Last Wednesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared on Fox News to defend his decision not to remove two Facebook posts by Trump about mail-in voting. The posts clearly violated Facebook's policy prohibiting
Ever since Mark Zuckerberg indicated he would elevate Trump to prevent someone like Liz Warren winning so as to prevent Facebook from being more strictly regulated, I knew what side he is on. Facebook should be broken up and/or fined, not that I truly expect action from the government, but it should be said.
"Zuckerberg is taking a massive gamble in prioritizing the company's relationship with Trump over its workers. As a large tech company based in Silicon Valley, Facebook is in intense competition for talent. If the company is unable to retain or attract highly-skilled employees, its business will suffer. Zuckerberg appears confident that, over time, his employees will get over it."
may be the most white-privileged thing I've read in a while - and that's saying something. You know who "gets over" something like this? People who are not *personally* affected by racism. And, gee, who would that be? So, really, Mark is telling on himself: most of his coveted talented does not and/or won't include black people. So, the gamble isn't "massive." History is on Mark's side here - white people (and sometimes non-black POC) engage in performative acts of solidarity with the black community when the moment is trending then go back on about their lives until the NEXT Trayvon Martin. Or Sandra Bland. Or Tamir Rice. Or Eric Garner. Or Michael Brown. Or Philando Castile. Or Breonna Taylor. Or, or, or, or, or, or, or ... If I am honest, I am guilty of this myself. And, I have no doubt FB has a mountain of data that empirically proves this point - data we all willingly hand over to mine every single day. (Hi, Cambridge Analytica!)
It's not just Mark, either. He is enabled by his executive leadership. He is enabled by his Board of Directors. And, he is enabled by all of the businesses who continue to PAY to promote their Black Lives Matter content on the very platform that has openly declared itself ready and willing to discriminate. (See point above about data-mining.)
Apologies for the rant. And thank you for your hard work in continuing to expose this type of conduct.
Weasel words, sound and fury signifying nothing, and all for the love of the almighty dollar. It is disheartening (to put it mildly) to see lies and conspiracies published broadly & then others sharing such stories, assuming them to be gospel & with no checking of whether they are supported by facts. Zuckerberg is another one who fears Trump & is afraid of doing the right thing. Has America been like this my whole life & I just never noticed?
Conspiracists used to be a small pocket of people. They belonged with the rag mag looky loo-ers at the check-out endcaps. But then that was before multi functional phones and social media sites. All that created a Pandora moment when the lid was lifted from the box of evils and ills and let them loose among the population. Most of us were caught off guard and found ourselves baffled at the numerous ways bad, inaccurate information circulated. Most of us assumed that people would just know better than to believe such blatantly false statements. But these assumptions were erroneous. Far too many of my neighbors and erstwhile friends voted for the current, long-time, bankrupted, racist, morally corrupt playboy. It wouldn’t have taken much to learn this. His buddy David Pecker made a good living publishing about and killing stories about him. These stories were all readily available in the supermarkets, not the internet. Social media platforms though put these rags on steroids. Mark Zuckerberg is now the David Pecker of social media. Since Twitter’s creator is making an admittedly feeble attempt to fact check Trump, I’m not currently including him. At least it’s a start. I have no idea what or who Zuckerberg is trying to impress but from the looks of it, it’s not working. Keep at him Judd.
Correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t Facebook employees staged walk-outs before? Obviously Zuck is pretty confident in the knowledge that any fallout from this outrage will be short-lived and temporary at best.
It is the people who support Trump like Pompeo, Pence, Graham, McConnell who keep his vile behaviour going Yes by all means publish his incitements to violence and racism and narcissism to show what he is. I left FB years ago as it is offensive Note it would not publish the ad by the Lincoln Project attacking Trump. Why? Twitter did. Also we might remember Zuckerberg is a reform Jew and has been accused of inciting hatred of Muslims on FB. In Nov 1919 Zuckerberg has a secret dinner with Trump. Of course he supports his racist, anti- Muslim attitudes. His attempts to excuse his allowing Trumps incitement to violence are pathetic.
