10 ms·

This is good article about a complex topic. The question is something like "How can a multinational company purport to uphold a universal set of values in a wo

by nkurz 8y ago

This is good article about a complex topic. The question is something like "How can a multinational company purport to uphold a universal set of values in a world that has incompatible values?" The obvious answer is that it can't do so everywhere, unless those values are reduced to a trivial null-set like "make more money". Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questioned Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about the fact that they are both ostensibly American companies, but also firms with users around the world — including in countries with legal systems and values that differ drastically from the United States. Rubio cited various governments that crack down on, say, pro-democracy activism and that criminalize such speech. How can a company like Facebook claim that it’s committed to free expression as a global value while maintaining its adherence to rule of law on a local level? When it comes to democratic values, Rubio asked, “Do you support them only in the United States or are these principles that you feel obligated to support around the world?” Cheryl Sandberg answers for Facebook by saying that there is not really a conflict, and that "Facebook simply would not do business in a country where these values couldn’t be maintained." As the article points out, given that Facebook does business in a number of countries with very anti-democratic rules, these must not be very expansive values. Jack Dorsey gives a more nuanced version for Twitter: "We would like to fight for every single person being able to speak freely and see everything, but we have to realize that it’s going to take some bridges to get there." Perhaps disappointing, but at least a more realistic answer. A bigger question, not brought up in the article, might be "Do we think that official statements to the US Congress actually provide useful information about corporate values?" While it might be legalistically interesting to point out the contradictions between individual executives' prepared statements and actual corporate behavior, it's hard to see what actual insights can be gained from differences in PR strategy, unless we presume that the corporations' choice of PR is indicative of the real underlying values.

