zlacker

He said it is not political and published it at the end of an election cycle ... Of course it is.

>>consp+(OP)
Nonetheless, better late than never for Zuckerberg to admit that he and Facebook erred.

>>TMWNN+71
I think the original point was that this wasn't late. It was timed to be influential to the outcome of the election.

>>TMWNN+71
There's just that thing that he forgot to say 'rinse & repeat' at the end of his statement while he's now in the 'rinse' phase. The upcoming election circus will make clear whether he is genuinely regretful or whether he's up to his old tricks. The 'Zuckerbucks' NGO 'Center for Tech and Civic Life' [1] is gearing up again so I suspect the latter to be closer to the truth.

[1] https://mailchi.mp/06871ce9876c/new-campaign-seeks-federal-f...

>>TMWNN+71
So we hold him to the same standards as an 8 year old that is still learning self control?

>>ericjm+O2
Which also casts doubt on its sincerity.

>>ericjm+O2
I think it was timed to be relevant. Doubt this will influence the outcome of the election, esp given the WH statement which seems to be in agreement.

>>ErikBj+J7
As far as I'm concerned he typed it out right after the events and scheduled it to be released later, that is now.

>>consp+(OP)
Can’t find the claim about the statement not being political anywhere in the linked article. But there’s this:

> Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms

Sounds like he wasn’t the initiator of the discussion, but I may be misreading the paragraph.

>>mypast+fc
And it’s in the news because it’s being made newsworthy, not because it’s new.

“A U.S. federal judge,” in 2023 “restricted some agencies and officials of the administration of President Joe Biden from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content” [1].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-blocks-us-officials-comm...

>>consp+(OP)
He said it because they got criticized for something that cost them a lot of money. It’s all about how much it costs and takes away from the pockets of the board of directors and owners. For profit companies are amoral for the most part and their only obligation is to make money.

>>loa_in+Ob
The letter was a response to the House Judiciary Committee, it didn't from nowhere.

>>ericjm+O2
It's relevant right now because there's recent increase in the amount of government-directed censorship and propaganda on the social media platforms at the moment. Take a look at Reddit. Look at what's happening in the UK or with the EU threatening to imprison Musk for allowing Trump to be interviewed.

>>JumpCr+ue
More to the point: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/scotus-tosses-cl...

"On Wednesday, the Supreme Court tossed out claims that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms into censoring users by removing COVID-19 and election-related content."

>>indoor+cQ
> or with the EU threatening to imprison Musk for allowing Trump to be interviewed.

?

>>TMWNN+0z1
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4824438-eu-sends-warni...

>>indoor+CD1
Holy cow. I'd heard something about the EU recently warning Musk over Twitter, but did not know that it was because of the heinous mortal sin of interviewing the former and possible next US president.

>>jasonl+0n1
Very funny that the initial case got lots of press on HN and got people like patio11 in a tizzy but when it was tossed out by SCOTUS there was nary a peep.

>>jasonl+0n1
Further in that article:

> “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech," Alito wrote. "Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent."

It seems like the court had agreement that government coercion did happen. They threw the case out because they couldn’t draw a direct correlation to harm to the specific people that brought the allegations up.

>>laidof+zH1
The headlines on the ruling can be misleading:

> Plaintiffs may have succeeded if they were instead seeking damages for past harms. But in her opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that partly because the Biden administration seemingly stopped influencing platforms' content policies in 2022, none of the plaintiffs could show evidence of a "substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable" to any government official. Thus, they did not seem to face "a real and immediate threat of repeated injury," Barrett wrote.

>>Palmik+KF2
Whatever it takes to spin a 6-3 decision man. It was clear from the start that this supposed government “pressure” doesn’t and never did exist.

>>TMWNN+BG1
Yes, God forbid that a billionaire follows the laws of a country or union of countries.

>>_gabe_+Zy2
No one was forced to do anything.

Full stop.

>>Palmik+KF2
Your feelings don’t matter.

>>jasonl+Ma3
It's genuinely weird that they keep talking about pressure as if there was an actual means of exerting pressure rather than literally providing feedback - this administration doesn't go after it's enemies in the private sector unlike the last one (JEDI contract comes to mind)

>>laidof+9H2
Are you saying Zuck is lying and the government did not do what he's saying they did? In Twitter's case, there are emails from Adam Schiff - do you think that evidence is fraudulent?

>>stcroi+834
Yes I think Zuck is being a diva to hedge on the outcome of the election. No I don’t think the evidence exists.

>>laidof+Y34
The existence of the government communications with the social media companies requesting suppression of content are referenced in the courts opinions. The Biden admin also admits to these communications. https://rollcall.com/2024/06/26/supreme-court-rejects-lawsui...

>>_gabe_+Zy2
Unfortunately, Alito has objectively proven himself to be a liar at best. His statements are the farthest of any justice from representing an agreement of the court.

The only "pressure" that was put on FB, was the same put on Twitter, which was that reports and requests from Administration employees has some higher gravity than other reports. The "investigation" here, and Zuckerberg's responce are not evidence of wrongdoing, only political maneuvering.