House Judiciary panel plans contempt proceedings for Mark Zuckerberg(nbcnews.com)
nbcnews.com
House Judiciary panel plans contempt proceedings for Mark Zuckerberg
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-judiciary-plans-contempt-proceedings-mark-zuckerberg-rcna96297
116 comments
You don’t get to pay the money and go away. The contempt proceeding would be used to compel him to obey.
I agree that billionaires generally enjoy a different tier of the legal system, but consider that if the House moves forward with contempt, they have to see it through. He has to obey, or be thrown in jail until he does. Because the alternative is that the House demonstrates that it does not enjoy legitimacy. Everyone will begin ignoring House subpoenas because, hey, the House doesn't enforce them. I'm pretty sure there's a few Trump-world people who tried this and it didn't go well for them?
I agree that billionaires generally enjoy a different tier of the legal system, but consider that if the House moves forward with contempt, they have to see it through. He has to obey, or be thrown in jail until he does. Because the alternative is that the House demonstrates that it does not enjoy legitimacy. Everyone will begin ignoring House subpoenas because, hey, the House doesn't enforce them. I'm pretty sure there's a few Trump-world people who tried this and it didn't go well for them?
> but consider that if the House moves forward with contempt, they have to see it through. He has to obey, or be thrown in jail until he does.
What we learned from the previous administration is that you just need to fight it until the power switches hands meanwhile fighting it in court. Zuck makes some donations to the opposition party candidates and their PAC's, and hope they win.
Or he subverts the controlling party the way Russia would do it, and hire some firm (possibly Israeli) to do a deep background check in the ruling party and use it to blackmail them.
Also it's not a good look when one of the controlling party members chose to ignore a subpoena issues by the same body they control now.
https://dayton247now.com/news/local/rep-jim-jordan-urbana-oh...
What we learned from the previous administration is that you just need to fight it until the power switches hands meanwhile fighting it in court. Zuck makes some donations to the opposition party candidates and their PAC's, and hope they win.
Or he subverts the controlling party the way Russia would do it, and hire some firm (possibly Israeli) to do a deep background check in the ruling party and use it to blackmail them.
Also it's not a good look when one of the controlling party members chose to ignore a subpoena issues by the same body they control now.
https://dayton247now.com/news/local/rep-jim-jordan-urbana-oh...
being found guilty of a criminal offense, is a life altering event.
it doesnt matter how much jiu jitsu he knows , a holding cell is not a good place for Z, even for 5 minutes.
it doesnt matter how much jiu jitsu he knows , a holding cell is not a good place for Z, even for 5 minutes.
Not when you are a multibillionaire.
It's still life-altering, it's the kickoff party for your political career.
Yeah when mark has to apply for a credit card or a new job, boy will he be sorry.
For the average joe, sure. He ain’t that guy, pal.
What chance is there that anything will come of this grandstanding move?
The only thing that I foresee coming out of this is increased re-election chances for some of those house representatives on the judiciary panel. Mostly due to this grandstanding move making it appear like they are trying to be "tough on big tech" and are doing something against the "big bad zucc".
This is so stupid and tiring. At this point the only thing I am hoping for is that will be at least as entertaining and idiosyncratic as the infamous Zuck senate hearing from 2018.
This is so stupid and tiring. At this point the only thing I am hoping for is that will be at least as entertaining and idiosyncratic as the infamous Zuck senate hearing from 2018.
Considering that the chair (Jim Jordan) himself ignored a subpoena from a similar committee (Jan 6) with no consequences; I'd say the chances are slim to none.
I think the issue is that Democrats did not want to push it farther because they didn't want Republicans to turn around and use it against them.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/590947-house-has-the-p...
They're likely plenty of republican hobby horse issues where they would start subpoenaing other members of Congress once they had power.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/590947-house-has-the-p...
They're likely plenty of republican hobby horse issues where they would start subpoenaing other members of Congress once they had power.
This line of thinking is what lets Republicans do whatever they please and get away with it.
Happens when one side is following the rules, and the other side isn't.
Democrats have to be squeaky clean. Republican can stage coup's.
Democrats have to be squeaky clean. Republican can stage coup's.
Republicans are insane, Democrats are cowards, neither lead.
This is what you get when you try to get everyone to vote. Your vote counts! But when too many people who have no idea what's going on vote, the game of who gets elected becomes "who can take advantage of the ignorant masses best?". Which is why we got a reality TV personality as a president and zero pressure by the electorate to get the Democrats to get anything done.
This is what you get when you try to get everyone to vote. Your vote counts! But when too many people who have no idea what's going on vote, the game of who gets elected becomes "who can take advantage of the ignorant masses best?". Which is why we got a reality TV personality as a president and zero pressure by the electorate to get the Democrats to get anything done.
Maybe we could have some kind of tax you must pay before going to the polls, only allowing land owners to vote, limit the number of polling places in the wrong neighborhoods, make it a crime to vote without state issued ID but make sure the state issued ID is inconvenient to get in the wrong neighborhoods.
