19 ms·

Zuckerberg Leaves Racial Justice Leader Frustrated After Call

35 points by jhowell 6y ago

jhowell 6y ago
> In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”
- tomp 6y ago
  > explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it That's the problem with getting only one side of the story. Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem).
  - jhowell 6y ago
    > Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem). Given the unique ability of his technology to magnify and control the distribution of information should we impose greater liabilities if their actions are demonstrably negative?
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > explaining to him why these things are a problem Well "a problem" is not the same as "a problem for Mark Zuckerberg" and until it is, he's not going to give two shits about it.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Well "a problem" is not the same as "a problem for Mark Zuckerberg" and until it is, he's not going to give two shits about it. That's describing a cartoonishly self-centered attitude.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      Have you read anything about him that would suggest otherwise? I really haven't. He's and entitled white kid whose success has only fueled is self importance and disconnect from reality.
- hckr_news 6y ago
  I’m convinced he has Asperger’s syndrome (nothing wrong with it) but could explain why he behaves and understands things the way he does.
creddit 6y ago
Zuck walked right into that trap.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I was at F8 when Zuck announced "the future is private". It's entirely possible he's simply that lacking in self-awareness.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    It wouldn't be his first time, if people remember the Puerto Rico incident 3 years ago.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  You can't win with the NAACP. They're so desperate for publicity that they'll attack anyone that gives them even a modicum of attention. Their mission is spot-on but their tactics are dodgy.
  - weewee2018 6y ago
    The only way to win with them is by being their pawn and completely giving up any independent thought.
fullshark 6y ago
The attempts to work the refs and shape political discourse on FB leading up to the election are only going to get more and more intense. Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  > Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss. And I still blame her for the current state of the world. Her gross incompetence in regards to her campaign and underestimating her opponent has directly lead to human rights violations, the erosure of trust in America from its allies and countless unnecessary deaths in the handling of the pandemic. She lost to who is likely the dumbest and most incompetent president in history, so what does that make her?
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss. There is no room for doubt that the extensive campaign of voter manipulation and propaganda mounted by Russia was key to Trump's election.
splitrocket 6y ago
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  Well said, but about whom.
  - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
    The Zuck.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    Zuckerberg, of course. What's hard to understand? This is the Cambridge Analytica problem playing in repeat: if it affects business as usual then his go-to defense is to play dumb and pretend that there is no elephant in the room.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    It's a very straightforward quote about any man whose salary depends on not understanding a certain set of facts that are being presented...
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Well said, but about whom. The answer is clear...unless you think racism is a hoax and civil rights leaders are mainly in their line of work for the money.
    - conanbatt 6y ago
      I don't think facebook is a hoax! A "Racial Justice Leader" which is an amazing title, is confounded about how the CEO of one of the largest media organizations in the world does not want to partake in spreading his message and thinks its because "he doesn't understand". Please.
xwdv 6y ago
Nothing he said could have satisfied them. Don't even know why he did this. People just don't understand this isn't a Facebook problem.
spamizbad 6y ago
One new problem I see on Facebook these days are lots of images shared of false claims of people coming to attack/riot in neighborhoods... like really poorly doctored snapchat screenshots that wouldn't fool anyone under 40 but get proliferated everywhere by boomers. There's now a massive line outside my local Home Depot with people standing in 90 degree heat trying to return plywood and OSB for looting and imaginary "ANTIFA caravan riots" that never came. Absolutely corrosive stuff to social order in its own right.
- weewee2018 6y ago
  So if you’re born in 1980 or earlier you’re a boomer? Oh my. Ageism shines through.
  - meddlepal 6y ago
    Boomer is the new Millenial..., as in all "old people" are Boomers and all "young people" are Millenials. Welcome to Stupidlandia.
    - weewee2018 6y ago
      Two steps away from Logan’s Run. Over 30? Goodbye.
  - spamizbad 6y ago
    I'm not interested in getting into a PC slap-fight: Old people are more likely to spread disinformation online and there's studies that prove it. Facts don't care about your feelings: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1
