5 ms·

Mark is the person who said that Facebook wasn't going to moderate political ads, and then immediately this happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIwDqcvo4Z

Mark is the person who said that Facebook wasn't going to moderate political ads, and then immediately this happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIwDqcvo4Z8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIwDqcvo4Z8 It's not hard to see why people are skeptical, and don't buy that Facebook is taking their power seriously. I think your argument has merit, but I don't agree that Facebook is taking their power seriously or that they are applying the same rules to a different scenario. I _do_ agree that things are different post-1/6. But I think it has more to do with people finally waking up and smelling the coffee they've been brewing for the past four years. I also agree that there is a huge legal vacuum here that FAANG are having to fill. We definitely put too much responsibility and blame on these companies. It's way past due that the government set some rules here, one way or the other. We may not agree on whatever rules get set, but at least they'll be rules set by a democratic process rather than the whims of corporations.

fossuser 6y ago
It sounds like we probably agree more than we disagree and could probably have an interesting discussion at the margins. That said, I address that AOC clip in my blog post, I think she oversimplifies the issue and doesn’t really address the core problem. From the post: “Watch this exchange between AOC and Zuckerberg, specifically the question about taking down lies in political ads. AOC also attempts to clarify that she doesn’t mean ‘spin,’ but lies. This really gets to the core of the issue: who is determining the difference and how? Do we really want private companies, or Mark Zuckerberg specifically, determining which political speech from an elected democratic leader is a lie and which is not? Zuckerberg gives a diplomatic answer here, but I think he could have pushed back harder. This responsibility should fall to AOC and the other elected leaders in Congress. If there’s to be policy around political speech and social media, it should not be the responsibility of private companies to determine when to censor or not censor the speech from democratically elected politicians, operating in countries with rule of law and a free press. There are a lot of conditions on that statement, but it’s because the conditions are relevant and important. The same standard cannot be automatically held for politicians in non-democratic countries, countries without rule of law, countries that suppress speech themselves, or countries without a free press. The moderation standard is also different for the comments of regular people not in office (though this is still not a trivial problem). For politically elected leaders that meet these conditions though, it’s dangerous to have private companies determine what speech from these elected politicians should and should not be seen by the public on their platforms.” — Today the USG no longer meets those constraints and rule of law is in question.
- fpgaminer 6y ago
  Honestly that AOC clip was just the first thing that popped in my head as an example of "Why people don't trust what Facebook says about their policies". I wouldn't really say that AOC oversimplifies the issue. I doubt she was interested in an in-depth debate about political moderation with Mark. Her drive was just to either elucidate the truth of Facebook's policy, or show Facebook as deceptive. Mark decided to dodge the question, so he ended up showing Facebook as deceptive. Fact is, Facebook decided to go the no-moderation route. That's their right. But they should stand behind that policy and the consequences of it. A good CEO would've answered AOC by restating that they are not the arbiter's of truth. Not exactly that difficult of a response. But Mark chose the worst, whishy-washy, slimy response probably because he didn't put any points into his Speech skill and every other dialogue option was greyed out. Either way, it makes Facebook look spineless and deceptive. Hence why I used that clip to demonstrate why people are rightly skeptical of any suggestion that Facebook might be applying their policies consistently. P.S. The truth of it is perhaps deeper than that. Facebook is taking the no moderation policy at least partly because of money (otherwise, they wouldn't give a shit). Since they've done that it's in their best interest that Congress _not_ provide guidance, because _any_ guidance will more likely than not require some amount of moderation. And that means less ads, which means less money. So really Mark's non-answer was more about being willing to sacrifice Facebook's image in exchange for continuing to muddy the discussion and promote inaction. Any other answer, one way or the other, would have proved AOC's point and given Congress further impetus to have a discussion about online political speech. Or he really did forget to put points in Speech. P.P.S. Whatever one might think of Twitter, Jack Dorsey's response during that whole fiasco was fucking superb, and relevant to the tangent we're slightly on about political speech moderation: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1189634360472829952.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1189634360472829952.html It really just sums up the issues nicely. Again, regardless of how one may feel about Twitter or their decision there, that response is what I'd expect of a cogent CEO.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    We actually have more substantial disagreement than I thought - I thought Zuckerberg’s response was reasonable and AOC’s question was stupid and unanswerable without nuance. Their policy is to not block the speech of elected political leaders in democratic countries with rule of law. They followed that until rule of law and democracy itself became at risk (via incitement of violence and insurrection). At which point they blocked and said exactly that. Twitter’s handling of this was more confused and haphazard. They were obviously trying their best, but their position was less clear and led to more inconsistencies. The 12hr suspension prior to the ban was also dumb. I also don’t buy the cynical take that FB’s moderation decision was financially motivated as opposed to motivated by principle (I explain this more in depth in the blog post). It would have been way easier for them to just ban political ads and flag trump to cheers from the press than to take a principled position. Those ads are a tiny source of revenue. Yes Mark’s charisma is off the charts bad, but the content of what he says and writes is good.