That will really make sure only the right people vote and they only elect the right people.
That will really make sure only the right people vote and they only elect the right people.
Nearly every country in the world that has elections requires some kind of identification to vote, I don’t see any reason to object to this besides it being somebody else’s desire.
Don’t be absurd, I’m not advocating for a poll tax or keeping any specific kind of person from voting… except those who know nothing about or would otherwise be uninterested in politics.
Votes are being sought through the same spammy clickbait fear methods that grabs so much attention these days. Such methods to win elections corrupt the political process so the only way to win is to grab the most attention through fear, fake conflict that becomes real, and other sorts of degrading manipulation.
The kind of shit I’m getting constantly from both parties in my inbox is disgusting and directly responsible for the awful state of national politics. Either I’m supposed to step up to battle the evil opponents or I’m supposed to be afraid of what they’ll do if they win (so give now! 5x matching only going on for a limited time.
Everybody who wants to should be able to vote.
Don’t be absurd, I’m not advocating for a poll tax or keeping any specific kind of person from voting… except those who know nothing about or would otherwise be uninterested in politics.
Votes are being sought through the same spammy clickbait fear methods that grabs so much attention these days. Such methods to win elections corrupt the political process so the only way to win is to grab the most attention through fear, fake conflict that becomes real, and other sorts of degrading manipulation.
The kind of shit I’m getting constantly from both parties in my inbox is disgusting and directly responsible for the awful state of national politics. Either I’m supposed to step up to battle the evil opponents or I’m supposed to be afraid of what they’ll do if they win (so give now! 5x matching only going on for a limited time.
Everybody who wants to should be able to vote.
I would not object to voting IDs if they were free and easy to acquire. They are not. The fraud they allege to prevent is low double digit numbers when summed up over decades of voting. If you don't see that ID laws are being intentionally used to prevent votes from people who want to vote, you are willfully blind.
Of course they are cowards.
Republicans have far more guns, have anger issues, and are willing to use them. I'm guessing what you are advocating is for Democrats to do more? To become more radical? But look at the rest of the posts in this thread, at how many people are calling liberals fascist. What would happen if they actually tried to do something?
Well, that's just a natural consequence of a checks-and-balances system that has bugs... Like expecting a group of people to enforce the law against themselves.
Zuck, on the other hand, 'only' has plain-old upper-class-privilege to lean on.
Zuck, on the other hand, 'only' has plain-old upper-class-privilege to lean on.
> Zuck, on the other hand, only has plain-old upper-class-privilege to lean on.
I imagine being a billionaire provides a bit more than plain-old upper-class-privilege
I imagine being a billionaire provides a bit more than plain-old upper-class-privilege
He can sponsor the campaigns of every single Representative (or their opponents) and not break a sweat - he's wealthier than the Koch brother(s).If he picks up a phone, most reps - including those on the committee - will hear him out. Zuck could wrangle more allies in the House than Jim Jordan.
The penalty seems less than a slap on the wrist for Zuck, but I suppose there's the moral value at play. It's also sad to see the left/right flame war slip into HN. The comments are appalling and remind me why I went cold turkey on social media.
If only Zuck focused his attention and resources on the democratic process beyond censorship of false and misleading information...
It just blows my mind to see how conservative Americans have become convinced that "big tech" is actively censoring them. Any online person knows that social media is an absolute mudslide of right-wing content.
I'm conservative (actually conservative) although not American and my point of view is the opposite of yours. Terms of service of big tech are written in particular not to allow me to express my political opinions.
Goes to show how we all have a different experience. But what is surprising is how the experience is negative for everyone involved...
Goes to show how we all have a different experience. But what is surprising is how the experience is negative for everyone involved...
Please provide the ToS segments that are not allowing you to express your political opinions. Feel free to provide said political opinions as well. I am open to your opinion, but not without examples.
Thank you for doing this, and I hope others follow your example.
It's really easy to be agreeable with platitudes. The real world is a complicated and messy place, and asking for specifics helps to ground the conversation in reality.
It's really easy to be agreeable with platitudes. The real world is a complicated and messy place, and asking for specifics helps to ground the conversation in reality.
Seriously. I absolutely did not expect someone on this website to lead with "I cannot say black [people] are mentally inferior" as an example of how they are being censored. Usually they reserve that for more private channels, like after they've gotten someone to move to Telegram.
The idea is not for people with undesirable opinions to "out" themselves, it's more for the onlookers to realize that platitudes are merely nice-sounding soundbites.
The real world is complicated, and necessitates nuance, caveats and exceptions, and there's really no better example than watching a conversation unfold about said specifics.
The real world is complicated, and necessitates nuance, caveats and exceptions, and there's really no better example than watching a conversation unfold about said specifics.
veave(7)
Bigotry is not a “political position” no matter how much you try to say that it is.