    - weewee2018 6y ago
      Let’s generalize and condemn everyone over 40. There is no nuance because that would spoil your take-away.
whatshisface 6y ago
If Zuckerberg were to make Facebook politically active, it would probably be his personal views that they pushed. Why would it be anything else?
- pesfandiar 6y ago
  I don't know his political views very well, but since Facebook's user base in the US skews towards older demographics, I imagine "old folks conservatism" would be better for business.
  - banads 6y ago
    Not necessarily. Nothing raises engagement quite like a good rage flame war
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Zuckerberg is politically active, and his personal views are being pushed. Their current policy of allowing incitement to violence and voter suppression in the name of free expression is the result.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Allowing something isn't pushing something. To see how, look at the following debate: Liberal: "Stop trying to push your views on us, let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay." Conservative: "You are also pushing your views, and the fact that gay marriage is allowed is a result of that. By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone." So, that's clearly wrong, because as smart as it sounds to say things like "the null policy is a policy," being permissive is actually possible to distinguish from any of the particular ways one could be restrictive.
    - testbot123 6y ago
      > let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay > By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone This is a straw man. People don't choose to be gay, and conservatives are depriving people of their rights for something they can't choose. Allowing individuals the right of self determination is nowhere near allowing a sitting president to incite violence against American citizens.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
encoderer 6y ago
I hate Trump but it’s not facebook’s job to censor the president.
- oneplane 6y ago
  It's also not their job to host everyone and everyone's content on their non-public non-government commercial platform.
  - encoderer 6y ago
    As much as many people hate the fact, he is still president.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      I'm not sure what that fact has to do with that commercial social media platform and its rules.
  - banads 6y ago
    Their job is to make money. Censoring world leaders from your platform is a sure fire way to lose a lot of users and money
    - oneplane 6y ago
      I'm not sure there are metrics on that, I haven't seen any publication of such a precedent. I also wonder where those people might go, to the next-biggest platform perhaps? Or create a new one? And what about people that don't have a 1-to-1 relation to presence and consumption but a 1-to-many (i.e., friends, family). I suppose it's likely that someone might spend less total time on a platform if they have to divide their time between more than one platform.
      - banads 6y ago
        FB has the metrics. The precedent is Cambridge Analytica.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
This article has zero content. Why were they frustrated? What did they propose? What did Zuckerberg say? Bad journalism.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-stunned-after-call-with-zuckerberg.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-stunned... they want Trump's post to come down, simple as that. The story I linked has more substance but it all comes down to they don't like Trump or anything he says and so they want Facebook along with Twitter to both label or block it.
thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago
This doesn't really seem newsworthy. They should be happy Zuckerberg spoke to them and they got to share their different perspectives with him. He runs one of the largest companies in the world, and they are just a single NGO with their own view point on racial ideas. Why don't any companies ever work with non liberal NGO's? I'd love to see more of Thomas Sowell type thinking.
rsweeney21 6y ago
So are social media companies a platform or are they editorialized? Let's say we decide to go to war with China. Should Facebook censor anti-Chinese content? Should it censor anti-war content? I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography) and then there is a lot of gray area. My question to Facebook employees who oppose Mark's viewpoint is: "What is your solution and how do you prevent Facebook from censoring anything you don't agree with?"
- flmlta 6y ago
  >I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography) How about advocating violence or harm to others?
  - rsweeney21 6y ago
    Wouldn't that be ok in war time? What if I say "You should defend your property from criminals." That's advocating violence. What about advocating for late-term abortions? A huge portion of the US feel like that is harming an unborn human being. What about advocating for the death penalty in states where it is legal? I don't see how you could objectively make censorship judgements on this kind of speech.
Barrin92 6y ago
Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality. Not just on this particular issue, but on every single one, he gives, without exception, the same pre-arranged PR department answer imaginable. No matter if it's issues with AI, privacy, advertisement or now political or racially charged content, you can be sure you get the "we're trying to connect the world" stump speech
