Mark Zuckerberg struggles to answer AOC’s questions

[FATCAT 60,984]

4 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

 

I know that, which is why I did not say they have to go with what the constitution says. What I said is Zuckerberg chooses to go with what the constitution says which is a good thing in my opinion.

But he's not, it's just cover so that he doesn't have to fact check ads. It cuts into profits.

[OMonster 15,025]

As soon as the private sector is involved in censoring our politics - we're in trouble. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, FATCAT said:

But he's not, it's just cover so that he doesn't have to fact check ads. It cuts into profits.

I dont remember seeing anyone asking him to fact check ads, they are asking him to not allow these videos and delete them. Unless I missed something? Youtube fact checks everything and gives warning under every video that has "fake news", so im sure other social media companies wouldnt mind doing that and it wont effect ads profit.

[FATCAT 60,984]

2 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

I dont remember seeing anyone asking him to fact check ads, they are asking him to not allow these videos and delete them. Unless I missed something? Youtube fact checks everything and gives warning under every video that has "fake news", so im sure other social media companies wouldnt mind doing that and it wont effect ads profit.

You'll have to watch the AOC questioning because that's what she's asking if him.

[Economy 53,171]

19 hours ago, AHippieIsBorn said:

I see your point, however, many people consider Facebook a "news" source and get much of their political influence from articles posted there. What AOC is leaning towards is the fact that FB should have some type of disclaimer or filter for political advertisements, considering so many voters use it as a news source. 

 

20 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

So basically what he is saying is, he will go with what the law, constitution, and free speech is in America. I hate to agree with him but I do.

Honestly i feel like both view points in this matter are valid and both have their own sense

 

AOC is standing up for ethics and the fact that prevalence of outright lies without accountability and the people it could mislead are problematic

 

Zuckerburg doesnt want to control what is said and isnt said when he believes there should be free speech in a democracy

 

Im leaning towards AOC on this one. Outright lies are problematic and FB as a company doesnt have to accept all ads and can filter out dishonesty if it chooses to. I dont think that ends free speech. A person can still lie wherever they can, knock on doors and preach, handout fliers etc on their own but a private service provider like FB doesnt have to accept and run those ads

 

But i dont think Zuckerburgs stance is entirely coming from a bad place either. I dont agree with him but i do understand where hes coming from

[Emvee 8,870]

Freedom of Speech vs. the outright lying aside...

I'm still floored by the fact that the Daily Caller is considered a "fact checking" website.

IN WHAT WORLD 

And wasn't it determined as such by Facebook's VP? Zuckerberg totally lied right there. 

[seba 291]

I know it's a little off topic, but this congresswoman is super sexy... 

[Economy 53,171]

8 minutes ago, seba said:

I know it's a little off topic, but this congresswoman is super sexy... 

“This Congress Woman”

 

of the congress members not running for office shes probably the most known one

[seba 291]

8 minutes ago, Economy said:

“This Congress Woman”

 

of the congress members not running for office shes probably the most known one

sorry I didn't mean to be rude

I don't know much about us politics, I only saw haus of cards once 

[Economy 53,171]

24 minutes ago, seba said:

sorry I didn't mean to be rude

I don't know much about us politics, I only saw haus of cards once 

Haha thats ok ur not obligated to know

 

i just found it funny cuz shes like the Liberal Queen in Congress right now (shes only not allowed to run cuz shes still too young, but most left leaning Liberals like her even more than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren)... and shes known for hard questions and speeches that make the ppl shes questioning speechless

 

so when u refered to her as “this congress woman” i clacked a little 

[Guest]

On 10/26/2019 at 12:56 AM, Economy said:

 

Honestly i feel like both view points in this matter are valid and both have their own sense

 

AOC is standing up for ethics and the fact that prevalence of outright lies without accountability and the people it could mislead are problematic

 

Zuckerburg doesnt want to control what is said and isnt said when he believes there should be free speech in a democracy

 

