5 ms·

I'm a little confused on the reason this talk was cancelled. It seems that nearly the entire talk is critical of Facebook/Google, but the organizer only complai

I'm a little confused on the reason this talk was cancelled. It seems that nearly the entire talk is critical of Facebook/Google, but the organizer only complains about a handful of slides. It looks like they were fine with claims of FB/G stealing content, purposefully optimizing for addiction, etc. and it was just the "political misinformation" portion that caused offense. Is the organizer defensive of big tech, or do they have some other political agenda that was somehow threatened by his point (or the specific examples given in support)?

tyingq 5y ago
Twitter is a little hard to follow a thread in, so here's a link to the 5 slides they asked him to pull: https://imgur.com/a/k0naEwT https://imgur.com/a/k0naEwT
- bmarquez 5y ago
  In the first slide, there's a screenshot of the Facebook app showing a picture of a sign referencing pedophilia. I'd probably be uncomfortable with that and ask to replace those examples with a screenshot from a news website, if I was in the organizer's shoes. Don't see a problem with the other slides though.
  - nmfisher 5y ago
    I have no clue why an organizer would try and edit (censor?) a speaker's presentation. They were invited for a reason, let them talk! The audience is perfectly capable of coming up with their own conclusion about whether the speaker's points are valid. And if you think they're brazenly lying, then just uninvite them.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jhanschoo 5y ago
      Because, as is the case here, you are inviting person A to speak about topic B, because your audience thinks they may have something interesting to say about topic B, and not because they want to hear about person A's thoughts on topic C.
      - pas 5y ago
        Ask the speakers to submit an abstract beforehand, during call for speakers phase. And pick those which you like. Not after the talk has been confirmed. This editorializing is the equivalent of oppressive regimes inviting a famous band but asking them not to play their "controversial" songs, and the banning them with the obligatory surprised pikachu face when they do. It's not government censorship but it's the chilling effect of G & FB having too much control already. (Or if the problem was that the organizer found those claims unsubstantiated, they should have cancelled the talk, or could have simply put up a big warning before and after the talk saying that this is the speaker's opinion, not necessarily 100% shared by the organizers ...)
      - briffid 5y ago
        The organizer's problem is not that it's not about the topic, but that the audience would become uncomfortable hearing, which is ridiculous.
        bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        Re-reading the organizer's email, I can seee their point. Politics could turn to be a blackhole topic that absorb all discussion energy, and then no one would leave the talk thinking about the "evil big tech" topic any more... If I were the author's friend I'd tell him this, he threatened to derail his own presentation including the screenshots of political news. The 1% of websites taking 98% of traffic should be alarming, but the focus-stealing headline there is "Income Inequality". If he had not put that as a headline and just made a throwaway oral comment (writing it down got him in trouble, and as I said, steals the focus!), it might've been more effective.
        5y ago
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  Not only is Twitter hard to follow, but these slides are poorly written. After a few reads I still don’t understand what he’s trying to say in #3 on the first slide. And after scrolling down the glance at the rest, I’m not sure I care. Seems like the author just wants attention. Anyway, thanks for the screenshots.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    My guess on "When you build brand equity elsewhere, the duopoly become better channels": I think it means "Don't build your brand on a Facebook business page or Youtube Channel. Build it on your own site (or whatever), and promote it on Facebook and Youtube."
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  Thanks for making the slides easier to see. Absolutely one of the slides is offensive. If it illustrated left-side people in such cartoonish caricature, the presenter would surely get the point. It's amazing that in the day of 'microaggressions', such blindness could exist.
notfbi 5y ago
I read it the same way as you. I think the slides were deemed problematic because they are inflammatory towards right-leaners or some other group, not towards Google/Facebook powers that be. The acceptable slides are just as critical of G/FB.
fallingknife 5y ago
That would make sense, though. The conference may be comfortable with slides that are critical of FB/Google from the perspective of doing business with them, but not be interested in a talk that goes into more abstract and inflammatory political issues that don't have a direct business focus.
cma 5y ago
I don't know if it is the case here, but "getting cancelled" is the new "getting heavily promoted in various media."

tyingq 5y ago

Twitter is a little hard to follow a thread in, so here's a link to the 5 slides they asked him to pull: https://imgur.com/a/k0naEwT https://imgur.com/a/k0naEwT

bmarquez 5y ago
In the first slide, there's a screenshot of the Facebook app showing a picture of a sign referencing pedophilia. I'd probably be uncomfortable with that and ask to replace those examples with a screenshot from a news website, if I was in the organizer's shoes. Don't see a problem with the other slides though.
- nmfisher 5y ago
  I have no clue why an organizer would try and edit (censor?) a speaker's presentation. They were invited for a reason, let them talk! The audience is perfectly capable of coming up with their own conclusion about whether the speaker's points are valid. And if you think they're brazenly lying, then just uninvite them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jhanschoo 5y ago
    Because, as is the case here, you are inviting person A to speak about topic B, because your audience thinks they may have something interesting to say about topic B, and not because they want to hear about person A's thoughts on topic C.
    - pas 5y ago
      Ask the speakers to submit an abstract beforehand, during call for speakers phase. And pick those which you like. Not after the talk has been confirmed. This editorializing is the equivalent of oppressive regimes inviting a famous band but asking them not to play their "controversial" songs, and the banning them with the obligatory surprised pikachu face when they do. It's not government censorship but it's the chilling effect of G & FB having too much control already. (Or if the problem was that the organizer found those claims unsubstantiated, they should have cancelled the talk, or could have simply put up a big warning before and after the talk saying that this is the speaker's opinion, not necessarily 100% shared by the organizers ...)
    - briffid 5y ago
      The organizer's problem is not that it's not about the topic, but that the audience would become uncomfortable hearing, which is ridiculous.
      - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        Re-reading the organizer's email, I can seee their point. Politics could turn to be a blackhole topic that absorb all discussion energy, and then no one would leave the talk thinking about the "evil big tech" topic any more... If I were the author's friend I'd tell him this, he threatened to derail his own presentation including the screenshots of political news. The 1% of websites taking 98% of traffic should be alarming, but the focus-stealing headline there is "Income Inequality". If he had not put that as a headline and just made a throwaway oral comment (writing it down got him in trouble, and as I said, steals the focus!), it might've been more effective.
        5y ago
ryantgtg 5y ago
Not only is Twitter hard to follow, but these slides are poorly written. After a few reads I still don’t understand what he’s trying to say in #3 on the first slide. And after scrolling down the glance at the rest, I’m not sure I care. Seems like the author just wants attention. Anyway, thanks for the screenshots.
- tyingq 5y ago
  My guess on "When you build brand equity elsewhere, the duopoly become better channels": I think it means "Don't build your brand on a Facebook business page or Youtube Channel. Build it on your own site (or whatever), and promote it on Facebook and Youtube."
RickJWagner 5y ago
Thanks for making the slides easier to see. Absolutely one of the slides is offensive. If it illustrated left-side people in such cartoonish caricature, the presenter would surely get the point. It's amazing that in the day of 'microaggressions', such blindness could exist.

notfbi 5y ago

I read it the same way as you. I think the slides were deemed problematic because they are inflammatory towards right-leaners or some other group, not towards Google/Facebook powers that be. The acceptable slides are just as critical of G/FB.

fallingknife 5y ago

That would make sense, though. The conference may be comfortable with slides that are critical of FB/Google from the perspective of doing business with them, but not be interested in a talk that goes into more abstract and inflammatory political issues that don't have a direct business focus.

cma 5y ago

I don't know if it is the case here, but "getting cancelled" is the new "getting heavily promoted in various media."