- rumanator 6y ago
  I'm not convinced he is that detached from reality. I do believe that the status quo is to his liking and thus he plays his hand to ensure it stays that way, but still plays it safe by pulling the plausible deniability card.
- tomp 6y ago
  > Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality and the most principled.
sneak 6y ago
It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular? I, for one, don't want any third party telling me what I am or am not allowed to read. If someone wants to put something on the internet, it's not the hosting platform's job to say that they shouldn't, provided that material is legal. If it's bad content, I won't read it. Maybe other people will; not my business, nor yours. When did we go from "I don't want to read that" to "nobody should be able to read that"? Would you tolerate arbitrary censorship of your own webpage by your web host? Why are so many people demanding that Facebook play cop? Being wrong on the internet isn't illegal, nor should it be, and Facebook is correct for staying out of that, no matter how repugnant the stupid shit posted to Facebook becomes. Ultimately, any platform used by billions is going to be filled with stupid, repugnant, wrong shit, or filled with censorship. I'd prefer the former, because the latter is unacceptable.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  > It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular? Circa November 8th 2016
- poisonborz 6y ago
  This. The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to life, or messages trying to disrupt the service itself. Everything else is just making bed for subjective censorship. That said, FB is a private company that can show and hide whatever it pleases. It is the bad infrastructure of these walled content megalodons that results in this being a problem. Truly distributed networks and darknets may be the only future for the internet we know.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to life It's not a stretch to point out that the post made by POTUS falls within that description. He was literally threatening protestors/looters with summary execution by the military.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even news? It is agitation for a desired outcome. It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the right side of this issue. Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Is it possible that the civil rights leaders misunderstood meeting for something it was not. For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact ( it works, why I should I break it ). I suppose that means we are in agreement. I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your petition will be acted upon.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights leaders. > Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.
mydongle 6y ago
Maybe they should be protesting Facebook or other multinational corporations rather than destroying the local bakery. Would probably do a lot more to further their goals. Like seriously, they can sit down and have a polite call with Zuckerberg, but they can't bother to show the same civility to their own fucking community?
- archagon 6y ago
  Why the fuck are you conflating racial justice leaders with looters?
DoreenMichele 6y ago
So the President of the US says on social media "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" and people want Facebook to take this down and this is their issue with Zuckerberg, that he won't take this down or do anything about it. People are idiots. Removing the post does nothing to prevent the President from ordering "the shooting" he has indicated he will order. Taking the post down amounts to denying people valuable information they may need to try to protect their lives in this mess. There is a reason that democracy values a free press. There is a reason that humans have historically developed policies like "Don't shoot the messenger." It's worse when you can't get the word out that someone with real and serious power to order this to happen is told "Shut up. We don't want to hear from you." It does nothing whatsoever to stop him from ordering in the troops. In fact, it makes it more likely he will do just that in part because it makes it less likely people will get the memo that "If you do x, the consequence is Y, so maybe don't do x." This is a bullshit complaint. Silencing the President on Facebook isn't remotely the same as silencing some random asshole whose words might foment violence but who otherwise lacks the ability to literally command armies to come into your town and shoot people. Because one of the hats the President wears is Commander in Chief and his picture is on the wall of many a military barracks as the top guy in the chain of command, along with all the officers in that unit locally and all the officers between the local Captain (or whatever) and the Commander in Chief.
- archagon 6y ago
  Disagree. Private channels have zero obligation to be propagate any political leader's inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, I'd say the social media feedback loop does substantially more harm than good when tensions are high, since Trump feeds on attention and tends to double-down when pushed. He can publish a press release on an official government website if he wishes, just like any prior president.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

