Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Facebook Employees Publicly Criticize Zuckerberg's Inaction Over Trump (bloomberg.com) 148

Senior Facebook employees took to Twitter over the weekend to express their dismay at Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg's decision not to take action on incendiary comments posted to the social network by U.S. President Donald Trump. From a report: After the president tweeted a message with the words "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" in response to protests over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Twitter for the first time obscured one of his tweets, marking it with a warning that it breached service rules by glorifying violence. Facebook's response to the same content, in a post from Zuckerberg on Friday, was to say, "We think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force." Several senior figures at Facebook expressed strong disagreement. "Mark is wrong, and I will endeavor in the loudest possible way to change his mind," said Ryan Freitas, director of product design for Facebook's News Feed. "I apologize if you were waiting for me to have some sort of external opinion. I focused on organizing 50+ likeminded folks into something that looks like internal change." "Giving a platform to incite violence and spread disinformation is unacceptable, regardless who you are or if it's newsworthy," wrote Andrew Crow, head of design for Facebook's Portal product line. Joining them with individual messages against the passive policy were Design Manager Jason Stirman, Director of Product Management Jason Toff and Product Designer Sara Zhang, who tweeted that "Internally we are voicing our concerns, so far to no avail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Employees Publicly Criticize Zuckerberg's Inaction Over Trump

Comments Filter:
  • Biting the hand (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 )
    Facebook needs eyeballs. Trump brings impassioned (Some downright deranged) eyeballs from both sides. If Trump abandons Facebook revenue will be impacted. Layoffs will follow. Go ahead, cut off the tree limb you are standing on.
    • Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:41AM (#60130960)

      Since you make no comment on the merits of this situation, your broad claims that Facebook shouldn't act just because revenue could be impacted implies you reject any ethical stand by a company which could impact profits. Regardless of where I stand on this situation in particular I categorically reject that implication. As do the employees mentioned in this article.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ArhcAngel ( 247594 )
        I made no ethical claims because Facebook is a company beholden to its shareholders, NOT its employees. Now if the shareholders were to complain, Facebook would at least be able to act. If they act on their employees demands the shareholders can sue for acting, not in the best interest of the company. Facebook's "ethics" are derived from their shareholders.
        • Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @10:23AM (#60131110)

          I made no ethical claims because Facebook is a company beholden to its shareholders, NOT its employees. Now if the shareholders were to complain, Facebook would at least be able to act. If they act on their employees demands the shareholders can sue for acting, not in the best interest of the company. Facebook's "ethics" are derived from their shareholders.

          Facebook is also beholden to its users given that its likelihood of going into bankruptcy is completely dependent on the user's willingness to stay on Facebook. So if Mark Zuckerberg was to take a leaf out of the book of Richard Neville the 16th earl of Warwick and tries to play some latter day kingmaker he can do that but expect a large portion of his customer base to have severe issues with that to the point that they will make whatever his shareholders have to say look like squeak. Zuckerberg walks a thin line that severely limits his ability to make political alliances and swing elections. If Zuckerberg thinks he can one sidedly support the Republicans and Trump in the upcoming election (which is what the entire Section 230 thing is intended to blackmail Facebook, Twitter et. al. into doing) without it pissing off the entire left flank of American politics and massively impacting his companies bottom line when they begin to boycott Facebook he's mistaken and he'd better be aware of it.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by saloomy ( 2817221 )
            Facebook is in the right here, and so is Mark. They should not be the arbiters of "truth". They should not be altering or silencing what our elected leaders tell us. That is not in the spirit of the 1st amendment (though it really only applies to government action). If you speech you disagree with, speak yourself. Counter this speech. Ideas are meant to be free, and in a meritocracy of ideas, no one needs to be silenced. As for the profits and losses aspect, yes. Thats true, but besides the point.
            • Re:Biting the hand (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Rob Y. ( 110975 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @12:02PM (#60131460)

              That 'arbiters of truth' bit is a fig leaf - plain and simple. Nobody says Facebook has to do its own fact checking. Personally, I think they should select a trusted group of fact-checking journalistic organizations (from across the political spectrum to blunt that argument), and let them decide which articles rate fact checking. Post some kind of rating icon, and let users hover to see the icon explained, and click to see the fact-checker's detailed take. The fact-checkers would be compensated by the traffic sent to their sites, so this would all be free to Facebook - and still absolve them of direct responsibility for the content on their site.

              • Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)

                by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @12:39PM (#60131610)
                That sounds useless. For anything particularly contentious or opinionated (you can't easily "fact check" hypotheticals, particularly ones without historical basis for comparison) you'll end up with one set of articles from one side of the political spectrum claiming something is true and another set from the opposite side claiming something is false. Users will bitch about the set of organizations chosen and how some of them are biased, evil, etc. and why they should be removed. Eventually no one will use the feature because they mistrust Facebook for some reason or another.

