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.

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.

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.

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.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing 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 [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Let's take this election for example. Republican leaders and officials have jumped on the misinformation train and are now peddling unfounded claims of election and voter fraud. Twitter keeps suppressing those tweets and tagging them as fake, this in turn makes the Republicans mad because they can't spread what they see as reality.

Ignoring the fact that Republicans are the source of most of the misinformation you see online right now might make it seem like they are being censored, but in reality it's just cleaning up what can only be described as dishonest, anti-democratic and delusional lying.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Congress is full of decrepit baby boomers that don't know/don't care to know shit about technology.

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?

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.

I know this sounds like splitting hairs on message boards, but I can guarantee you that all of these people who have been called to testify have been briefed heavily by squads of lawyers.

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?

Mark never admits a single failing and remarks on how "meaningful" your interaction with his service is.

Like yeah - smoking crack is pretty meaningful when you're a crack addict.

Live, after each merge/release.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

you're describing a "deal with the devil". who do you propose is the "mafia" like entity they're dealing with that will "break their legs" if they back out of their job? Epstein blackmail maybe?

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.

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.

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.

citation?

Ha. "Agreed" only in the most superficial way. You might have caught people saying it occasionally.

If you follow civil liberties debates and the politics thereof you know there's often a gap between what politicians (or just ordinary people) say about freedom of speech and what they actually believe and do. In the US the politics of things like compelling public schoolkids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, to give a perennial example, are illustrative of this. (there are tons of examples involving obscenity laws, etc.)

I don't think it has anything substantial to do with freedom of speech issues.

Obscenity laws and flag burning are better examples.

(after reading your comment below I think I get it. It's one of the infringements of freedom of speech that you're willing to tolerate because it's merely "creepy?" If so, that's illustrative of the larger point I was trying to make about people treating freedom of speech hypocritically.)

It doesn't mention "creepy", and says something quite different from what you got from it.

You're welcome to entertain an eccentric definition of "freedom of speech" that doesn't include one of the major freedom of speech issues of our time. It's just very odd.

That's probably all the progress we'll make here :)

Occasionally being compelled to say something is also bad, but a separate issue to me.

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

The other side is saying not to actively invite violence. I'm pretty sure those are not equivalent positions.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/trump-advisor-te...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514

[3] https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-...

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.

The Democrats want more effort made by social media companies to fight what they perceive as online misinformation... and are asking for more suppression of speech on social media platforms.

Nobody is hiding the ball here. These are direct statements made in the opening remarks by the leadership of both parties.

No, my statement was not ambiguous - unless you haven't listened to what is being said by the mainstream representatives of both parties.

My view is that these companies are privately run and online communities should be free to run them as they wish. If, say, Christian Mingle wants to ban atheists from using the platform to spread their message, they should be allowed to do that without suddenly taking on liability for things like copyright infringement. If a woodworking community wants to ban discussion of politics, they should be allowed to do that without retribution. If a dating website wants to ban people who say gross things in a first message, there's nothing wrong with allowing them to exist and compete in the marketplace.

If I, as a user of social media, want to belong to a community that removes misinformation around the election, government shouldn't ban such a platform from allowing to exist (since without 230, that'd essentially be impossible). Companies should compete on an equal footing and shouldn't be penalized due to whatever speech policies they favor. It's not government's job to enforce neutral speech codes.

That said, I know some folks disagree and favor government taking a more active role in speech regulations in order to make sure nobody is banned from social media. While both Democrats and Republicans are pushing for changes, mostly only one side favors using the threat of law to enforce their will. It's not that you're genuinely concerned about things like copyright infringement -- you're clearly in favor of laws that would force social media companies to choose between removing the ability of its users to post without a legal review, or using the speech policy you favor, knowing they'll choose the latter. (Since, with so many posts, they couldn't exist with the former.)

You continue to indicate that you haven't actually listened to the arguments made.

The Republican argument is not about whether or not a company can censor information on their platform. In no way is it about the government's "banning" the existence of such a platform.

It's about whether or not the government should blanket protect companies from normal legal liability when they make publishing/editorial decisions over their users' content. That's what Section 230 does.

If Section 230 is removed or amended to the liking of Republicans, it won't be the government that punishes Twitter for their editorial/censoring decisions - it will be everyday people who can make a libel case based upon harm that Twitter caused them. Why should everyday people not be allowed their day in court if they can make a legitimate case of harm as a result of Twitter or Facebook policies?

Please explain why my woodworking community should be responsible for a user libeling another user about, say, their professional woodwork just because the forum has a "no politics" rule, for example. Or even a "politics sure but no Nazis" rule. What sense does this make? Let private companies compete in the marketplace. If folks don't like policies, they can switch services. No need to rewrite 230 to punish or reward companies based on their speech policies.

But that's not the way it works. In reality, moderators don't know legal libel when they see it to the point that they should be automatically indemnified. We see in day-to-day life that not everyone who is accused of being a Nazi or a racist is one in fact. Sometime the accusation of being a Nazi is itself the libel, and if your woodworking moderators are participating in the perpetuation of that libel; then they should be held to account.

If your woodworking community, through moderation, decides to weigh in on user comments through moderation, badging, or editing; then it should be liable for any libel that it amplifies through its policies. If a person can show actual damage from those policies in court, then why should your woodworking community get a pass?

I think the key dishonesty in your comment, whether you're aware of it or not, is this idea that "moderation, badging, or editing" is what would be "amplifying" libel. What sense does that make? How does removing a post that, say, promotes the KKK in a woodworking forum have anything to do with a user possibly-falsely claiming in the public forum that "Joe's Tables and Chairs" doesn't use walnut like they claim?

It's a bizarre claim you're making to justify tremendous government overreach in forcing tiny forums and a billion other websites like it on the web to adopt your preferred speech policies.

Edit: And by the way, I'm being very generous with my examples. For one, I'm assuming you're okay with removing ILLEGAL content, such as child porn, without the website owners being subject to lawsuits for libel and other things -- since they're required to remove those things regardless of 230. But also, what about very legal porn? Or what if a Nintendo Switch game forum removes somebody who posts "first!" as a reply to every thread?

If I'm misreading you, and your preferred policy is instead that these websites should be responsible for claims THEY make -- such as, if the owners call a user a Nazi -- well that's already CURRENT LAW! 230 doesn't grant protection there now. But they're not calling people Nazis -- also, I don't think that lawsuit would go far for reasons based in libel law -- so this never comes up. If you're saying they're "implying" people are Nazi's simply by removing content based on hate speech policies, again, 230 doesn't really apply there. It'd still fail under our libel laws, and any suit would fail on the merits.

Now, maybe you want to rewrite libel laws, too! That'd be a big government approach to even FURTHER regulate free speech, but it'd be difficult to write a law that made it possible to be sued just for implying somebody is a Nazi for something they wrote. Certainly it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, so you'd have to rewrite the Constitution, too. The only Justice who has shown any openness to re-interpreting libel laws to further restrict speech is Justice Thomas and you'd have to go FAR beyond what he's called for.

And I love how they are afforded the right to answer these questions from the comfort of their homes. Make them go to DC!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Silently rape" is a pretty harsh thing to say.

Would you prefer we had no rich people? There are places like that.