The New Republic is not happy with Team Zuck. And they are swinging for the fences: the allegations don't stop at treason, but include also complicity in genocide.
In fact, the claim is that there isn't any evidence, which is stronger than the claim that the evidence isn't conclusive. That's just flat wrong: I've seen Uncle Jimbo's evidence of tampering with his Twitter account, and some others he's working with. There's very clear evidence. I would even go as far as "proof."
The NYT is on about this, too. Frankly, convenient as the pieces are to my views of Facebook, neither The New Republic nor NYT has any credibility; I discount their stuff.
I just caught some TV news during lunch. After watching a 5-10-minute piece on FB's woes, I couldn't grasp a single fact about what FB was supposed to have done wrong this time. There was a lot of talk about how FB isn't doing enough, needs to get past its dream of a Wild-West freedom absent guardrails, needs to gain confidence, etc. I think this was CNBC. One interviewer launched a lengthy incoherent question prompting a guest to explain from 10,000 feet something about truth and the future. The guest duly responded with more platitudes about how time would tell. I read the piece you linked here hoping it would explain what the NYT is excited about this week, as I have no intention of reading a NYT piece. I'm still confused. While acting "doe-eyed" before Congress, Zuckerberg nevertheless hired evil political operatives who pointed out some kind of political agenda against FB, maybe originating in part from Soros? I particularly enjoyed how FB failed to ensure that its site was safer and less toxic, on the pretext that if it did so conservatives would advance baseless and evidence-free claims of discrimination. I hope Zuckerberg is learning something from all this.
6 comments:
They're mostly upset FB hasn't done more to deplatform conservatives.
I notice that drew by far the most column inches, in a post that begins with "Treason! Genocide! Lying to Congress!"
And I love the claim that shadowbans on other platforms is unproven. Okay... unproven. I see.
In fact, the claim is that there isn't any evidence, which is stronger than the claim that the evidence isn't conclusive. That's just flat wrong: I've seen Uncle Jimbo's evidence of tampering with his Twitter account, and some others he's working with. There's very clear evidence. I would even go as far as "proof."
The NYT is on about this, too. Frankly, convenient as the pieces are to my views of Facebook, neither The New Republic nor NYT has any credibility; I discount their stuff.
Eric Hines
I just caught some TV news during lunch. After watching a 5-10-minute piece on FB's woes, I couldn't grasp a single fact about what FB was supposed to have done wrong this time. There was a lot of talk about how FB isn't doing enough, needs to get past its dream of a Wild-West freedom absent guardrails, needs to gain confidence, etc. I think this was CNBC. One interviewer launched a lengthy incoherent question prompting a guest to explain from 10,000 feet something about truth and the future. The guest duly responded with more platitudes about how time would tell. I read the piece you linked here hoping it would explain what the NYT is excited about this week, as I have no intention of reading a NYT piece. I'm still confused. While acting "doe-eyed" before Congress, Zuckerberg nevertheless hired evil political operatives who pointed out some kind of political agenda against FB, maybe originating in part from Soros? I particularly enjoyed how FB failed to ensure that its site was safer and less toxic, on the pretext that if it did so conservatives would advance baseless and evidence-free claims of discrimination. I hope Zuckerberg is learning something from all this.
Post a Comment