9 ms·

I love this new narrative that allowing the president of the USA to communicate on the largest platform in the world is siding with him or being in alliance wit

by zpeti 6y ago

I love this new narrative that allowing the president of the USA to communicate on the largest platform in the world is siding with him or being in alliance with him. At least be honest and say that you want Zuckerberg to censor and police trump. That’s the truth. But don’t pretend that somehow it’s immoral to allow the US President to post on your platform. He’s the president, whether you like it or not.

zwirbl 6y ago
Do rules not apply to US presidents?
- leereeves 6y ago
  In much the same way that even laws do not apply to anything said in Congress, because the power to control political debate is the power to control government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Except wasn't that clause to stop the Executive Branch (and anyone else) from using the machinery of the state to interfere with Congress? Not really about freedom of speech, rather keeping Congress independent from outside control. A lot of former British colonies have the same principle, dating from 1688/1689: https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-privilege-in-new-zealand/ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-...
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > keeping Congress independent from outside control. Exactly what's at stake here. Keeping the government independent from outside control by those who happen to control the means of communication.
      - alwayseasy 6y ago
        Facebook is not "the means of communication" comparable to Congress. It's a private company that can control the types of ads it runs.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
linkregister 6y ago
The President of the USA should be held to the same terms of service that are enforced against all other users.
- golemiprague 6y ago
  They let other users get away with much worst posts. If you are on the left you can say whatever you want, if you are on the right everything you say is a lie and wrong and against the rules. So do whatever you want but at least don't be an hypocrite, SV is a leftist place, it is classicist and hates Trump supporters and Trump, it hates everybody who are not upper middle class and above white collar workers and doesn't want their voice heard. The terms of service are written to reflect those values to start with.
js8 6y ago
I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.
- leereeves 6y ago
  It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.
        leereeves 6y ago
        All Twitter does is transmit messages between people. Why do you consider them different from other services that do so?
ramraj07 6y ago
The president didn't post a video making cupcakes. He explicitly reused a racist phrase to suggest the black protesters should be shot down. Anyone else making this comment would have been flagged but not the president. Zuckerberg is not the kid in the social network movie who's "not an asshole, you're just trying really hard to be one." No one has ever said a single good thing about him, or his partner Sandberg, in a long time. By all measures they seem to be selfish people who have nothing else in their minds other than keeping and growing the power they have now. The only other thing they are now famous for is how they manipulate good founders of great products with false promises and then kick them out to consolidate even more power. At least that's all you can tell from what little we know of these billionaire oligarchs lives. In the end, I'm going to hypothesize that America became a great country because for a while some of its leaders and rich people at least tried to do _some_ good things to its people and try to be the better person now and then. Given the degree to which every single rich person and politician in power seems self-obsessed if not overtly corrupt, it doesn't bode too well for the life of the common man in America or anywhere else for the matter. I'm not particularly worried about WW3 though, because I don't see any good country left behind to fight every totalitarian nation that's getting created now.
- champagneben 6y ago
  >He explicitly reused a racist phrase to suggest the black protesters should be shot down. I thought the consensus was that the looters were mostly young out-of-states whites? And to insinuate that the President had read some 1940s Florida mayor's (sorry, I can't remember who the saying is originally attributed to) speeches and knew the connotations of that phrase is ridiculous.
  - nfin 6y ago
    if he doesn’t know the connotations of the words he employs, he should finally learn that the white house would be happy to proof read his tweets (or any person he would like to choose) in case he makes a mistake. This is easy and standard procedure for talks, ... of big company leaders, politicians, ...
  - alwayseasy 6y ago
lostmyoldone 6y ago
I don't think presidents or any other dignitaries should get preferential treatment regarding behavior on a social network any more than their behavior would be excused in a social situation without their title. As long as it's called a social network, I don't think title or position should ever come into effect. It's also the case in this particular example the he is only the president of the US, not the president of the world. If a service has community rules that are world-wide in scope, then I would expect that at least outside the US, the rules are equally applied to all content published there. He could be allowed to use it on the same term as anyone else. I don't know, but maybe to people in Europe it is especially disturbing to people in that he's been given almost free reign. In some ways, an omen of the darkest possible future. The undeniable subtext of on one hand getting content removed for posting legitimate journalistic photos, and on the other hand allowing Trump to post hate speach that would be straight up illegal in several EU countries is truly disturbing. Europe was where fascism got its face, we fear it for a reason, and Trump unfortunately helps actual fascist advance their influence here. He idolizes the instigator of the war, a war that across almost all of Europe countries had to sacrifice a sizeable fraction of their population to try to stop, and without US we might not have. So, yes. When someone clearly has an agenda to cause suffering, conflict; and who revels in the the suffering of others, to give them a platform is immoral. There are no two ways about it. I and many in this part of the world would very much prefer if anyone who in any way supports or embolden fascists did not have any venue at all to make their voice heard, moreso when they command what is undoubtedly the greatest single military power on the planet. What Trump says would still be in the news of course, and we would be aware, but his outburst would no longer be algorithmically targeted at those who who have shown to engage with it. Some speech might actually not be worth risking another 70 million lives or more on, president of the US or not. It's not at all the only problem that needs solving, but it's one that can be solved.
pjc50 6y ago
So, let's look at the counterclaim - that Facebook is obliged to publish whatever the President wants, regardless of the content? What are the boundaries of this, then? Does it extend to foreign leaders? Is Facebook obliged to publish everything Xi says as well? How far down the government does it extend? Cabinet members? Senators? Judges? Military? Does it extend to other content that would be banned? Is Facebook morally or legally obliged to publish porn if it's from the Presidential account? Other objectionable images, violence, gore, goatse? Does it extend to content that's false and harmful to Facebook itself? If Trump posts a fake FB stock price graph with "look at these LOOSERS", is FB legally or morally obliged to host that regardless of how many billions in shareholder value it costs them? Is CNN obliged to show Trump's fake CNN chyron? Is Twitter? How circumlocutious does a death threat have to be for FB to still be legally or morally obliged to host it? What about "Someone should take care of this Zuckerberg guy" over a picture of a bullet?