jtr_47 8y ago
This is not a complex topic. It's very simple. Facebook and the various other messaging platforms sole purpose is to make money. End of story. They have no values no morals or ethics. They do what is necessary and within a legal framework (region dependent) that allows them to make money. IF our USA government decides to designate Facebook, twitter etc. News Media outlets, then they will have to confirm to a different set of laws within our country and maybe others. These companies are merely a 2.0 of USENET NEWS. and nothing more. They've monetize the users' of the system. Peace
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- subway 8y ago
  > legal framework Arguably both legal and cultural. More and more employees are willing to pressure their employers before it makes it to being a legal issue.
- dboreham 8y ago
  >They have no values no morals or ethics. This is really not quite true because the companies are not run by some faceless AI -- they're run by actual people who have to interact with other humans such as their friends and family, are concerned about being allowed into the country club and so on. So there is some back-pressure against total amorality, albeit not codified.
  - nf05papsjfVbc 8y ago
    Ultimately, people will behave as per their incentives. As long as the push back and the negative publicity from it threatens a greater loss than the profits from thing they were about to do, they'll back off. Otherwise, I don't think they'll mind letting go of a few people (maybe even to make examples of them) and push ahead.
    - chooseaname 8y ago
      Exactly. Facebook's primary objective is to return as much value (money) to investors as possible. The way they treat the users of the system, their employees, local governments, etc. is all a reflection of that.
      - close04 8y ago
        That's the fiduciary duty of every CEO: Duties of care, loyalty and disclosure. The loyalty is the most important one because it involves having the best interest of the shareholders in mind. This very simplified means "increase value". If this is done taking into account all available information, no info is ignored, no info is hidden, then there is nothing more to say. The CEO has done their job. There is no mandate for a business to be ethical, moral unless this is considered to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Is FB value going up or down if FB decides to be moral and ethical towards the users? That answers the question "why are only some companies moral". Apple for example decided to take the high road and be the champion of user privacy because they failed to compete with FB, Google, and the likes in the battle for users' data. So adopting a "moral/ethical" position opposing others was the way to bring value to the company. Companies are not people. Decisions are driven by profit whether in the short or long term.
tomp 8y ago
> Jack Dorsey gives a more nuanced version for Twitter: "We would like to fight for every single person being able to speak freely and see everything Wow, this was a big fat lie. I don't even frequent Twitter that much, but even I know that they've been very ban-happy recently, usually under the banner of vaguely-justified "abuse".
- jrs95 8y ago
  Perhaps he meant "we would like to...but we can't"
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    "...because it might jeopardise our revenue."
    - rhizome 8y ago
      Or they don't know how, or they haven't figured it out yet.
ryandrake 8y ago
Both answers are spineless and amount to “taking a strong ethical stand would mean we couldn’t do business in places where we want to make a lot of money.”
- BhavdeepSethi 8y ago
  It also means that if not adhering to some laws, they would not be able to give voice to 99% of other public. I'm not saying that justifies it. But that's the nuance there. Are you willing to sacrifice voice of 1% to give it to 99% others?
aasasd 8y ago
I also wonder whether congressmen would be alright with corporations defending users' universal rights in the US, or if it suddenly became a matter of national policy. (I guess that Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, cited in the article, would like that very much.)
RestlessMind 8y ago
Sandberg should have asked Rubio what he thinks about the US govt support for Saudi Arabia. US claims to stand for democracy and human rights, but then goes on supporting dictatorships around the world (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, ...) as well as having large trade relations with such countries (eg. China). It is almost as if the US stands by their purported values as long as they don't interfere with their geopolitics.
- rchaud 8y ago
  She could have, but that would be the response of a defensive witness. What on earth does FB have to be defensive about? Absolutely nothing will come from these hearings aside from "this is a complicated problem and we are trying our best" style responses. The shareholders certainly don't care and House/Senate representatives are terrified of even attempting to make a case for stronger oversight because of the risk of appearing "anti-business".
- SkyMarshal 8y ago
  That was my initial thought too. It’s not the responsibility of US corporations to influence or change the behavior of foreign governments, but rather to follow the laws of the countries in which the operate. They can choose to operate in those countries or not, but if they do they have to follow the law there. Changing foreign govt policies is the responsibility of the US govt, which in recent years has tended to punt on it when convenient to wealthy constituents (China, Saudi Arabia, etc). Calling out these CEOs for not doing what is the US Govt’s responsibility isn’t a good look for the Senators.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  It seems that United States has the exact same problem as Facebook. I don't think this is all that surprising since they are both very large organizations. As someone mentioned above, committees allow for the dilution of responsibility. While a couple of people might have a serious problem with the committee's actions, what are the odds that they have problems with the same action? And so the committee lets the bill or whatever is slide across the desk with an approval and actions we find morally questionable become official policy. The answer to this hypothetical, where Sandberg turns the question back on Rubio, would probably be more about positioning and evasion then anything of substance.
quotemstr 8y ago
That's why companies shouldn't try to uphold certain values. Bay Area values are not the world's values, and to try to engineer discourse to make the world agree with the Bay Area is the epitome of moral hubris. Platforms must allow everything that's legal. The legislative chamber, not some cutely-named meeting room, is the proper forum for deciding what content is to be allowed into the public sphere. I know the people advocating social media censorship think that they're trying to stop "harm", but it's always the people on some mind of moral crusade that commit the worst atrocities. Every villain is a hero in his own mind. It's not possible, when you're swept up in some more current, to really know whether you're actually the good guy or not. No matter what you do, it feels like the right thing. That's why we can't trust feelings. It's why we need some god damned humility. Companies should optimize for profit. It's at least honest. You can reason about profit. It's the job of the public to incorporate the public good into the profit equation. Having done that, we balance concerns automatically. What doesn't work is creating lax laws, then relying on opaque and unaccountable internal processes to create a concern for the public good. What you end up with, as you do with any opaque and unaccountable rulemaking process, is rules that fit the private interests of the rulemakers and not the public. And in the present environment, these private interests all involve wanting to feel sanctimonious.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterisP 8y ago
  I can't agree with the concept of "Platforms must allow everything that's legal." - for pretty much every platform that allows user-generated content, starting from small blogs, it is very reasonable (and pretty much a requirement if you care about the quality of service/discourse/etc) to filter content that's technically legal but annoying and thus unwanted - for example, spam, trolling, shock videos/links, excessive use of your resources, sockpuppet accounts for voting stuff up, etc. Platforms should be able to choose to allow everything that's legal, but it's understandable if they choose not to do so, and IMHO it would be both immoral and impractical to prohibit them from establishing certain terms and conditions that forbid lots of things that would otherwise be legal. It's okay if some platform wants to facilitate only a certain kind of discussion, it's not their duty to be a soapbox for everyone and everything if they or their users don't want it. There is and should be a place for platforms that try to be such soapboxes, but I often would prefer to use a different platform instead.
vagab0nd 8y ago
This Radiolab episode is highly relevant: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/post-no-evil https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/post-no-evil
mirimir 8y ago
So how come Ms. Sandberg isn't charged with perjury?

