7 ms·
Zuckerberg asserts Facebook stands for free expression
- rubbingalcohol 7y agoFacebook's Community Standards are the antithesis of free expression.
- bitwize 7y agoIt's 2019 and "free speech" is now widely considered a dogwhistle word for "white supremacy".
- dmix 7y agoI was reading up on that Extinction Rebellion group (the ones disrupting traffic and blocking commuters from using public transit) and their book blamed 'white supremacy' as one of the causes of climate change as well.
- jlawson 7y agoIn the far-left worldview, all society-scale problems can be traced to the moral turpitude of straight white men.
- damnyou 7y agoNot all of them. but a big chunk, yes. It's not specific to straight white men — if it were, say, straight Japanese men ruling the world then the blame would be laid on them. Ultimately, the left view is largely correct, which is why I'm on the left.
- minikites 7y agoThey're overwhelmingly represented in positions of power so yes, it is them causing the problems, by definition.
- merpnderp 7y agoIf you believe that, you’re believing in straight up racism.
- minikites 7y agohttps://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/women-leaders-around-the-world/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/women-leade... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/2018s-fortune-500-companies-have-just-24-female-ceos.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/2018s-fortune-500-companies-... https://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/ https://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-senior-executives-f...
- dmix 7y agoJust to he clear, you think that is a central cause of most the problems in society? I get the whole equity of opportunities argument, there's some legitimate grievances there. Where you people lose me is when it gets into vindictive and punitive territory by working against anyone successful for some vague and needlessly destructive form of 'progress.' I'd much rather the world lifts themselves up together instead of punishing and destroying our way to equity of outcomes, which usually means everyone being worse-off. Meanwhile no one gives a shit about the 93% male/7% female workplace death rates in these conversations. Neither of which sounds very pro-worker to me.
- minikites 7y agoI'm not saying "the problems exist because they are white", I'm saying "they are in power, they have the responsibility to address these problems, they are not addressing these problems, therefore it is directly their fault these problems still exist".
- smt88 7y agoThis is both untrue and likely to start a flame war. You're likely thinking of the debate over reddit, YouTube, and Twitter policy changes, where the people banned were largely white supremacists. Of course in those specific debates, "free speech" was being conflated with "the right to say racist stuff on private companies' networks".
- dmix 7y agoOf course it starts with the actual bigots and racists. It's how they forever expand the meanings of various terms to "anyone I don't agree with" is when it starts getting ridiculous and dangerous. It's a predictable outcome with plenty of evidence supporting it.
- rubbingalcohol 7y agoKind of like how the existence of terrorists and pedophiles justifies putting backdoors in all encryption. It ends at a place where all your rights get eroded away, and doesn't even end up protecting anyone anyway.
- dmix 7y agoThe 'terrorist' label is a great example of how the meaning of terms get conveniently expanded and broadened for political ends.
- smt88 7y agoHowever ridiculous or dangerous their rules are, they're the right of private corporations in the US. The First Amendment protects public speech from govt censorship. It does not require private entities to broadcast everyone's speech equally.
- dmix 7y agoThere's always one person who makes this comment like it's an original thought and useful contribution. I'm talking about culture, not law. The US and the west in general has always had a strong free speech culture. It'd be ridiculous to only rely on a law limiting government as the thing that defines what is and is not okay. There's a reason this is being called our generation's 'culture wars'.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- notadoc 7y agoWhy do people still use Facebook?
- DevKoala 7y agoWhatsApp? My parents love it since it allows them to talk to all of their friends and family abroad. It's such a shame that the founders sold the company to Facebook.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wavefunction 7y agoZuckerberg continues to increase my support for a breakup of the facebook/instagram/whatsapp/oculus. He's not the sort of person that should be entrusted with the awesome power he's wielding over the world, if there are any.
- clay_the_ripper 7y agoI’m curious why you think that. I find Mark Zuckerberg to be measured, reasonable, thoughtful and I believe him to genuinely care about the values he espouses. Personally I could not think of anyone I would rather have run Facebook. With such great power, I think it’s positive to have a platform that represents a diverse set of views, and is committed to not policing content unless absolutely necessary.
