hh on Nostr: Also to remark about this particular podcast: It took 51 minutes for Zuckerberg to ...
Also to remark about this particular podcast:
It took 51 minutes for Zuckerberg to begin to put aside the script Legal gave him and drop the first "fuck".
Interestingly, it's when he's talking about how whenever he used to go on traditional media they would make him "look like a fucking idiot".
The Rogan theory that you absolutely need these 2 or 3 hour long "conversations" to even begin to see through the façade all these billionaires and corporate types put up is once again fully validated, and that's Rogan's most important merit.
It took 51 minutes for Zuckerberg to begin to put aside the script Legal gave him and drop the first "fuck".
Interestingly, it's when he's talking about how whenever he used to go on traditional media they would make him "look like a fucking idiot".
The Rogan theory that you absolutely need these 2 or 3 hour long "conversations" to even begin to see through the façade all these billionaires and corporate types put up is once again fully validated, and that's Rogan's most important merit.
quoting nevent1q…n5x0I've had the Zuck Rogan podcast running in the background for a while -- I never do that and I always focus on what I'm listening to/watching, but his droning and 90% fluff wording were simply unbearable.
I did catch one point when he recognizes that the prevalent approach to censorship ("content moderation") is complete and absolute no-tolerance, and that the result of that is necessarily that innocent people will be punished unjustly.
That's exactly where every single instance of "content moderation" ends up, especially if it's enacted by legal imperative through a desire to be "compliant".
I was brought up in the liberal mindset that a morally just justice system is one that lets ten guilty criminals go, but never punishes an innocent.
Those who insist on "zero tolerance" approaches, must also recognize that they're pushing for injustice. There is no way around it.