by nkurz 8y ago

jtr_47 8y ago

This is not a complex topic. It's very simple. Facebook and the various other messaging platforms sole purpose is to make money. End of story. They have no values no morals or ethics. They do what is necessary and within a legal framework (region dependent) that allows them to make money. IF our USA government decides to designate Facebook, twitter etc. News Media outlets, then they will have to confirm to a different set of laws within our country and maybe others. These companies are merely a 2.0 of USENET NEWS. and nothing more. They've monetize the users' of the system. Peace

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
subway 8y ago
> legal framework Arguably both legal and cultural. More and more employees are willing to pressure their employers before it makes it to being a legal issue.
dboreham 8y ago
>They have no values no morals or ethics. This is really not quite true because the companies are not run by some faceless AI -- they're run by actual people who have to interact with other humans such as their friends and family, are concerned about being allowed into the country club and so on. So there is some back-pressure against total amorality, albeit not codified.
- nf05papsjfVbc 8y ago
  Ultimately, people will behave as per their incentives. As long as the push back and the negative publicity from it threatens a greater loss than the profits from thing they were about to do, they'll back off. Otherwise, I don't think they'll mind letting go of a few people (maybe even to make examples of them) and push ahead.
  - chooseaname 8y ago
    Exactly. Facebook's primary objective is to return as much value (money) to investors as possible. The way they treat the users of the system, their employees, local governments, etc. is all a reflection of that.
    - close04 8y ago
      That's the fiduciary duty of every CEO: Duties of care, loyalty and disclosure. The loyalty is the most important one because it involves having the best interest of the shareholders in mind. This very simplified means "increase value". If this is done taking into account all available information, no info is ignored, no info is hidden, then there is nothing more to say. The CEO has done their job. There is no mandate for a business to be ethical, moral unless this is considered to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Is FB value going up or down if FB decides to be moral and ethical towards the users? That answers the question "why are only some companies moral". Apple for example decided to take the high road and be the champion of user privacy because they failed to compete with FB, Google, and the likes in the battle for users' data. So adopting a "moral/ethical" position opposing others was the way to bring value to the company. Companies are not people. Decisions are driven by profit whether in the short or long term.

tomp 8y ago

> Jack Dorsey gives a more nuanced version for Twitter: "We would like to fight for every single person being able to speak freely and see everything Wow, this was a big fat lie. I don't even frequent Twitter that much, but even I know that they've been very ban-happy recently, usually under the banner of vaguely-justified "abuse".

jrs95 8y ago
Perhaps he meant "we would like to...but we can't"
- WalterSear 8y ago
  "...because it might jeopardise our revenue."
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Or they don't know how, or they haven't figured it out yet.

ryandrake 8y ago

Both answers are spineless and amount to “taking a strong ethical stand would mean we couldn’t do business in places where we want to make a lot of money.”

BhavdeepSethi 8y ago
It also means that if not adhering to some laws, they would not be able to give voice to 99% of other public. I'm not saying that justifies it. But that's the nuance there. Are you willing to sacrifice voice of 1% to give it to 99% others?

aasasd 8y ago

I also wonder whether congressmen would be alright with corporations defending users' universal rights in the US, or if it suddenly became a matter of national policy. (I guess that Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, cited in the article, would like that very much.)

