine any company's legal team would ever allow that information to be stored on company servers. Their heart (and yours) are in the right place, but this is not the way to do it. This puts everyone at risk of very damaging consequences from one well-executed attack. And will most likely never be able to be implemented properly across the US, let alone worldwide.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    You're missing the big one: How do you prevent it from being used for tracking? You'd be forcing every website to collect the thing that allows them to correlate all of your activity across websites. They already try to do this. Individuals can mitigate it by using browsers that try to resist fingerprinting or using separate devices for different activities. Now the government wants to de facto prohibit users from protecting themselves against that?
morphicpro 3y ago
This coming from a man who "defends Trump's claims of immunity and election fraud" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1A2Cy2Nao&ab_channel=MSNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1A2Cy2Nao&ab_channel=MSNBC That's how bad you fucked up zuck, thats how bad. Honestly both of these clowns can eat turds.
tracerbulletx 3y ago
Cool, I guess so does the postal service and the highway system, and basically any system anyone uses while committing a crime. This narrative is such BS.
_chu1 3y ago
What disturbs me is these people are all angry with a complete lack of an outlook or any attempt to discover the root of the problem and create a solution. The reason young people have been detrimented by social media is because of multiple different fundemental issues. 1. Most kids and teenagers have unmonitored access to the Internet 2. Parents don't see the harm in any of this because it gets them to shut up 3. Maybe it's because of where I'm from (Alabama) but most kids come from bad home lives and mostly cope with it negatively 4. The age of not having to be somewhat technologically adequate to use the Internet since it's now behind flashy colorful locked down bricks has only made technology and society worse, but this is just my personal opinion 5. The algorithms of these platforms are engineered to promote this horrid content due to the boosts in user engagement and therefore ad-revenue, and almost all humanity and sympathy is completely lost in publicly traded companies owned by shareholders that care about nothing Attaching ID confirmation to use TikTok or Youtube or whatever is a duct-tape fix when parents will just scan their ID so their kids will shut up. ID confirmation to use online social networks is in my honest opinion a major violation of freedom in exchange for a little bit of security (remember what Ben Franklin said?). The Internet is the place where you throw vile insults at someone 8 states away on a multiplayer game, buy those weird books you like and get a second perspective on the dumb exhaust mod you're doing on your car, we don't need to know who you are. For additional context, I'm 15 nearing 16, so maybe I'm just spiteful out of angst.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Legislators cannot fix parenting, but they can enforce controls and governance on social media platforms to govern to the mean. Duct tape fixes work when more aspirational fixes are unattainable. To the dismay of many, duct tape holds the world together. It can be true that politicians are out of touch and all we're left with are suboptimal solutions to complex problems at scale. > For additional context, I'm 15 nearing 16, so maybe I'm just spiteful out of angst. Early 40s with two kids under 10 here. Welcome to the shit show.
  - _chu1 3y ago
    I came to the conclusion the world is held together with painters tape when I learned there are companies hiring people to mantain OS/2 Warp systems today.
grounder 3y ago
Another hypocritical statement from this guy
zip1234 3y ago
Political grandstanding--Graham compares guns to social media, except somehow skips over the idea that guns are actually designed to kill. How many people are killed from social media use?
- numpad0 3y ago
  Are social media not intended to kill people?
- _chu1 3y ago
  Guns are what made this country and I personally take pride in them. They are tools and aren't just made "to kill".
  - krapp 3y ago
    In what capacity did guns "make this country" other than their capacity for violence? If guns weren't designed with that intent in mind, why does an entire Constitutional Amendment exist to preserve them? Why guns, since guns are merely a tool, and no other tool? Also, if guns are simply tools, why do you personally take pride in them? Do you also personally take pride in hammers, or can openers?
  - replwoacause 3y ago
    Guns most certainly did not "make this country".
CoastalCoder 3y ago
There's a wonderful scene [0] in the anime show Gate, where a character turns the tables on a grandstanding member of the Japanese Diet. Sometimes I fantasize about witnesses doing that during these Congressional theater productions. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43RZdzDt2II&ab_channel=SeiraJ.Loyard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43RZdzDt2II&ab_channel=Seira...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
303uru 3y ago
>compares guns to social media, forces a public apology I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE for the GOP to force a gun manufacturer to turn around and apologize, it will never happen. Ever. The "evidence" that social media is killing kids is far from causual. I feel confident there's a link, but that's feelings. I also can't help but feel there's a lot of scapegoating social media for the struggles of a generation that's facing a lot of headwinds. Educational infrastructure is crumbling, the generational wealth gap is growing, if you talk to kids you hear very real concerns about climate change, etc... Pinning all of this on social media is like saying sour patch kids is the root cause of diabetes.
drewcoo 3y ago
I loathe Zuck, but warhawk Lindsey Graham telling him "he has blood on his hands?" That's beyond the pale.
notfed 3y ago
For those out of the loop like I was: some senators want to repeal Section 230 (which gives immunity to online platforms from being held liable for content posted by users) and, as seen here, have been trying out the "unhinged 'think of the children' emotional appeal using social media CEOs as strawmen" approach. A fine approach. What's missing though, is their motive. Why do they want to repeal Section 230? [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Imagine being able to keep your entire product suite safe for kids by just forcing your users to prove via id who they are and enforcing an actual age limit. Honestly the companies and their board members need jail. Simple fix to all the illegal material and actions performed on ya platform. ID the people who do it by forcing ID verification at signup. You want anon wild west esque communication? Cool go to 4chan. Stop allowing the largest social media platforms to have it. All it does is promote criminal activities and puts my kids at risk.