by zpeti 6y ago

zwirbl 6y ago

Do rules not apply to US presidents?

leereeves 6y ago
In much the same way that even laws do not apply to anything said in Congress, because the power to control political debate is the power to control government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Except wasn't that clause to stop the Executive Branch (and anyone else) from using the machinery of the state to interfere with Congress? Not really about freedom of speech, rather keeping Congress independent from outside control. A lot of former British colonies have the same principle, dating from 1688/1689: https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-privilege-in-new-zealand/ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-...
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > keeping Congress independent from outside control. Exactly what's at stake here. Keeping the government independent from outside control by those who happen to control the means of communication.
    - alwayseasy 6y ago
      Facebook is not "the means of communication" comparable to Congress. It's a private company that can control the types of ads it runs.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

linkregister 6y ago

The President of the USA should be held to the same terms of service that are enforced against all other users.

golemiprague 6y ago
They let other users get away with much worst posts. If you are on the left you can say whatever you want, if you are on the right everything you say is a lie and wrong and against the rules. So do whatever you want but at least don't be an hypocrite, SV is a leftist place, it is classicist and hates Trump supporters and Trump, it hates everybody who are not upper middle class and above white collar workers and doesn't want their voice heard. The terms of service are written to reflect those values to start with.

js8 6y ago

I think it depends how you understand the president. One view is authoritarian, a person with lots of power who can do whatever he wants. The other view is democratic, a person employed by citizens to be a representative and have some managerial role. In the second view, he should have (unless it's required by his job) exactly the same permissions as any other citizen.

leereeves 6y ago
It won't be much of a democracy if a few SV oligarchs decide what politicians are allowed to say.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  Isn’t that what C-SPAN is for? A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. Politicians can use government owned or subsidized media if they want to dictate the terms.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > A private company isn’t obligated to transmit anyone’s speech. The phone company was.[1] TV networks were.[2] And while there is still some debate about this, net neutrality would apply that obligation to ISPs. Why not Facebook and Twitter? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      That’s for common carriers. Twitter isn’t a common carrier.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        All Twitter does is transmit messages between people. Why do you consider them different from other services that do so?