- r00fus 7y agoHis own words. His inability to have moral standings that interfere with his company's profits. He not only runs FB, he owns it and has 100% control over it - he has the majority of vote share on the board. If he goes bad or power gets to his head, there's nothing to stop him but government.
- fsociety 7y agoThey could easily go the Apple route and sellout their own mission to be a product in China but they didn't. That's a moral standing which does interfere with an enormous amount of profits.
- wavefunction 7y agoYou sure about that? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo... I know they're not operating in China but that appears to be because Chinese authorities have blocked them and not any particular moral stance.
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mc32 7y agoLet’s see how this works out. Certainly I think they are in their rights to censor illegal activities and speech. But we’ll see if the delve further into censoring otherwise legal free speech. If they start looking into truthfulness of political ads, they’ll eventually have to monitor all ads for truth and deceit. They probably don’t want to go there. I also hope this turns into a productive discussion.
- jdkee 7y agoThey would likely lose Section 230 protections as a "provider" and be relegated to that of "information content provider" if Facebook begins editing political speech.
- fuuiiyyuuu 7y agoThe largest freest easily available platform is 4chan. However I'm sure more then a few people want it taken down. People suck.
- jdkee 7y agoAs another poster notes, Facebook's speech codes are far more restrictive than those afforded by the First Amendment. Of course, as a private entity Facebook is not constrained by the 1A. This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a conservative administration.
- virmundi 7y agoWhile a private company, it gains major legal protections as a platform. If the chooses speech, they are a publisher, which opens them up to legal actions. They can’t have it both ways. Neither can people saying they are a private company and therefore free of the first amendment.
- akersten 7y agoNo, stop spreading this misinformation. A "platform" can moderate all they like (section 230), and they can have it both ways. They can even moderate opinions they don't like. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's how it should work. You are free to ban people for violating your terms of use, you are free to ban them for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, you are afforded this freedom by the First Amendment, because the government may make no law compelling you to speak on behalf of someone else. The "publisher or platform, choose one" line is a lie brandished by those who are trying to instate The Fairness Doctrine 2.0, where private businesses are somehow compelled to be politically neutral in their moderation, which by the way is impossible to define. Remember that the original Fairness Doctrine (which tried to make TV news politically neutral) was found unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Private company, their website, their rules. If you don't like it, make your own platform - there's nothing stopping you. (Sidebar, this is in contrast to an ISP where there are often regulations and local laws preventing competition, and enforced neutrality makes sense in that space as a consequence of a government-granted monopoly. That's not how the current FCC saw it when ruling on Net Neutrality, and I think they're wrong - but I'm getting off-topic).
- stevenicr 7y agoI think there is some truth to what the P (or gp?) poster is saying, and you mention 230 - which is exactly the part I think he/she was referring to.. "Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... afaik, and simplified, if you have users post words and such to the web via your service, you are not on the hook legally as much if it was you yourself publishing content on your own closed service for example. I have had expensive counsel suggest that not-moderating content may be the best choice in order to not lose these protections in some cases. It took me a bit to realize there is a difference between moderating all content before it's published and moderating after the fact (like takedown requests) I don't agree with the last part of the gp's post, but I also don't think it's spreading misinformation, it's just more complicated now (and with the sesta / fosta adding exemptions to the exemptions, it's even more complex ) I do agree with you that "A "platform" can moderate all they like" and they can have it both ways in some regards... like it's okay to let people upload videos if you take them down when requested by rights holders... you would not be losing all 230 protection, but if you had a moderator manually approve each item before it was published - that may trigger some other liabilities than you'd have otherwise.. the choose one line may be used by some in the way you mention, and I appreciate you adding that thought to the discussion. I believe the line can also be used and applied to many other situations in which it may be the way it should work, or in some cases maybe not - and other's have tried to have it 'both ways' such as cloudflare. Where these issues ultimately lead seem to be in a state of flux, and I think many have been assuming freedoms have been defined and yet they are being chipped away from several fronts / angles. I see more grey areas around this these days then there once was.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gfosco 7y agoIt was a good speech. Reasoned and thoughtful, providing historical precedents, and examining the benefits and risks unique to global internet platforms. Can't say I agreed with everything, but on the whole, I think it's a great direction. Worth a watch, or a read when the text comes out.