My personal solution to the Facebook content problem was to quit Facebook a decade ago. (I have SOOO many better things to do with my time!) So it would be easy to ignore this issue as “not my problem”. But the 2016 election shows that it’s everyone’s problem. I just wish there was a better solution than removing Trump’s posts altogether (as some people advocate). After all, so much of Trump’s public speech is offensive that blocking it would give an incomplete picture of who our president really is. He IS offensive, and I’m sure a lot of FB readers know that. But publishing is not the same as condoning. If FB (or Twitter, or any other platform) doesn’t at least flag posts as violating a policy that would require blocking of any other user who posted something similar, then FB is complicit and equally offensive. So why don’t more users quit FB? Advertising isn’t as lucrative if fewer eyeballs see it. Just ask TV advertisers who pay more for Super Bowl ads than ads that run during curling competitions. Vote with your feet (and your wallet) if you don’t like Zuckerberg’s application of FB’s policies.
Respectfully, this oversimplifies the issue. The issue is not a choice between complete censorship of Trump (or any public figure) and zero censorship. The issue is how to end disparate treatment that protect privileged individuals who - like Trump - flaunt the rules without fear of negative consequences. FB has published guidelines for how and when posts are censored, they enforce those guidelines against individual users quite often (albeit not often enough, IMHO), but FB does not follow them for a privileged few - especially Trump - instead moving the goalposts and making excuses for a choice that is clearly economically motivated. That has to stop. Because publishing IS condoning - perhaps not the way you mean, but it is the moral equivalent of watching racism happen in front of you and saying nothing about it. This is precisely why American jurisprudence evolved from the unambiguous Constitutional statement that Congress "shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech and permissible prohibitions against speech that incites violence, abuses minors or for to address compelling state interests when narrowly tailored. No one gets an "incomplete picture" of who Trump is because we don't platform his incitement of white people to act violently against fellow non-white citizens. He tells on himself in myriad other ways, multiple times a day - lots of it off FB at that.
It's also not as simple as leaving FB (although I was blissfully glad to do it myself years ago and advocate for it today). More users do not quit it because of a variety of complicated socioeconomic factors. Some people lack the information literacy skills necessary to recognize how toxic that environment is. Others rely on FB as a means of getting information when their societies and communities lack other effect communications channels. Some even rely upon it for health, education and other critical information. FB can be a powerful force for good.
So, like many choices in life, how to handle FB and other social media companies is not binary. It is not love it or leave it. Instead, the choices are in how we influence it to shape its policies and its participation in our communities in a way that is productive, inclusive, honest and open without doing any of that at the expense of a minority group that lacks the socioeconomic levers to pull to ensure their own safety.
Ok we agree that we're not faced with a binary choice, but that's what we did, even Zuckerberg. He opted out by not enforcing the policy, but he's the boss and his business model is not to direct from the top. Just why that's his stance I'm not sure. Can that be changed? It is a coward's way out because he is responsible for what happens in the company. I believe that to challenge the billionaire-president is risky because the Donald has more to lose in such a fight, but while the battle may be lost, that's not the war. I think that FB would gain the most. It's a battle that needs to be fought. All that data that FB has collected is a real asset, if used in the right way.
Gerald Tolliver: The problem is that trump is good for business, a business that creates more business, that's capitalism for you, but of the worst (Darwinian) kind. I think FB should be renamed " Blackface Book" But better than sinking into the mud where the slim hangs out, FB has an obligation to educate and reform our public discourse by adding flags which would go along way to using the data which FB has been freely given (but at a cost) to influence standards.
Ever since Mark Zuckerberg indicated he would elevate Trump to prevent someone like Liz Warren winning so as to prevent Facebook from being more strictly regulated, I knew what side he is on. Facebook should be broken up and/or fined, not that I truly expect action from the government, but it should be said.