fossuser 6y ago

It sounds like we probably agree more than we disagree and could probably have an interesting discussion at the margins. That said, I address that AOC clip in my blog post, I think she oversimplifies the issue and doesn’t really address the core problem. From the post: “Watch this exchange between AOC and Zuckerberg, specifically the question about taking down lies in political ads. AOC also attempts to clarify that she doesn’t mean ‘spin,’ but lies. This really gets to the core of the issue: who is determining the difference and how? Do we really want private companies, or Mark Zuckerberg specifically, determining which political speech from an elected democratic leader is a lie and which is not? Zuckerberg gives a diplomatic answer here, but I think he could have pushed back harder. This responsibility should fall to AOC and the other elected leaders in Congress. If there’s to be policy around political speech and social media, it should not be the responsibility of private companies to determine when to censor or not censor the speech from democratically elected politicians, operating in countries with rule of law and a free press. There are a lot of conditions on that statement, but it’s because the conditions are relevant and important. The same standard cannot be automatically held for politicians in non-democratic countries, countries without rule of law, countries that suppress speech themselves, or countries without a free press. The moderation standard is also different for the comments of regular people not in office (though this is still not a trivial problem). For politically elected leaders that meet these conditions though, it’s dangerous to have private companies determine what speech from these elected politicians should and should not be seen by the public on their platforms.” — Today the USG no longer meets those constraints and rule of law is in question.

fpgaminer 6y ago
Honestly that AOC clip was just the first thing that popped in my head as an example of "Why people don't trust what Facebook says about their policies". I wouldn't really say that AOC oversimplifies the issue. I doubt she was interested in an in-depth debate about political moderation with Mark. Her drive was just to either elucidate the truth of Facebook's policy, or show Facebook as deceptive. Mark decided to dodge the question, so he ended up showing Facebook as deceptive. Fact is, Facebook decided to go the no-moderation route. That's their right. But they should stand behind that policy and the consequences of it. A good CEO would've answered AOC by restating that they are not the arbiter's of truth. Not exactly that difficult of a response. But Mark chose the worst, whishy-washy, slimy response probably because he didn't put any points into his Speech skill and every other dialogue option was greyed out. Either way, it makes Facebook look spineless and deceptive. Hence why I used that clip to demonstrate why people are rightly skeptical of any suggestion that Facebook might be applying their policies consistently. P.S. The truth of it is perhaps deeper than that. Facebook is taking the no moderation policy at least partly because of money (otherwise, they wouldn't give a shit). Since they've done that it's in their best interest that Congress _not_ provide guidance, because _any_ guidance will more likely than not require some amount of moderation. And that means less ads, which means less money. So really Mark's non-answer was more about being willing to sacrifice Facebook's image in exchange for continuing to muddy the discussion and promote inaction. Any other answer, one way or the other, would have proved AOC's point and given Congress further impetus to have a discussion about online political speech. Or he really did forget to put points in Speech. P.P.S. Whatever one might think of Twitter, Jack Dorsey's response during that whole fiasco was fucking superb, and relevant to the tangent we're slightly on about political speech moderation: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1189634360472829952.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1189634360472829952.html It really just sums up the issues nicely. Again, regardless of how one may feel about Twitter or their decision there, that response is what I'd expect of a cogent CEO.
- fossuser 6y ago
  We actually have more substantial disagreement than I thought - I thought Zuckerberg’s response was reasonable and AOC’s question was stupid and unanswerable without nuance. Their policy is to not block the speech of elected political leaders in democratic countries with rule of law. They followed that until rule of law and democracy itself became at risk (via incitement of violence and insurrection). At which point they blocked and said exactly that. Twitter’s handling of this was more confused and haphazard. They were obviously trying their best, but their position was less clear and led to more inconsistencies. The 12hr suspension prior to the ban was also dumb. I also don’t buy the cynical take that FB’s moderation decision was financially motivated as opposed to motivated by principle (I explain this more in depth in the blog post). It would have been way easier for them to just ban political ads and flag trump to cheers from the press than to take a principled position. Those ads are a tiny source of revenue. Yes Mark’s charisma is off the charts bad, but the content of what he says and writes is good.