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?
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.
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.
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?
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.