I'd suggest FB should be subject to FCC type oversight, but in the current environment, any such oversight board would be neutered.
This right here:
"Zuckerberg is taking a massive gamble in prioritizing the company's relationship with Trump over its workers. As a large tech company based in Silicon Valley, Facebook is in intense competition for talent. If the company is unable to retain or attract highly-skilled employees, its business will suffer. Zuckerberg appears confident that, over time, his employees will get over it."
may be the most white-privileged thing I've read in a while - and that's saying something. You know who "gets over" something like this? People who are not *personally* affected by racism. And, gee, who would that be? So, really, Mark is telling on himself: most of his coveted talented does not and/or won't include black people. So, the gamble isn't "massive." History is on Mark's side here - white people (and sometimes non-black POC) engage in performative acts of solidarity with the black community when the moment is trending then go back on about their lives until the NEXT Trayvon Martin. Or Sandra Bland. Or Tamir Rice. Or Eric Garner. Or Michael Brown. Or Philando Castile. Or Breonna Taylor. Or, or, or, or, or, or, or ... If I am honest, I am guilty of this myself. And, I have no doubt FB has a mountain of data that empirically proves this point - data we all willingly hand over to mine every single day. (Hi, Cambridge Analytica!)
It's not just Mark, either. He is enabled by his executive leadership. He is enabled by his Board of Directors. And, he is enabled by all of the businesses who continue to PAY to promote their Black Lives Matter content on the very platform that has openly declared itself ready and willing to discriminate. (See point above about data-mining.)
Apologies for the rant. And thank you for your hard work in continuing to expose this type of conduct.
Facebook long ago revealed itself as being mostly a Republican platform. It's just that it's only now that the public is realizing this.
"Why are the smartest people in the world focused on contorting and twisting our policies to avoid antagonizing Trump?"
Everyone reading this knows the answer. I appreciate the stark way this was phrased, though. I’m glad the staff is finally doing something.
Weasel words, sound and fury signifying nothing, and all for the love of the almighty dollar. It is disheartening (to put it mildly) to see lies and conspiracies published broadly & then others sharing such stories, assuming them to be gospel & with no checking of whether they are supported by facts. Zuckerberg is another one who fears Trump & is afraid of doing the right thing. Has America been like this my whole life & I just never noticed?
Conspiracists used to be a small pocket of people. They belonged with the rag mag looky loo-ers at the check-out endcaps. But then that was before multi functional phones and social media sites. All that created a Pandora moment when the lid was lifted from the box of evils and ills and let them loose among the population. Most of us were caught off guard and found ourselves baffled at the numerous ways bad, inaccurate information circulated. Most of us assumed that people would just know better than to believe such blatantly false statements. But these assumptions were erroneous. Far too many of my neighbors and erstwhile friends voted for the current, long-time, bankrupted, racist, morally corrupt playboy. It wouldn’t have taken much to learn this. His buddy David Pecker made a good living publishing about and killing stories about him. These stories were all readily available in the supermarkets, not the internet. Social media platforms though put these rags on steroids. Mark Zuckerberg is now the David Pecker of social media. Since Twitter’s creator is making an admittedly feeble attempt to fact check Trump, I’m not currently including him. At least it’s a start. I have no idea what or who Zuckerberg is trying to impress but from the looks of it, it’s not working. Keep at him Judd.
Thanks Judd, good article. For me he's mostly who I thought he was.
Correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t Facebook employees staged walk-outs before? Obviously Zuck is pretty confident in the knowledge that any fallout from this outrage will be short-lived and temporary at best.