The following can both be true, and IMO both are true:
1. The vast majority of right-wing content goes uncensored.
2. A few really choice targets for censorship get categorized as "misinformation", "disinformation", or "malinformation" and are subject to widespread campaigns of suppression.
(... And there may be systematic algorithmic down-weighting of some right-wing ideas or accounts, but I'm not confident enough in the evidence here to call it a serious problem, which is why there's no #3 on that list.)
Probably the most non-partisan example I can think of would be the Christchurch shooter's manifesto, a document which approximately everyone disagrees with. For a while after the massacre, it seemed like every social media platform was aggressively trying to make sure nobody could read the thing. You could find a copy with some effort, but only by skulking around in the shadier parts of the web. You could say that they're private companies and can do what they want -- but if they hadn't censored in lockstep, it's likely that some government displeasure would come down on the uncooperative companies later.
The result of this is a censorship regime that's hard to see because it only goes after the high-value targets.
1. The vast majority of right-wing content goes uncensored.
2. A few really choice targets for censorship get categorized as "misinformation", "disinformation", or "malinformation" and are subject to widespread campaigns of suppression.
(... And there may be systematic algorithmic down-weighting of some right-wing ideas or accounts, but I'm not confident enough in the evidence here to call it a serious problem, which is why there's no #3 on that list.)
Probably the most non-partisan example I can think of would be the Christchurch shooter's manifesto, a document which approximately everyone disagrees with. For a while after the massacre, it seemed like every social media platform was aggressively trying to make sure nobody could read the thing. You could find a copy with some effort, but only by skulking around in the shadier parts of the web. You could say that they're private companies and can do what they want -- but if they hadn't censored in lockstep, it's likely that some government displeasure would come down on the uncooperative companies later.
The result of this is a censorship regime that's hard to see because it only goes after the high-value targets.
“but if they hadn't censored in lockstep, it's likely that some government displeasure would come down on the uncooperative companies later”
This is the root of the problem, right? In the US, the government is specifically excluded from doing this either directly or indirectly, except in specific and rare circumstances that were not in play for most of the censorship that has occurred like covid origins, speech deemed racist, criticism of vaccines, speech deemed hateful, and speech deemed incorrect for example.
This is the root of the problem, right? In the US, the government is specifically excluded from doing this either directly or indirectly, except in specific and rare circumstances that were not in play for most of the censorship that has occurred like covid origins, speech deemed racist, criticism of vaccines, speech deemed hateful, and speech deemed incorrect for example.
If only the rest of social media were populated by cowering conformist milquetoasts, like HN is, the alleged censorship would be unnecessary.
[deleted]
It just blows my mind to see liberal Americans being ok with every major social media platform ban accounts and block content they said was false when it was actually true. Biden laptop for one.
Liberal doesn't mean liberal anymore.
Liberalism has been coopted by authoritarianism and branded as a weird sort of "friendly fascism" [1].
Instead of recognizing the historical dangers of that sort of philosophy, it's wholly embraced - with an illusion of legitimacy pasted on top that exploits our better natures by channeling good intentions (anti-racism, anti-discrimination, self-ownership, public health, environmentalism) into a mechanism for certain people to gain more power and control.
The part of this that I've found the most disturbing is the absolutely bizarre pivot the "left" made from being deeply suspicious of Big Pharma, to a sudden (almost overnight) support of government regulatory partnership with megacorps, with all of the actors in the scenario receiving big money and little scrutiny.
Even asking basic questions and pointing this stuff out gets you shouted down and cancelled (I'm burning lots of karma just posting this viewpoint).
The over 6 billion dollars [2] per year that pharma spends on direct-to-consumer ads on TV, and how that influences the content that's shown on TV and which politicians the media supports are completely ignored.
Somehow the folks that have traditionally been the champions of civil rights, anti-war, and watchdogs against the growth and abuse from corporate power, have instead become cheerleaders for an authoritarian state controlled mostly by the military industrial complex and big pharma.
I don't think it's unique to the "left" - the "right" is certainly guilty of the same stuff, it's just particularly painful to watch coming from the folks I grew up believing were the ones that were supposed to protect us from that sort of abuse.
We live in interesting times. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
[2] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...
Liberalism has been coopted by authoritarianism and branded as a weird sort of "friendly fascism" [1].
Instead of recognizing the historical dangers of that sort of philosophy, it's wholly embraced - with an illusion of legitimacy pasted on top that exploits our better natures by channeling good intentions (anti-racism, anti-discrimination, self-ownership, public health, environmentalism) into a mechanism for certain people to gain more power and control.
The part of this that I've found the most disturbing is the absolutely bizarre pivot the "left" made from being deeply suspicious of Big Pharma, to a sudden (almost overnight) support of government regulatory partnership with megacorps, with all of the actors in the scenario receiving big money and little scrutiny.
Even asking basic questions and pointing this stuff out gets you shouted down and cancelled (I'm burning lots of karma just posting this viewpoint).