RestlessMind 8y ago

Sandberg should have asked Rubio what he thinks about the US govt support for Saudi Arabia. US claims to stand for democracy and human rights, but then goes on supporting dictatorships around the world (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, ...) as well as having large trade relations with such countries (eg. China). It is almost as if the US stands by their purported values as long as they don't interfere with their geopolitics.

rchaud 8y ago
She could have, but that would be the response of a defensive witness. What on earth does FB have to be defensive about? Absolutely nothing will come from these hearings aside from "this is a complicated problem and we are trying our best" style responses. The shareholders certainly don't care and House/Senate representatives are terrified of even attempting to make a case for stronger oversight because of the risk of appearing "anti-business".
SkyMarshal 8y ago
That was my initial thought too. It’s not the responsibility of US corporations to influence or change the behavior of foreign governments, but rather to follow the laws of the countries in which the operate. They can choose to operate in those countries or not, but if they do they have to follow the law there. Changing foreign govt policies is the responsibility of the US govt, which in recent years has tended to punt on it when convenient to wealthy constituents (China, Saudi Arabia, etc). Calling out these CEOs for not doing what is the US Govt’s responsibility isn’t a good look for the Senators.
cmiles74 8y ago
It seems that United States has the exact same problem as Facebook. I don't think this is all that surprising since they are both very large organizations. As someone mentioned above, committees allow for the dilution of responsibility. While a couple of people might have a serious problem with the committee's actions, what are the odds that they have problems with the same action? And so the committee lets the bill or whatever is slide across the desk with an approval and actions we find morally questionable become official policy. The answer to this hypothetical, where Sandberg turns the question back on Rubio, would probably be more about positioning and evasion then anything of substance.

quotemstr 8y ago

That's why companies shouldn't try to uphold certain values. Bay Area values are not the world's values, and to try to engineer discourse to make the world agree with the Bay Area is the epitome of moral hubris. Platforms must allow everything that's legal. The legislative chamber, not some cutely-named meeting room, is the proper forum for deciding what content is to be allowed into the public sphere. I know the people advocating social media censorship think that they're trying to stop "harm", but it's always the people on some mind of moral crusade that commit the worst atrocities. Every villain is a hero in his own mind. It's not possible, when you're swept up in some more current, to really know whether you're actually the good guy or not. No matter what you do, it feels like the right thing. That's why we can't trust feelings. It's why we need some god damned humility. Companies should optimize for profit. It's at least honest. You can reason about profit. It's the job of the public to incorporate the public good into the profit equation. Having done that, we balance concerns automatically. What doesn't work is creating lax laws, then relying on opaque and unaccountable internal processes to create a concern for the public good. What you end up with, as you do with any opaque and unaccountable rulemaking process, is rules that fit the private interests of the rulemakers and not the public. And in the present environment, these private interests all involve wanting to feel sanctimonious.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 8y ago
I can't agree with the concept of "Platforms must allow everything that's legal." - for pretty much every platform that allows user-generated content, starting from small blogs, it is very reasonable (and pretty much a requirement if you care about the quality of service/discourse/etc) to filter content that's technically legal but annoying and thus unwanted - for example, spam, trolling, shock videos/links, excessive use of your resources, sockpuppet accounts for voting stuff up, etc. Platforms should be able to choose to allow everything that's legal, but it's understandable if they choose not to do so, and IMHO it would be both immoral and impractical to prohibit them from establishing certain terms and conditions that forbid lots of things that would otherwise be legal. It's okay if some platform wants to facilitate only a certain kind of discussion, it's not their duty to be a soapbox for everyone and everything if they or their users don't want it. There is and should be a place for platforms that try to be such soapboxes, but I often would prefer to use a different platform instead.

vagab0nd 8y ago

This Radiolab episode is highly relevant: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/post-no-evil https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/post-no-evil

mirimir 8y ago

So how come Ms. Sandberg isn't charged with perjury?