vdaea 3y ago
Your kids are at risk because you refuse to do some parenting. Instead of asking for authoritarian, privacy-invasive laws, do some parenting.
- out-of-ideas 3y ago
  agreed; and added a little education will go a long way. online is a service provided by the parents; parents should probably know what the kids are doing online; though a kid will do whatever pleases them anyways - so thats where more education should help not to downplay/say that FB/"social media" is innocent here, as their products are meant to be addicting (what was the experiment with FB and having intentional phone-app-crashes to see how fast folks bounce back into the app?) EDIT: clarification (too many thoughts; this is a big philosophy rabbit hole with many tangets to other things - one could spiral into sugar here too lol) what would fred rogers do?
rightbyte 3y ago
I'd rather not show id to visit web pages. It puts my kids at risk.
cherryteastain 3y ago
What a silly notion. Criminals use fake/stolen IDs all the time. This'd only serve to make surveillance worse for normal people, while criminals would be undeterred.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
There are so many issues when it comes to ID verification to access online services: - How do we check this information is accurate? It could be a fake ID, photoshopped, or just a friend's ID. - What system is in place to verify it is correct? As every US state uses different ID systems, would online platforms need 50 different ID systems to verify them? - What about people who don't have an ID? - What about other countries with different regulations or just don't have a national ID at all? America, Australia, the UK, Canada, Denmark, Japan, India, etc all don't use national IDs. - Where is this information stored? If, like you say, Meta is responsible for IDing those posting illegal material to their platform, then Meta will need to keep the ID information on file. What happens if they are hacked? Does that mean that now my name, height, weight, eye color, address, organ donor status, etc are now available to anyone with 15 minutes of free time and an onion browser? I can't imagine any company's legal team would ever allow that information to be stored on company servers. Their heart (and yours) are in the right place, but this is not the way to do it. This puts everyone at risk of very damaging consequences from one well-executed attack. And will most likely never be able to be implemented properly across the US, let alone worldwide.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  You're missing the big one: How do you prevent it from being used for tracking? You'd be forcing every website to collect the thing that allows them to correlate all of your activity across websites. They already try to do this. Individuals can mitigate it by using browsers that try to resist fingerprinting or using separate devices for different activities. Now the government wants to de facto prohibit users from protecting themselves against that?

morphicpro 3y ago

This coming from a man who "defends Trump's claims of immunity and election fraud" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1A2Cy2Nao&ab_channel=MSNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1A2Cy2Nao&ab_channel=MSNBC That's how bad you fucked up zuck, thats how bad. Honestly both of these clowns can eat turds.

tracerbulletx 3y ago

Cool, I guess so does the postal service and the highway system, and basically any system anyone uses while committing a crime. This narrative is such BS.