The over 6 billion dollars [2] per year that pharma spends on direct-to-consumer ads on TV, and how that influences the content that's shown on TV and which politicians the media supports are completely ignored.
Somehow the folks that have traditionally been the champions of civil rights, anti-war, and watchdogs against the growth and abuse from corporate power, have instead become cheerleaders for an authoritarian state controlled mostly by the military industrial complex and big pharma.
I don't think it's unique to the "left" - the "right" is certainly guilty of the same stuff, it's just particularly painful to watch coming from the folks I grew up believing were the ones that were supposed to protect us from that sort of abuse.
We live in interesting times. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
[2] https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/healthcare-industry-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...
“Vaccines work” is not the the same as supporting big pharma.
Additionally, stating that all people deserve a good life, and attempting to stop bigotry is not “fascism”. Your definitions of things have no basis in reality.
Stop brainwashing yourself. Start using basic critical thinking skills.
Additionally, stating that all people deserve a good life, and attempting to stop bigotry is not “fascism”. Your definitions of things have no basis in reality.
Stop brainwashing yourself. Start using basic critical thinking skills.
FWIW, Bill Maher seems to agree with me at 18:30 [1]
[1] https://youtu.be/0EOkC44ZIfo
[1] https://youtu.be/0EOkC44ZIfo
It’s unclear who’s brainwashed here or who’s using critical thinking skills.
Not all vaccines work. It’s ok and prudent to require efficacy trials and release of information about those trials before making a call on whether a person wants to subject their body to it.
Not all comments that you find bigoted are thought to be bigoted by everyone. Who makes that judgement?
And not all people deserve a good life like murderers and rapists.
Not all vaccines work. It’s ok and prudent to require efficacy trials and release of information about those trials before making a call on whether a person wants to subject their body to it.
Not all comments that you find bigoted are thought to be bigoted by everyone. Who makes that judgement?
And not all people deserve a good life like murderers and rapists.
You literally stated that your “alternate political opinion” is transphobia dude.
Efficacy on Covid vaccines is long demonstrated and you’re still calling it fake news dude.
It is exceptionally clear who is brainwashed here.
Not only that, but your position changes depending on the context of the conversation. Was fast tracking Covid vaccines good or bad? Depends. Are we talking about the fact that Trump was fast tracking them, or are we talking about whether vaccines work or not?
Additionally, you guys don’t even regard what fast-tracking actually means anyway. It doesn’t mean “ignore evidence. Push it through”. It means “if you get a task related to this, you drop everything else and focus on this instead”.
Efficacy on Covid vaccines is long demonstrated and you’re still calling it fake news dude.
It is exceptionally clear who is brainwashed here.
Not only that, but your position changes depending on the context of the conversation. Was fast tracking Covid vaccines good or bad? Depends. Are we talking about the fact that Trump was fast tracking them, or are we talking about whether vaccines work or not?
Additionally, you guys don’t even regard what fast-tracking actually means anyway. It doesn’t mean “ignore evidence. Push it through”. It means “if you get a task related to this, you drop everything else and focus on this instead”.
I said nothing about trans. You must be addressing someone else.
authoritarianism != fascism
There are lots and lots of kinds of authoritarianism, and Democrats et al have embraced a Leftist type which pushes for egalitarianism through violence, which is antithetical to fascism (the egalitarianism, not the violence). There are a few big name Dem politicians who are pushing a modern brand of fascism, but they're the minority now.
Nothing that follows should be viewed as a defense of the Right.
> Somehow the folks that have traditionally been the champions of civil rights, anti-war, and watchdogs against the growth and abuse from corporate power, have instead become cheerleaders for an authoritarian state controlled mostly by the military industrial complex and big pharma.
Ah, see, that's your mistake. You were fed the cherry-picked history where the Democrats et al were the Good Guys of the 20th Century; this is a common problem when government schools are run by teachers unions that are in bed with one party.
Progressives were never liberal; they were always authoritarians. If you read some of the fascist writers before WWII, they often praised the progressives in the US, including FDR.
Marxists were never liberal; they've used various names over the years to avoid taking responsibility for the tens of millions of people they killed to achieve their utopia, but it's important to recognize how much of the modern US Left draws from Marxism.
During the anti-Communist years after WWII, the Communists tried to rebrand themselves as civil libertarians and the like. This was a show. The ACLU was genuinely liberal, but the Left was also committing terrorist acts as "champions of civil rights, anti-war, and watchdogs against the growth and abuse from corporate power". The terrorism part doesn't get taught in school. Kids hear that the Black Panthers set up lunchrooms, but so do Hamas and Hezbollah. They're still terrorists.
So we should recognize that Democrats et al were never the liberal champions we were taught in school or heard on TV. The reality is always dirtier and more complicated.
Pretend that I also spend 20 minutes typing up why I think the Right is awful, because they've rarely been liberal either.
There are lots and lots of kinds of authoritarianism, and Democrats et al have embraced a Leftist type which pushes for egalitarianism through violence, which is antithetical to fascism (the egalitarianism, not the violence). There are a few big name Dem politicians who are pushing a modern brand of fascism, but they're the minority now.