ramraj07 6y ago

The president didn't post a video making cupcakes. He explicitly reused a racist phrase to suggest the black protesters should be shot down. Anyone else making this comment would have been flagged but not the president. Zuckerberg is not the kid in the social network movie who's "not an asshole, you're just trying really hard to be one." No one has ever said a single good thing about him, or his partner Sandberg, in a long time. By all measures they seem to be selfish people who have nothing else in their minds other than keeping and growing the power they have now. The only other thing they are now famous for is how they manipulate good founders of great products with false promises and then kick them out to consolidate even more power. At least that's all you can tell from what little we know of these billionaire oligarchs lives. In the end, I'm going to hypothesize that America became a great country because for a while some of its leaders and rich people at least tried to do _some_ good things to its people and try to be the better person now and then. Given the degree to which every single rich person and politician in power seems self-obsessed if not overtly corrupt, it doesn't bode too well for the life of the common man in America or anywhere else for the matter. I'm not particularly worried about WW3 though, because I don't see any good country left behind to fight every totalitarian nation that's getting created now.

champagneben 6y ago
>He explicitly reused a racist phrase to suggest the black protesters should be shot down. I thought the consensus was that the looters were mostly young out-of-states whites? And to insinuate that the President had read some 1940s Florida mayor's (sorry, I can't remember who the saying is originally attributed to) speeches and knew the connotations of that phrase is ridiculous.
- nfin 6y ago
  if he doesn’t know the connotations of the words he employs, he should finally learn that the white house would be happy to proof read his tweets (or any person he would like to choose) in case he makes a mistake. This is easy and standard procedure for talks, ... of big company leaders, politicians, ...
- alwayseasy 6y ago

lostmyoldone 6y ago

I don't think presidents or any other dignitaries should get preferential treatment regarding behavior on a social network any more than their behavior would be excused in a social situation without their title. As long as it's called a social network, I don't think title or position should ever come into effect. It's also the case in this particular example the he is only the president of the US, not the president of the world. If a service has community rules that are world-wide in scope, then I would expect that at least outside the US, the rules are equally applied to all content published there. He could be allowed to use it on the same term as anyone else. I don't know, but maybe to people in Europe it is especially disturbing to people in that he's been given almost free reign. In some ways, an omen of the darkest possible future. The undeniable subtext of on one hand getting content removed for posting legitimate journalistic photos, and on the other hand allowing Trump to post hate speach that would be straight up illegal in several EU countries is truly disturbing. Europe was where fascism got its face, we fear it for a reason, and Trump unfortunately helps actual fascist advance their influence here. He idolizes the instigator of the war, a war that across almost all of Europe countries had to sacrifice a sizeable fraction of their population to try to stop, and without US we might not have. So, yes. When someone clearly has an agenda to cause suffering, conflict; and who revels in the the suffering of others, to give them a platform is immoral. There are no two ways about it. I and many in this part of the world would very much prefer if anyone who in any way supports or embolden fascists did not have any venue at all to make their voice heard, moreso when they command what is undoubtedly the greatest single military power on the planet. What Trump says would still be in the news of course, and we would be aware, but his outburst would no longer be algorithmically targeted at those who who have shown to engage with it. Some speech might actually not be worth risking another 70 million lives or more on, president of the US or not. It's not at all the only problem that needs solving, but it's one that can be solved.

pjc50 6y ago

So, let's look at the counterclaim - that Facebook is obliged to publish whatever the President wants, regardless of the content? What are the boundaries of this, then? Does it extend to foreign leaders? Is Facebook obliged to publish everything Xi says as well? How far down the government does it extend? Cabinet members? Senators? Judges? Military? Does it extend to other content that would be banned? Is Facebook morally or legally obliged to publish porn if it's from the Presidential account? Other objectionable images, violence, gore, goatse? Does it extend to content that's false and harmful to Facebook itself? If Trump posts a fake FB stock price graph with "look at these LOOSERS", is FB legally or morally obliged to host that regardless of how many billions in shareholder value it costs them? Is CNN obliged to show Trump's fake CNN chyron? Is Twitter? How circumlocutious does a death threat have to be for FB to still be legally or morally obliged to host it? What about "Someone should take care of this Zuckerberg guy" over a picture of a bullet?