3 ms·
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 wou
by 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 agoWe 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.
- fpgaminer 6y agoThis reply chain is off topic at this point, relative to the original article. But I wanted to at least drop a reply to express that while we and others may agree and disagree, discussions like this that are level headed and illuminating on both sides (I hope) are a treasure. These are the kinds of threads I'd like to see more of on political submissions. It seems most political threads are just people shouting past each other in some weird internet catharsis; neither side coming away with a better understanding of the other's worldview. Even a short 1 minute clip can be viewed so drastically differently by different people.
- fossuser 6y agoThanks - I appreciate the thoughtful back and forth.