Nothing that follows should be viewed as a defense of the Right.
> Somehow the folks that have traditionally been the champions of civil rights, anti-war, and watchdogs against the growth and abuse from corporate power, have instead become cheerleaders for an authoritarian state controlled mostly by the military industrial complex and big pharma.
Ah, see, that's your mistake. You were fed the cherry-picked history where the Democrats et al were the Good Guys of the 20th Century; this is a common problem when government schools are run by teachers unions that are in bed with one party.
Progressives were never liberal; they were always authoritarians. If you read some of the fascist writers before WWII, they often praised the progressives in the US, including FDR.
Marxists were never liberal; they've used various names over the years to avoid taking responsibility for the tens of millions of people they killed to achieve their utopia, but it's important to recognize how much of the modern US Left draws from Marxism.
During the anti-Communist years after WWII, the Communists tried to rebrand themselves as civil libertarians and the like. This was a show. The ACLU was genuinely liberal, but the Left was also committing terrorist acts as "champions of civil rights, anti-war, and watchdogs against the growth and abuse from corporate power". The terrorism part doesn't get taught in school. Kids hear that the Black Panthers set up lunchrooms, but so do Hamas and Hezbollah. They're still terrorists.
So we should recognize that Democrats et al were never the liberal champions we were taught in school or heard on TV. The reality is always dirtier and more complicated.
Pretend that I also spend 20 minutes typing up why I think the Right is awful, because they've rarely been liberal either.
It’s not just a mudslide.
No matter how much I block alt-right YouTube channels, google continuously either ignores those blocks, or forces more and more in to my recommended.
It’s crazy to see “right wing content is being censored” claims while google is very very clearly pushing right wing content above everything else.
I don’t use Facebook, but my wife does and Facebook is exactly the same. It is very obviously pushing right wing content up.
When you can open up a video and within 30 seconds, they’re calling for the eradication of the Jews, with hundreds of thousands of views, it really begs the question of what the hell these people are saying that it’s actually being removed. Cause straight up calling for genocide is not just allowed to thrive on Facebook and google, it is actively pushed on to recommended no matter how much you try to block it.
I watch PBS space time, various software engineering talks, and chess. That’s it. Why is YouTube recommending conspiracy theorist alt-right shit?
No matter how much I block alt-right YouTube channels, google continuously either ignores those blocks, or forces more and more in to my recommended.
It’s crazy to see “right wing content is being censored” claims while google is very very clearly pushing right wing content above everything else.
I don’t use Facebook, but my wife does and Facebook is exactly the same. It is very obviously pushing right wing content up.
When you can open up a video and within 30 seconds, they’re calling for the eradication of the Jews, with hundreds of thousands of views, it really begs the question of what the hell these people are saying that it’s actually being removed. Cause straight up calling for genocide is not just allowed to thrive on Facebook and google, it is actively pushed on to recommended no matter how much you try to block it.
I watch PBS space time, various software engineering talks, and chess. That’s it. Why is YouTube recommending conspiracy theorist alt-right shit?
You might consider me alt right, I sure wouldn’t but regardless, this has absolutely not been my experience. I’ve heard many of the alt podcasts and YouTube and movies, heck I’ve even gone on infowars...
I definitely have never had anything even remotely close to your examples. Very bold claims but also very incorrect.
I definitely have never had anything even remotely close to your examples. Very bold claims but also very incorrect.
Not Bold at all.
I just watch Science and Programming on YouTube, and it will start suggesting alt-right, red-pill, religious content, pretty radical religious content.
From my perspective, the internet leans right. This isn't some isolated experience.
From my perspective, the internet leans right. This isn't some isolated experience.
Even HN as of late is being inundated with alt-right hot takes anti-science, anti-intellectualism.
The reason they don’t “see it” is because they’re participating in spreading the hate.
The reason they don’t “see it” is because they’re participating in spreading the hate.
The Infowars guy is spreading propaganda that Democrats are killing children and drinking blood. That is a very thin veneer over actual Nazi propaganda.
I don't know if I have ever heard of a video with many views openly calling for genocide, but one can certainly spot those calls in the comments of those sources. That shit is coming from somewhere not far removed.
I don't know if I have ever heard of a video with many views openly calling for genocide, but one can certainly spot those calls in the comments of those sources. That shit is coming from somewhere not far removed.
You’ll miss it if you blink, or aren’t up to date with the dog whistles.
If you see a right wing video and it says “we gotta get rid of these Hollywood elites”, they’re actually calling for the eradication of the Jews.
The right wing spends half of their time online creating and sharing “plausibly deniability” phrases.
Here’s a common dog whistle right here in this very thread:
“You’ll get banned for wrong think”. — just a dog whistle for “I want to drop hate speech and n-bombs with no consequence”
Or
“Different political opinions”. — a dog whistle for the exact same as above.