Im leaning towards AOC on this one. Outright lies are problematic and FB as a company doesnt have to accept all ads and can filter out dishonesty if it chooses to. I dont think that ends free speech. A person can still lie wherever they can, knock on doors and preach, handout fliers etc on their own but a private service provider like FB doesnt have to accept and run those ads

 

But i dont think Zuckerburgs stance is entirely coming from a bad place either. I dont agree with him but i do understand where hes coming from

Yes I know that if Zucherberg chooses to censor people, its not against free speech. But my opinion is places like Google and Facebook should be considered a public utility today, and should go by the law. I dont want billionaires in big tech companies and silicon valley tell me what fake news is, specially not when they work and benefit from the FBI and government. There are also many arguments that companies like Google are not even a private company considering their relationship with the government.

But if its a private company and he can do whatever he wants, why are they holding him accountable?

[Guest]

Mark Zuckerberg was funded indirectly by the CIA via Peter Thiel. He (Thiel) invested $500,000 into Facebook but supposedly this was a CIA investment. Thiel is very close to the CIA. Later, Thiel invested 12.7 million in Facebook. Companies that owe their existence and direction to public intelligence agencies are not private.

Same goes to Google and many so called "private" companies..

[Economy 53,171]

1 minute ago, Faysalaaa said:

Yes I know that if Zucherberg chooses to censor people, its not against free speech because its a private company. But my opinion is places like Google should be considered a public utility today, and should go by the law. If thats not going to happen, I like that Zucherberg chooses to go by the law. I dont want billionaires and big tech companies who work and benefit from government and the FBI to tell me what fake news is.

I agree to an extent

 

a lot of what is considered “fake” can be arbitrary and i wouldnt want a large company deciding what political messages can and cant be said

 

However like AOC said, shes not talking about “spins” which is common in politics. Shes talking about straight up lies

 

Some stuff is so directly false, that it isnt a matter of opinion,  an exxageration or a half-truth... its a straight out lie and thats something that CAN be checked without political bias affecting it

 

So if a private company doesnt want to run false ads, i think it would be good on their part

 

But again, Zuckerbergs stance and opinion has its foundation too so this is not a subject that im going to advocate strongly in either direction

 

To me this is a grey area and its up to FB to decide what they wanna do. But ppl have a right to disaprove and if FB gets public backlash, thats also a consequence of the decision they take

 

I dont think they should be legally prosecuted for this, they arent breaking any law, but of course if this decision results in reduced public respect for the company, they gotta deal with it

[Guest]

On 10/26/2019 at 2:26 AM, Economy said:

I agree to an extent

 

a lot of what is considered “fake” can be arbitrary and i wouldnt want a large company deciding what political messages can and cant be said

 

However like AOC said, shes not talking about “spins” which is common in politics. Shes talking about straight up lies

 

Some stuff is so directly false, that it isnt a matter of opinion,  an exxageration or a half-truth... its a straight out lie and thats something that CAN be checked without political bias affecting it

 

So if a private company doesnt want to run false ads, i think it would be good on their part

 

But again, Zuckerbergs stance and opinion has its foundation too so this is not a subject that im going to advocate strongly in either direction

 

To me this is a grey area and its up to FB to decide what they wanna do. But ppl have a right to disaprove and if FB gets public backlash, thats also a consequence of the decision they take

 

I dont think they should be legally prosecuted for this, they arent breaking any law, but of course if this decision results in reduced public respect for the company, they gotta deal with it

I guess me being from a place with zero free speech makes me a big advocate of free speech. The internet is the only place with free speech for alot of foreigners.

I want people to be able to say whatever they want even if its false. I believed many false things in the past but I changed because I was allowed to give my opinion and in return get these opinions challenged.

We should also be exposed to horrible and false ideas so we know how to counter false information and also understand our position. We could also discover new truths by others challenging what we as a society think is true. Many truths today came from people who challenged what society viewed as truth in the past.

[NightStar 313]

I may be wrong here, but honestly, he didn't look as "struggling", he just looked like he wasn't very interested in her questions at all and that he didn't invest much effort into trying to come up with any sort of answer.