It is the people who support Trump like Pompeo, Pence, Graham, McConnell who keep his vile behaviour going Yes by all means publish his incitements to violence and racism and narcissism to show what he is. I left FB years ago as it is offensive Note it would not publish the ad by the Lincoln Project attacking Trump. Why? Twitter did. Also we might remember Zuckerberg is a reform Jew and has been accused of inciting hatred of Muslims on FB. In Nov 1919 Zuckerberg has a secret dinner with Trump. Of course he supports his racist, anti- Muslim attitudes. His attempts to excuse his allowing Trumps incitement to violence are pathetic.
My personal solution to the Facebook content problem was to quit Facebook a decade ago. (I have SOOO many better things to do with my time!) So it would be easy to ignore this issue as “not my problem”. But the 2016 election shows that it’s everyone’s problem. I just wish there was a better solution than removing Trump’s posts altogether (as some people advocate). After all, so much of Trump’s public speech is offensive that blocking it would give an incomplete picture of who our president really is. He IS offensive, and I’m sure a lot of FB readers know that. But publishing is not the same as condoning. If FB (or Twitter, or any other platform) doesn’t at least flag posts as violating a policy that would require blocking of any other user who posted something similar, then FB is complicit and equally offensive. So why don’t more users quit FB? Advertising isn’t as lucrative if fewer eyeballs see it. Just ask TV advertisers who pay more for Super Bowl ads than ads that run during curling competitions. Vote with your feet (and your wallet) if you don’t like Zuckerberg’s application of FB’s policies.
Respectfully, this oversimplifies the issue. The issue is not a choice between complete censorship of Trump (or any public figure) and zero censorship. The issue is how to end disparate treatment that protect privileged individuals who - like Trump - flaunt the rules without fear of negative consequences. FB has published guidelines for how and when posts are censored, they enforce those guidelines against individual users quite often (albeit not often enough, IMHO), but FB does not follow them for a privileged few - especially Trump - instead moving the goalposts and making excuses for a choice that is clearly economically motivated. That has to stop. Because publishing IS condoning - perhaps not the way you mean, but it is the moral equivalent of watching racism happen in front of you and saying nothing about it. This is precisely why American jurisprudence evolved from the unambiguous Constitutional statement that Congress "shall make no law" abridging the freedom of speech and permissible prohibitions against speech that incites violence, abuses minors or for to address compelling state interests when narrowly tailored. No one gets an "incomplete picture" of who Trump is because we don't platform his incitement of white people to act violently against fellow non-white citizens. He tells on himself in myriad other ways, multiple times a day - lots of it off FB at that.
It's also not as simple as leaving FB (although I was blissfully glad to do it myself years ago and advocate for it today). More users do not quit it because of a variety of complicated socioeconomic factors. Some people lack the information literacy skills necessary to recognize how toxic that environment is. Others rely on FB as a means of getting information when their societies and communities lack other effect communications channels. Some even rely upon it for health, education and other critical information. FB can be a powerful force for good.
So, like many choices in life, how to handle FB and other social media companies is not binary. It is not love it or leave it. Instead, the choices are in how we influence it to shape its policies and its participation in our communities in a way that is productive, inclusive, honest and open without doing any of that at the expense of a minority group that lacks the socioeconomic levers to pull to ensure their own safety.
Ok we agree that we're not faced with a binary choice, but that's what we did, even Zuckerberg. He opted out by not enforcing the policy, but he's the boss and his business model is not to direct from the top. Just why that's his stance I'm not sure. Can that be changed? It is a coward's way out because he is responsible for what happens in the company. I believe that to challenge the billionaire-president is risky because the Donald has more to lose in such a fight, but while the battle may be lost, that's not the war. I think that FB would gain the most. It's a battle that needs to be fought. All that data that FB has collected is a real asset, if used in the right way.
fb
Gerald Tolliver: The problem is that trump is good for business, a business that creates more business, that's capitalism for you, but of the worst (Darwinian) kind. I think FB should be renamed " Blackface Book" But better than sinking into the mud where the slim hangs out, FB has an obligation to educate and reform our public discourse by adding flags which would go along way to using the data which FB has been freely given (but at a cost) to influence standards.