If you see a right wing video and it says “we gotta get rid of these Hollywood elites”, they’re actually calling for the eradication of the Jews.
The right wing spends half of their time online creating and sharing “plausibly deniability” phrases.
Here’s a common dog whistle right here in this very thread:
“You’ll get banned for wrong think”. — just a dog whistle for “I want to drop hate speech and n-bombs with no consequence”
Or
“Different political opinions”. — a dog whistle for the exact same as above.
In this thread there is something unusual to see in the wild: a dog whistler immediately talking about "hereditary intelligence" and IQ tests after a single question on what precisely "wrong think" is.
> When you can open up a video and within 30 seconds, they’re calling for the eradication of the Jews, with hundreds of thousands of views, it really begs the question of what the hell these people are saying that it’s actually being removed. Cause straight up calling for genocide is not just allowed to thrive on Facebook and google, it is actively pushed on to recommended no matter how much you try to block it.
> I watch PBS space time, various software engineering talks, and chess. That’s it. Why is YouTube recommending conspiracy theorist alt-right shit?
I call bullshit.
There's plenty of racist crap on the internet, but "within 30 seconds, they’re calling for the eradication of the Jews, with hundreds of thousands of views" is just not believable, unless you're _deliberately_ going into some very dark corners. Facebook isn't suggesting this to the broad audience because it would get immediately flagged -- in some countries, such a video is illegal.
YouTube's algorithms can get twisted up and make recommendations based upon associations we don't see, but "I watch PBS space time, various software engineering talks, and chess. That’s it. Why is YouTube recommending conspiracy theorist alt-right shit?" is just not believable, unless someone in your house is deliberately searching for it, or you think anything non-Marxist is alt-right.
> I watch PBS space time, various software engineering talks, and chess. That’s it. Why is YouTube recommending conspiracy theorist alt-right shit?
I call bullshit.
There's plenty of racist crap on the internet, but "within 30 seconds, they’re calling for the eradication of the Jews, with hundreds of thousands of views" is just not believable, unless you're _deliberately_ going into some very dark corners. Facebook isn't suggesting this to the broad audience because it would get immediately flagged -- in some countries, such a video is illegal.
YouTube's algorithms can get twisted up and make recommendations based upon associations we don't see, but "I watch PBS space time, various software engineering talks, and chess. That’s it. Why is YouTube recommending conspiracy theorist alt-right shit?" is just not believable, unless someone in your house is deliberately searching for it, or you think anything non-Marxist is alt-right.
Dude. I’ve selected “don’t recommend this channel”, reported and blocked “the critical drinker”, who’s videos can be summed up as “women and black people are bad”, no less than 8 times and YouTube is STILL recommending this fucker as of 7 minutes ago.
I have an extremely similar profile (chess, PBS space time!) and I get non stop Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate in my recommendations. YouTube Shorts are the worst for this, I can't scroll through ten videos without seeing this guy, no matter how many times I click "do not want!"
Is there anyone out there collating data on YouTube suggestions in a widespread way? Like a browser extension that tracks when and what videos appear vs which ones are watched.
I assume doing this would be a privacy nightmare, and not capture most data 'the algorithm' runs off of.
I've heard of specific studies where fresh accounts are tested and the time until certain 'radical' content starts showing up, but nothing on existing accounts in use by people. I don't have a great handle on this, since I limit the amount I use YouTube's suggestions.
I assume doing this would be a privacy nightmare, and not capture most data 'the algorithm' runs off of.
I've heard of specific studies where fresh accounts are tested and the time until certain 'radical' content starts showing up, but nothing on existing accounts in use by people. I don't have a great handle on this, since I limit the amount I use YouTube's suggestions.
I don't know what to tell you. I watch "right wing content" exclusively and not even I got "exterminate the jews" level content. Though I see plenty of commentary about day to day beliefs by academia that calls for my race to be wiped out and discriminated against.
I'd say the media is playing both sides except you all can't deny that there is systemic discrimination against white people in multiple countries' law books right now, in 2023.
I'd say the media is playing both sides except you all can't deny that there is systemic discrimination against white people in multiple countries' law books right now, in 2023.
> I'd say the media is playing both sides except you all can't deny that there is systemic discrimination against white people in multiple countries' law books right now, in 2023.
Sure I can. Many of the laws cited as "discrimination against white people" in North America and Europe are either things like affirmative action or laws to the effect of "don't be a dick to minorities". As a white guy I've never felt disadvantaged by such laws, but maybe I'm just made of sterner stuff than people that claim to represent "western values" and prattle on about how weak men are these days.
Sure I can. Many of the laws cited as "discrimination against white people" in North America and Europe are either things like affirmative action or laws to the effect of "don't be a dick to minorities". As a white guy I've never felt disadvantaged by such laws, but maybe I'm just made of sterner stuff than people that claim to represent "western values" and prattle on about how weak men are these days.