35 points by jhowell 6y ago

> In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”

tomp 6y ago
> explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it That's the problem with getting only one side of the story. Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem).
- jhowell 6y ago
  > Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem). Given the unique ability of his technology to magnify and control the distribution of information should we impose greater liabilities if their actions are demonstrably negative?
cptskippy 6y ago
> explaining to him why these things are a problem Well "a problem" is not the same as "a problem for Mark Zuckerberg" and until it is, he's not going to give two shits about it.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Well "a problem" is not the same as "a problem for Mark Zuckerberg" and until it is, he's not going to give two shits about it. That's describing a cartoonishly self-centered attitude.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    Have you read anything about him that would suggest otherwise? I really haven't. He's and entitled white kid whose success has only fueled is self importance and disconnect from reality.
hckr_news 6y ago
I’m convinced he has Asperger’s syndrome (nothing wrong with it) but could explain why he behaves and understands things the way he does.

creddit 6y ago

Zuck walked right into that trap.

ceejayoz 6y ago
I was at F8 when Zuck announced "the future is private". It's entirely possible he's simply that lacking in self-awareness.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  It wouldn't be his first time, if people remember the Puerto Rico incident 3 years ago.
jimbob45 6y ago
You can't win with the NAACP. They're so desperate for publicity that they'll attack anyone that gives them even a modicum of attention. Their mission is spot-on but their tactics are dodgy.
- weewee2018 6y ago
  The only way to win with them is by being their pawn and completely giving up any independent thought.

fullshark 6y ago

The attempts to work the refs and shape political discourse on FB leading up to the election are only going to get more and more intense. Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.

Zenbit_UX 6y ago
> Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss. And I still blame her for the current state of the world. Her gross incompetence in regards to her campaign and underestimating her opponent has directly lead to human rights violations, the erosure of trust in America from its allies and countless unnecessary deaths in the handling of the pandemic. She lost to who is likely the dumbest and most incompetent president in history, so what does that make her?
rumanator 6y ago
> Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss. There is no room for doubt that the extensive campaign of voter manipulation and propaganda mounted by Russia was key to Trump's election.

splitrocket 6y ago

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair.

conanbatt 6y ago
Well said, but about whom.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  The Zuck.
- rumanator 6y ago
  Zuckerberg, of course. What's hard to understand? This is the Cambridge Analytica problem playing in repeat: if it affects business as usual then his go-to defense is to play dumb and pretend that there is no elephant in the room.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  It's a very straightforward quote about any man whose salary depends on not understanding a certain set of facts that are being presented...
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Well said, but about whom. The answer is clear...unless you think racism is a hoax and civil rights leaders are mainly in their line of work for the money.
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    I don't think facebook is a hoax! A "Racial Justice Leader" which is an amazing title, is confounded about how the CEO of one of the largest media organizations in the world does not want to partake in spreading his message and thinks its because "he doesn't understand". Please.

xwdv 6y ago

Nothing he said could have satisfied them. Don't even know why he did this. People just don't understand this isn't a Facebook problem.

spamizbad 6y ago

One new problem I see on Facebook these days are lots of images shared of false claims of people coming to attack/riot in neighborhoods... like really poorly doctored snapchat screenshots that wouldn't fool anyone under 40 but get proliferated everywhere by boomers. There's now a massive line outside my local Home Depot with people standing in 90 degree heat trying to return plywood and OSB for looting and imaginary "ANTIFA caravan riots" that never came. Absolutely corrosive stuff to social order in its own right.

weewee2018 6y ago
So if you’re born in 1980 or earlier you’re a boomer? Oh my. Ageism shines through.
- meddlepal 6y ago
  Boomer is the new Millenial..., as in all "old people" are Boomers and all "young people" are Millenials. Welcome to Stupidlandia.
  - weewee2018 6y ago
    Two steps away from Logan’s Run. Over 30? Goodbye.
- spamizbad 6y ago
  I'm not interested in getting into a PC slap-fight: Old people are more likely to spread disinformation online and there's studies that prove it. Facts don't care about your feelings: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1
  - weewee2018 6y ago
    Let’s generalize and condemn everyone over 40. There is no nuance because that would spoil your take-away.

