6 ms·

Agree, Zuck has zero integrity and I think he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November and is trying to say he was bullied into making alot of

Agree, Zuck has zero integrity and I think he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November and is trying to say he was bullied into making alot of disastrous decisions that he and he only ordered for an administration/party that he personally donated $400M+ to.

somewhat_drunk 2y ago
>he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November Things are headed strongly in the opposite direction you're implying.
- h3rsko 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - EricDeb 2y ago
    Probably zuck is just trying to seem neutral however it shakes out in November
    - UncleOxidant 2y ago
      Some of this stuff happened in 2020 (who was president in 2020?) and some of it happened later. So seems to be saying the both teams were playing the game if you read between the lines (ie. you're likely right).
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth.
    - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
      It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was forced to remove COVID misinformation, because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. My response to him was to point out that Harris is strong and trending stronger, while Trump is weak, so the tea leaves are saying the opposite of what he thinks they're saying.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. That isn't really a fair assessment; it is true that large groups of people generate more wild theories but there was a lot of misinformation everywhere. Most of it inconsequential. But weighting by consequence it is hard to overlook things like: - "Plague of the unvaccinated" and the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID. A lot of people believed that. They were wrong. And a lot of the blatant human rights violations through the COVID era were probably driven by that particular mistake. It wasn't a right-wing phenomenon. - "14 Days to Flatten the Curve", which turned out to be critical misinformation that derailed any debate over the wisdom of lockdowns. Certainly a forgivable move given the urgency and confusion in the first few months, but the fact that it was material and misinformation stands out in hindsight. - Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug so, y'know, fair enough but not that useful in the west. But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake that undermined trust that the responders were looking at evidence. That dismissal was also certainly not coming from the right wing.
        somewhat_drunk 2y ago
        [flagged]
        kortilla 2y ago
        You’re so blinded by partisan hatred you just equivocated information about ineffective lockdowns with calling COVID a hoax.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth. Me neither. I think it's a very sophisticated two-way dog whistle. The ideologists on both sides can spot each other a mile away; the rest of us look from pig to man, and man to pig, and can not tell the difference.
      - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
        for me the most salient difference, harris is gung ho on the environment. expect limited oil and high energy prices trump is the opposite - if nothing else he understands "cheap oil good"... doesn't really care either way about the environment, seeing as last EPA chief he appointed had a history of battling the EPA.
        lelanthran 2y ago
        I was finding it difficult to determine the difference between the their supporters, not their policy differences.
  - jjeaff 2y ago
    What polls have trump in the lead in the swing states right now? I haven't seen any high power polls that have trump in an obvious lead.
    - Traubenfuchs 2y ago
      Polls are worthless. https://x.com/HuffPost/status/795663593689808896 https://x.com/HuffPost/status/795663593689808896
      - jjeaff 2y ago
        Ignore them at your own peril. That was a particularly bad poll in a particularly weird race. Most good polls have been pretty accurate.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Definitely. The letter only mentions Biden who is a lame duck and now safe to criticize.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
PierceJoy 2y ago
He donated 400m to funding election infrastructure. How is that donating to Democrats?
- mullingitover 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wellbehaved 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - throw10920 2y ago
    This is an extremely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest strawman of the views that people of the political party that you're attacking actually hold. This shouldn't be on HN: > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throw10920 2y ago
        > Reducing voter turnout under the fig leaves of 'protecting the vote' or 'fighting rampant voter fraud' You describing these justification as "fig leaves" proves rather conclusively that you are making partisan, as opposed to factual, statements. > is a long-term party strategy ...and your goalpost-moving from describing individuals on HN ("You can tell someone's political party merely by asking whether they support a high voter participation rate. You can also offend members of the other party by pointing out this fact.") to the strategy of political organizations further undermines the idea that you're making this comment in good faith. If you're making this comment in good faith, then you don't understand how biased you are. You are, factually, not approaching this from a neutral standpoint.

somewhat_drunk 2y ago

>he sees the tea leaves in where things are headed in November Things are headed strongly in the opposite direction you're implying.

h3rsko 2y ago
[flagged]
- EricDeb 2y ago
  Probably zuck is just trying to seem neutral however it shakes out in November
  - UncleOxidant 2y ago
    Some of this stuff happened in 2020 (who was president in 2020?) and some of it happened later. So seems to be saying the both teams were playing the game if you read between the lines (ie. you're likely right).
- BadHumans 2y ago
  The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth.
  - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
    It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was forced to remove COVID misinformation, because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. My response to him was to point out that Harris is strong and trending stronger, while Trump is weak, so the tea leaves are saying the opposite of what he thinks they're saying.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. That isn't really a fair assessment; it is true that large groups of people generate more wild theories but there was a lot of misinformation everywhere. Most of it inconsequential. But weighting by consequence it is hard to overlook things like: - "Plague of the unvaccinated" and the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID. A lot of people believed that. They were wrong. And a lot of the blatant human rights violations through the COVID era were probably driven by that particular mistake. It wasn't a right-wing phenomenon. - "14 Days to Flatten the Curve", which turned out to be critical misinformation that derailed any debate over the wisdom of lockdowns. Certainly a forgivable move given the urgency and confusion in the first few months, but the fact that it was material and misinformation stands out in hindsight. - Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug so, y'know, fair enough but not that useful in the west. But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake that undermined trust that the responders were looking at evidence. That dismissal was also certainly not coming from the right wing.
      - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
        [flagged]
        kortilla 2y ago
        You’re so blinded by partisan hatred you just equivocated information about ineffective lockdowns with calling COVID a hoax.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth. Me neither. I think it's a very sophisticated two-way dog whistle. The ideologists on both sides can spot each other a mile away; the rest of us look from pig to man, and man to pig, and can not tell the difference.
    - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
      for me the most salient difference, harris is gung ho on the environment. expect limited oil and high energy prices trump is the opposite - if nothing else he understands "cheap oil good"... doesn't really care either way about the environment, seeing as last EPA chief he appointed had a history of battling the EPA.
      - lelanthran 2y ago
        I was finding it difficult to determine the difference between the their supporters, not their policy differences.
- jjeaff 2y ago
  What polls have trump in the lead in the swing states right now? I haven't seen any high power polls that have trump in an obvious lead.
  - Traubenfuchs 2y ago
    Polls are worthless. https://x.com/HuffPost/status/795663593689808896 https://x.com/HuffPost/status/795663593689808896
    - jjeaff 2y ago
      Ignore them at your own peril. That was a particularly bad poll in a particularly weird race. Most good polls have been pretty accurate.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway48476 2y ago
Definitely. The letter only mentions Biden who is a lame duck and now safe to criticize.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

PierceJoy 2y ago

He donated 400m to funding election infrastructure. How is that donating to Democrats?

mullingitover 2y ago
[flagged]
- wellbehaved 2y ago
  [flagged]
- throw10920 2y ago
  This is an extremely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest strawman of the views that people of the political party that you're attacking actually hold. This shouldn't be on HN: > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > Reducing voter turnout under the fig leaves of 'protecting the vote' or 'fighting rampant voter fraud' You describing these justification as "fig leaves" proves rather conclusively that you are making partisan, as opposed to factual, statements. > is a long-term party strategy ...and your goalpost-moving from describing individuals on HN ("You can tell someone's political party merely by asking whether they support a high voter participation rate. You can also offend members of the other party by pointing out this fact.") to the strategy of political organizations further undermines the idea that you're making this comment in good faith. If you're making this comment in good faith, then you don't understand how biased you are. You are, factually, not approaching this from a neutral standpoint.