- hnuser54 7y agoThe passive voice of "Facebook...has been assailed" is amusing given that the present publication has been the one leading the charge. The central exhibit of this piece is an assertion is that a political ad should be censored by Facebook and others because it "falsely claimed [Biden] committed corrupt acts in Ukraine". It did not make such a claim. The ad, which was much harder to find than the dozens of articles declaring it "false", repeated a video statement by Biden that he used a US-backed loan deal to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, and it repeated a statement by the Ukrainian prosecutor claiming he was fired because he was investigating a company associated with Biden's son. But other sources assert that the US wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he was corrupt himself, or because he was getting in the way of other corruption probes. See https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-on-biden-and-ukraine/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-... and https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-20... for the ad and two fairly well researched but opposing takes on the issue. This isn't libel, this isn't accusing someone of a crime, this didn't fabricate sources or quotes: it's just political innuendo. Demanding censorship of electoral material because it's tacky or slightly misleading by dubbing it "false propaganda" doesn't seem right.
- merpnderp 7y agoI’m pretty confident every one of those articles attacking the ad knew exactly what they were doing and knew it only showed Biden’s own words, and took advantage of the fact that the vast majority of readers will never research this themselves and are happy to believe lies they wish were true.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.is/ocSqN http://archive.is/ocSqN
- throwaway_law 7y agoIts been beat to death but Freedom of Speech is a limit on Governmental Power to silence citizens. What is often missed in the Free Speech discussion is the concept of the "marketplace of ideas", that is the importance of Free Speech is allowing the market to decide which ideas/speech is the best. The problem with FB and all other platforms is they are replacing the market with their own algorithms to maximize advertising revenue. Facebook standing for Free Expression is such a play on words...Facebook stands for monetizing the content users give them for free.
- merpnderp 7y agoIsn’t that a little bit overly reductive? Facebook is also where likely >90% of political discussions happen, and Facebook’s own self interest is aligned with societies if they promote free speech.
- throwaway_law 7y ago>Facebook’s own self interest is aligned with societies if they promote free speech. Facebook's interest is in capturing more market share and maximizing their profits...not sure how that aligns with the interest of society, but I guess it sounds good to call it promotion of free speech.
- merpnderp 7y agoProfits are a good thing as usually some portion of them are brand new wealth, which makes us all richer. And if Facebook can create new wealth while promoting free speech, then society wins twice. Profits are simply the creation of new wealth and it is ridiculous to think they're bad.
- lacker 7y agoThe problem with FB and all other platforms is they are replacing the market with their own algorithms to maximize advertising revenue. Social media is a better platform for political ideas than newspapers or television. Every newspaper and TV channel ends up slanted towards one side of the other. The NYT goes for the Democrats, Fox News goes for the Republicans. But social media is whatever you make of it. You can get either Democratic or Republican viewpoints from Facebook or Twitter.
- zestyping 7y agoFacebook suppresses free expression every day — by consistently promoting clickbait above factual content. Ranking algorithms constitute editorial intent, for which Facebook is responsible.
- quotemstr 7y agoThe argument that ranking exists and therefore FB and other social media companies get to censorship what they want is invalid. There's no reason for ranking algorithms to take viewpoint into account. You can rank in a viewpoint-agnostic way that preserves freedom of speech.
- disce_pati 7y agoassertion failed
- lacker 7y agoThe text of the speech is available here: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-voice-and-free-expression/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-... It's too long to paste here. I found it interesting to read, though. You don't have to be logged into Facebook to read it.