whatshisface 6y ago

If Zuckerberg were to make Facebook politically active, it would probably be his personal views that they pushed. Why would it be anything else?

pesfandiar 6y ago
I don't know his political views very well, but since Facebook's user base in the US skews towards older demographics, I imagine "old folks conservatism" would be better for business.
- banads 6y ago
  Not necessarily. Nothing raises engagement quite like a good rage flame war
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Zuckerberg is politically active, and his personal views are being pushed. Their current policy of allowing incitement to violence and voter suppression in the name of free expression is the result.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Allowing something isn't pushing something. To see how, look at the following debate: Liberal: "Stop trying to push your views on us, let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay." Conservative: "You are also pushing your views, and the fact that gay marriage is allowed is a result of that. By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone." So, that's clearly wrong, because as smart as it sounds to say things like "the null policy is a policy," being permissive is actually possible to distinguish from any of the particular ways one could be restrictive.
  - testbot123 6y ago
    > let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay > By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone This is a straw man. People don't choose to be gay, and conservatives are depriving people of their rights for something they can't choose. Allowing individuals the right of self determination is nowhere near allowing a sitting president to incite violence against American citizens.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

encoderer 6y ago

I hate Trump but it’s not facebook’s job to censor the president.

oneplane 6y ago
It's also not their job to host everyone and everyone's content on their non-public non-government commercial platform.
- encoderer 6y ago
  As much as many people hate the fact, he is still president.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    I'm not sure what that fact has to do with that commercial social media platform and its rules.
- banads 6y ago
  Their job is to make money. Censoring world leaders from your platform is a sure fire way to lose a lot of users and money
  - oneplane 6y ago
    I'm not sure there are metrics on that, I haven't seen any publication of such a precedent. I also wonder where those people might go, to the next-biggest platform perhaps? Or create a new one? And what about people that don't have a 1-to-1 relation to presence and consumption but a 1-to-many (i.e., friends, family). I suppose it's likely that someone might spend less total time on a platform if they have to divide their time between more than one platform.
    - banads 6y ago
      FB has the metrics. The precedent is Cambridge Analytica.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

This article has zero content. Why were they frustrated? What did they propose? What did Zuckerberg say? Bad journalism.

Shivetya 6y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-stunned-after-call-with-zuckerberg.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-stunned... they want Trump's post to come down, simple as that. The story I linked has more substance but it all comes down to they don't like Trump or anything he says and so they want Facebook along with Twitter to both label or block it.

thomasfromcdnjs 6y ago

This doesn't really seem newsworthy. They should be happy Zuckerberg spoke to them and they got to share their different perspectives with him. He runs one of the largest companies in the world, and they are just a single NGO with their own view point on racial ideas. Why don't any companies ever work with non liberal NGO's? I'd love to see more of Thomas Sowell type thinking.

rsweeney21 6y ago

So are social media companies a platform or are they editorialized? Let's say we decide to go to war with China. Should Facebook censor anti-Chinese content? Should it censor anti-war content? I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography) and then there is a lot of gray area. My question to Facebook employees who oppose Mark's viewpoint is: "What is your solution and how do you prevent Facebook from censoring anything you don't agree with?"

flmlta 6y ago
>I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography) How about advocating violence or harm to others?
- rsweeney21 6y ago
  Wouldn't that be ok in war time? What if I say "You should defend your property from criminals." That's advocating violence. What about advocating for late-term abortions? A huge portion of the US feel like that is harming an unborn human being. What about advocating for the death penalty in states where it is legal? I don't see how you could objectively make censorship judgements on this kind of speech.