The older I get, the less "turn the other cheek" I feel like being towards bullies, and that's what this is, bullying. I want to leave a fair and equitable world for my (white) children, not one filled with hatred and racism.
And to answer your point, I say this in the context of an african country where white people are a minority and yet still discriminated against with laws passed by a "democratic" government. Of course, it's all under the guise of "Affirmative Action" and "Black Economic Empowerment", giving it that "noble" aura of "fairness". Meanwhile the country burns as the laws enrich the elite, keep the black people poor, make the white people poorer, and ultimately cause everyone to blame everyone else.
And to answer your point, I say this in the context of an african country where white people are a minority and yet still discriminated against with laws passed by a "democratic" government. Of course, it's all under the guise of "Affirmative Action" and "Black Economic Empowerment", giving it that "noble" aura of "fairness". Meanwhile the country burns as the laws enrich the elite, keep the black people poor, make the white people poorer, and ultimately cause everyone to blame everyone else.
"I haven't seen any Antisemitism at all but white people are indeed being genocided," is a pretty hot take.
I thought the other one was even more odd: "Oh Youtube keeps promoting right-wing, eradicate the Jews content".
But, to be fair, I didn't say I don't see antisemitic content. That for sure pops up once in a while in very "muted" language. I've also seen a rising trend for the traditional values of Jewish people to be admired on the right/conservative side, so there is that.
But, to be fair, I didn't say I don't see antisemitic content. That for sure pops up once in a while in very "muted" language. I've also seen a rising trend for the traditional values of Jewish people to be admired on the right/conservative side, so there is that.
Academics are not calling for genocide dude. If you can point to even one non right wing academic figure that calls for the genocide of any race of people, I’ll donate $100 to Doctors Without Borders that moment.
There are two I had on my mind that I had come across recently:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10145969/Public-fur...
No mention of this "controversy" on her Wikipedi page, either.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/professor-under-fire-for-white-ge...
But with a bit more googling, I found some additional ones.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/video-uc-berkeley-professor-un... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/02/texas-professor-white... https://www.thecollegefix.com/stanford-student-senator-says-... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/28/barnard-professor-trig...
Look, I agree these things aren't straight out "hey lets go out and gas white people" (Well one of them is). But the pattern is disturbing, and the media coverage is even more disturbing because they're (I would argue) hiding the level of this stuff, thus preventing us from having the conversation. Why do conservatives feel threatened, this is just Affirmative Action and Inclusion (such orwellian terms that hide their discrimination), so why do you feel that way unless you're secretly racist? Well, it's because there is a sustained, and secretly promoted hatred of white people and it needs to be brought to light.
As an example, the Wikipedia page on Brittney Coopers at Rutgers University. No mention of this pretty-notable controversy about her racist comments. Probably edited for months after the story broke until people lost interest dealing with the Wikipedia rules.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10145969/Public-fur...
No mention of this "controversy" on her Wikipedi page, either.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/professor-under-fire-for-white-ge...
But with a bit more googling, I found some additional ones.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/video-uc-berkeley-professor-un... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/02/texas-professor-white... https://www.thecollegefix.com/stanford-student-senator-says-... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/28/barnard-professor-trig...
Look, I agree these things aren't straight out "hey lets go out and gas white people" (Well one of them is). But the pattern is disturbing, and the media coverage is even more disturbing because they're (I would argue) hiding the level of this stuff, thus preventing us from having the conversation. Why do conservatives feel threatened, this is just Affirmative Action and Inclusion (such orwellian terms that hide their discrimination), so why do you feel that way unless you're secretly racist? Well, it's because there is a sustained, and secretly promoted hatred of white people and it needs to be brought to light.
As an example, the Wikipedia page on Brittney Coopers at Rutgers University. No mention of this pretty-notable controversy about her racist comments. Probably edited for months after the story broke until people lost interest dealing with the Wikipedia rules.
And yet, the twitter files proved that was exactly what was happening, and at the behest of the US government itself.
[deleted]
These makes Congress look like such a clown show. Like Fox News doesn't coordinate with conservatives?
It's complete grandstanding, and nothing more. Complete waste of time.
Regarding YouTube promoting right wing content mentioned in other comments, I haven't seen that. I watch science and space, maker and tech shows, along with live music. I have never seen what the commenters are complaining about. I get the same recommendations over and over again, which is a bit annoying. Maybe because I ignore most of the algo recommendations I'm missing something.
It's complete grandstanding, and nothing more. Complete waste of time.
Regarding YouTube promoting right wing content mentioned in other comments, I haven't seen that. I watch science and space, maker and tech shows, along with live music. I have never seen what the commenters are complaining about. I get the same recommendations over and over again, which is a bit annoying. Maybe because I ignore most of the algo recommendations I'm missing something.
Congress is always grandstanding but that doesn't mean they don't have a point:
"A copy of the contempt report asserts that Zuckerberg and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, have "willfully refused" to comply in full with a congressional subpoena stemming from the panel's investigation into any _efforts by the executive branch to encourage social media companies to moderate content_ on digital platforms."