_chu1 3y ago

What disturbs me is these people are all angry with a complete lack of an outlook or any attempt to discover the root of the problem and create a solution. The reason young people have been detrimented by social media is because of multiple different fundemental issues. 1. Most kids and teenagers have unmonitored access to the Internet 2. Parents don't see the harm in any of this because it gets them to shut up 3. Maybe it's because of where I'm from (Alabama) but most kids come from bad home lives and mostly cope with it negatively 4. The age of not having to be somewhat technologically adequate to use the Internet since it's now behind flashy colorful locked down bricks has only made technology and society worse, but this is just my personal opinion 5. The algorithms of these platforms are engineered to promote this horrid content due to the boosts in user engagement and therefore ad-revenue, and almost all humanity and sympathy is completely lost in publicly traded companies owned by shareholders that care about nothing Attaching ID confirmation to use TikTok or Youtube or whatever is a duct-tape fix when parents will just scan their ID so their kids will shut up. ID confirmation to use online social networks is in my honest opinion a major violation of freedom in exchange for a little bit of security (remember what Ben Franklin said?). The Internet is the place where you throw vile insults at someone 8 states away on a multiplayer game, buy those weird books you like and get a second perspective on the dumb exhaust mod you're doing on your car, we don't need to know who you are. For additional context, I'm 15 nearing 16, so maybe I'm just spiteful out of angst.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Legislators cannot fix parenting, but they can enforce controls and governance on social media platforms to govern to the mean. Duct tape fixes work when more aspirational fixes are unattainable. To the dismay of many, duct tape holds the world together. It can be true that politicians are out of touch and all we're left with are suboptimal solutions to complex problems at scale. > For additional context, I'm 15 nearing 16, so maybe I'm just spiteful out of angst. Early 40s with two kids under 10 here. Welcome to the shit show.
- _chu1 3y ago
  I came to the conclusion the world is held together with painters tape when I learned there are companies hiring people to mantain OS/2 Warp systems today.

grounder 3y ago

Another hypocritical statement from this guy

zip1234 3y ago

Political grandstanding--Graham compares guns to social media, except somehow skips over the idea that guns are actually designed to kill. How many people are killed from social media use?

numpad0 3y ago
Are social media not intended to kill people?
_chu1 3y ago
Guns are what made this country and I personally take pride in them. They are tools and aren't just made "to kill".
- krapp 3y ago
  In what capacity did guns "make this country" other than their capacity for violence? If guns weren't designed with that intent in mind, why does an entire Constitutional Amendment exist to preserve them? Why guns, since guns are merely a tool, and no other tool? Also, if guns are simply tools, why do you personally take pride in them? Do you also personally take pride in hammers, or can openers?
- replwoacause 3y ago
  Guns most certainly did not "make this country".

CoastalCoder 3y ago

There's a wonderful scene [0] in the anime show Gate, where a character turns the tables on a grandstanding member of the Japanese Diet. Sometimes I fantasize about witnesses doing that during these Congressional theater productions. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43RZdzDt2II&ab_channel=SeiraJ.Loyard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43RZdzDt2II&ab_channel=Seira...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

303uru 3y ago

>compares guns to social media, forces a public apology I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE for the GOP to force a gun manufacturer to turn around and apologize, it will never happen. Ever. The "evidence" that social media is killing kids is far from causual. I feel confident there's a link, but that's feelings. I also can't help but feel there's a lot of scapegoating social media for the struggles of a generation that's facing a lot of headwinds. Educational infrastructure is crumbling, the generational wealth gap is growing, if you talk to kids you hear very real concerns about climate change, etc... Pinning all of this on social media is like saying sour patch kids is the root cause of diabetes.

drewcoo 3y ago

I loathe Zuck, but warhawk Lindsey Graham telling him "he has blood on his hands?" That's beyond the pale.

notfed 3y ago

For those out of the loop like I was: some senators want to repeal Section 230 (which gives immunity to online platforms from being held liable for content posted by users) and, as seen here, have been trying out the "unhinged 'think of the children' emotional appeal using social media CEOs as strawmen" approach. A fine approach. What's missing though, is their motive. Why do they want to repeal Section 230? [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230