Barrin92 6y ago

Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality. Not just on this particular issue, but on every single one, he gives, without exception, the same pre-arranged PR department answer imaginable. No matter if it's issues with AI, privacy, advertisement or now political or racially charged content, you can be sure you get the "we're trying to connect the world" stump speech

rumanator 6y ago
I'm not convinced he is that detached from reality. I do believe that the status quo is to his liking and thus he plays his hand to ensure it stays that way, but still plays it safe by pulling the plausible deniability card.
tomp 6y ago
> Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality and the most principled.

sneak 6y ago

It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular? I, for one, don't want any third party telling me what I am or am not allowed to read. If someone wants to put something on the internet, it's not the hosting platform's job to say that they shouldn't, provided that material is legal. If it's bad content, I won't read it. Maybe other people will; not my business, nor yours. When did we go from "I don't want to read that" to "nobody should be able to read that"? Would you tolerate arbitrary censorship of your own webpage by your web host? Why are so many people demanding that Facebook play cop? Being wrong on the internet isn't illegal, nor should it be, and Facebook is correct for staying out of that, no matter how repugnant the stupid shit posted to Facebook becomes. Ultimately, any platform used by billions is going to be filled with stupid, repugnant, wrong shit, or filled with censorship. I'd prefer the former, because the latter is unacceptable.

Zenbit_UX 6y ago
> It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular? Circa November 8th 2016
poisonborz 6y ago
This. The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to life, or messages trying to disrupt the service itself. Everything else is just making bed for subjective censorship. That said, FB is a private company that can show and hide whatever it pleases. It is the bad infrastructure of these walled content megalodons that results in this being a problem. Truly distributed networks and darknets may be the only future for the internet we know.
- sneak 6y ago
  > The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to life It's not a stretch to point out that the post made by POTUS falls within that description. He was literally threatening protestors/looters with summary execution by the military.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even news? It is agitation for a desired outcome. It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the right side of this issue. Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?

rumanator 6y ago
> Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Is it possible that the civil rights leaders misunderstood meeting for something it was not. For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact ( it works, why I should I break it ). I suppose that means we are in agreement. I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your petition will be acted upon.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights leaders. > Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby. There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.

mydongle 6y ago

Maybe they should be protesting Facebook or other multinational corporations rather than destroying the local bakery. Would probably do a lot more to further their goals. Like seriously, they can sit down and have a polite call with Zuckerberg, but they can't bother to show the same civility to their own fucking community?

archagon 6y ago
Why the fuck are you conflating racial justice leaders with looters?

DoreenMichele 6y ago

So the President of the US says on social media "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" and people want Facebook to take this down and this is their issue with Zuckerberg, that he won't take this down or do anything about it. People are idiots. Removing the post does nothing to prevent the President from ordering "the shooting" he has indicated he will order. Taking the post down amounts to denying people valuable information they may need to try to protect their lives in this mess. There is a reason that democracy values a free press. There is a reason that humans have historically developed policies like "Don't shoot the messenger." It's worse when you can't get the word out that someone with real and serious power to order this to happen is told "Shut up. We don't want to hear from you." It does nothing whatsoever to stop him from ordering in the troops. In fact, it makes it more likely he will do just that in part because it makes it less likely people will get the memo that "If you do x, the consequence is Y, so maybe don't do x." This is a bullshit complaint. Silencing the President on Facebook isn't remotely the same as silencing some random asshole whose words might foment violence but who otherwise lacks the ability to literally command armies to come into your town and shoot people. Because one of the hats the President wears is Commander in Chief and his picture is on the wall of many a military barracks as the top guy in the chain of command, along with all the officers in that unit locally and all the officers between the local Captain (or whatever) and the Commander in Chief.

archagon 6y ago
Disagree. Private channels have zero obligation to be propagate any political leader's inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, I'd say the social media feedback loop does substantially more harm than good when tensions are high, since Trump feeds on attention and tends to double-down when pushed. He can publish a press release on an official government website if he wishes, just like any prior president.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]