There's plenty of evidence that the government was doing that on Twitter -- it is a big deal when the government goes to private actors and gets them to censor people.
Sure, the GOP might be hypocrites about this but every single liberal should be lining up to say, "In this case they're right, and we'll hold them to the same standard when one of them is president."
The problem is that the Democrats are also hypocrites, both the politicians and their voters are _not_ liberal, and they like the idea of using the government to censor information they don't like.
"A copy of the contempt report asserts that Zuckerberg and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, have "willfully refused" to comply in full with a congressional subpoena stemming from the panel's investigation into any _efforts by the executive branch to encourage social media companies to moderate content_ on digital platforms."
There's plenty of evidence that the government was doing that on Twitter -- it is a big deal when the government goes to private actors and gets them to censor people.
Sure, the GOP might be hypocrites about this but every single liberal should be lining up to say, "In this case they're right, and we'll hold them to the same standard when one of them is president."
The problem is that the Democrats are also hypocrites, both the politicians and their voters are _not_ liberal, and they like the idea of using the government to censor information they don't like.
I don’t understand the analogy. How are Fox News and Facebook analogous in this situation? The claim is that citizens are being forcibly censored on a social media platform does not equal a news organization coordinating willfully with some politicians.
> Like Fox News doesn't coordinate with conservatives
It think the general case they are making is that Fox doesn’t have Section 230 immunity, and is therefore responsible/liable for its editorial decisions. (See: the Dominion settlement.)
The claim is that social networks are having their cake (immunity from liability of content) and eating it too (getting to make editorial decisions).
The more general issue being that they are using editorial discretion to remove content that the government politely asks them to remove, rather than stuff that any law says they must control. (And the claim is that of course they would not acquiesce if a Republican government made a polite request to remove something they didn’t like.)
It think the general case they are making is that Fox doesn’t have Section 230 immunity, and is therefore responsible/liable for its editorial decisions. (See: the Dominion settlement.)
The claim is that social networks are having their cake (immunity from liability of content) and eating it too (getting to make editorial decisions).
The more general issue being that they are using editorial discretion to remove content that the government politely asks them to remove, rather than stuff that any law says they must control. (And the claim is that of course they would not acquiesce if a Republican government made a polite request to remove something they didn’t like.)
Section 230 is good. Web sites should be allowed to decide whose comments they publish, whose they promote, whose they tank.
The problem here is that the _government_ was conspiring with those companies to censor dissenters -- er, I mean "conspiracy theorists".
We don't need to change Section 230. We need to stop the government from using private companies to do things it's illegal for the government to do.
The problem here is that the _government_ was conspiring with those companies to censor dissenters -- er, I mean "conspiracy theorists".
We don't need to change Section 230. We need to stop the government from using private companies to do things it's illegal for the government to do.
What was illegal about the government’s actions in your view?
> What was illegal about the government’s actions in your view?
That wasn't what I wrote.
In the US, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of the people to speech etc.; the government is generally and overwhelmingly prohibited from censoring people.
Instead, we have the US government contacting _private_ (i.e. not government) companies and wink wink nudge nudge having the private companies censor people, _which would be illegal for the government to do directly_.
That wasn't what I wrote.
In the US, the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of the people to speech etc.; the government is generally and overwhelmingly prohibited from censoring people.
Instead, we have the US government contacting _private_ (i.e. not government) companies and wink wink nudge nudge having the private companies censor people, _which would be illegal for the government to do directly_.
I see what you mean now, thanks. Strongly agree with the general point around delegation to private companies (eg on surveillance).
Personally I think you can make a case for justifying some curtailment of speech during an emergency (specifically sharing outright false or extremely misleading claims, say “young people are immune to Covid”) but again, agreed it should be done through a framework that is legislated and that the courts can challenge/check rather than unofficial channels.
I do think there is some grey area though - if the government is also providing coordination (eg CDC) then it’s not crazy to have a direct channel to the major news/social publishers to coordinate messaging in an emergency. And when they are just providing coordination it’s not necessarily censorship (since the companies would be free to do otherwise). Vs if they are buying license plate data for example, they are clearly actually indirectly doing the thing that they’re forbidden from doing directly.
Personally I think you can make a case for justifying some curtailment of speech during an emergency (specifically sharing outright false or extremely misleading claims, say “young people are immune to Covid”) but again, agreed it should be done through a framework that is legislated and that the courts can challenge/check rather than unofficial channels.
I do think there is some grey area though - if the government is also providing coordination (eg CDC) then it’s not crazy to have a direct channel to the major news/social publishers to coordinate messaging in an emergency. And when they are just providing coordination it’s not necessarily censorship (since the companies would be free to do otherwise). Vs if they are buying license plate data for example, they are clearly actually indirectly doing the thing that they’re forbidden from doing directly.
Somehow I'm thinking he'll avoid the jail time and maybe have to pay a fine that amounts to pocket change for him.