                End result is the same as if Facebook didn't bother at all, only now they've spent a lot of time and resources to agitate their own user base. I don't use social media in the first place, but even if I did I'd definitely not use one that decides to erect it's own Ministry of Truth. If I feel strongly about something or that it's wrong, I can do my own research and present my own take.
                • What's more, they then move to an editorialized publisher rather than a platform afforded protections against what their users post. The current system is all that we need, no one needs to change anything. Someone can sue Facebook in court, prove that they are editorializing their content, and get the almost instantaneous motion to dismiss ruled against Facebook, Twitter, et al.
              • Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Nostalgia4Infinity ( 3752305 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @02:43PM (#60132174)

                "a trusted group of fact-checking journalistic organizations". It's cute that you think such a thing exists. I'd like to see a citation.

                • by Rob Y. ( 110975 )

                  Okay - more trusted than anonymous trolls. Or at least not anonymous.

                  Part of the problem today is that you do see some of this stuff (at least Trump's) fact checked by various news organizations. But people only see the fact-checks of their own sides. If there were competing fact checking organizations each putting their stamps directly onto tweets, at least the opposing info would be a click away. Who knows, minds might even be opened...

            • Ideas are meant to be free

              Except for Facebook's? I mean if Facebook add a label saying "Hey here's some other information on the matter" isn't that doing exactly what you are stating?

            • Facebook is in the right here, and so is Mark. They should not be the arbiters of "truth". They should not be altering or silencing what our elected leaders tell us.

              The issue is not determining what is truth. After all, Trump tweeted those words, so it is fact that those are his words. It is also not a matter of legal censorship but rather the personal decision that all private people and corporations make about what is appropriate to communicate. The question is not about truth but about what Facebook considers to be appropriate. If Facebook decides that line is somewhere between child pornography and presidential words about shooting people, then they have a lega

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Aighearach ( 97333 )

          Wait, what? You thought that ethics only apply to the Government?

          Ivan, the old phrase book you found is failing you. Rub a few rubles together and find a newer one.

        • Re:Biting the hand (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ranton ( 36917 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @11:09AM (#60131250)

          It is simply false that companies need to pursue profit at the expense of all else in order to fulfill their responsibility to shareholders. Mark is well within his rights to make a case for why he thinks protecting the nation from incendiary comments and disinformation is within the best interests of shareholders. They can then voice their disapproval, but it probably won't be very effective since Mark still owns a majority of voting shares.

          To quote the Supreme Court [findlaw.com], "While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives."

          If you want a more detailed explanation of why companies are not required to focus only on profit, reading this [nytimes.com] would be more insightful than anything I would write on the topic.

        • "Facebook's "ethics" are derived from their shareholders."

          That may be what's written somewhere in the law. (They do have other obligations in different sections of law, but I'll keep this simple.) Ethics don't derive from law - law (should) derive from ethics.
          Or to put it at a more 10th-grade level: What's legal and what's right are two different things.

        • Wrong. Facebook is NOT beholden to it SHAREHOLDERS. and their lawsuit would be rejected.
          IF this was the case where were they lawsuits against twitter?

        • Facebook's "ethics" are derived from their shareholders.

          Shareholders are gamblers who bet on which companies
          are likely to gain them money over the next 24 hours.
          Long term issues, like how the public views the company's
          ethics are of no concern to them.

      • Ok, how about this: ethically it's wrong to restrict speech.

        Yes, I'm aware that LEGALLY it's wrong for the government to restrict speech, and as a private company facebook faces no such legal requirements. Which would be why I said "ethically".

        If you're going to throw your doors open wide for anyone/everyone, then restriction of their speech should only be as a last resort. Allow the other uses to mute them as they please, but as a company that should be the nuclear option.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If it's a choice between your job and someone else's human rights... Ethically it's not really a choice.

      • No, it really isn't. A job is a tangible, discrete thing. "Human rights" are a social construct leftists have pulled out of their asses.

        So, yes, I'll agree. In a contest between a real job and yanked out of the ass "human right", the job takes precedence every time.

        • by znrt ( 2424692 )

          that particular "yanked out of the ass of leftists" construct is quite much the human right you just exercised in your post. so you're using your freedom of speech to dismiss freedom of speech. since that forfeits your own, that's either just dumb or a dumb way to promote an agenda.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You don't think the right to life (i.e. not be murdered) is a) important and b) pre dates leftists?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Trump abandon a social media thing? Not on his life. It's his only claim to fame since he's a serial screwup in everything else.

    • I'm genuinely curious what top notch talent wants to work at Facebook at this point. The platform is a cess pool of vitriol and they've managed to anger both sides of the political aisle. If they aren't paying well above market for talent, I fail to see how they'd draw anyone who knows what they're doing.
    • It is my honor to tell the truth no matter the consequence. This comment went from +5 insightful to 0. It's rating doesn't change its truth!
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:19AM (#60130894)
    FTFY.
    • Next story: Facebook fires arguing employees.

    • FTFY.

      Finally, you and I agree on what would be best all.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      *Exactly* These days it seems every major tech company has a few rogue employees that seem to think that they should have a say in how their employer does business. I'm certainly no fan of the Zuck, but if he fired their asses as an example to the other employees I wouldn't have a problem with it. Political activism has no place in any business (unless that business is about political activism) and should be nipped in the bud swiftly.
  • by MooseTick ( 895855 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:21AM (#60130896) Homepage

    Trump should be treated like any other user. If a regular user's comments are unacceptable, then his should be as well. It's an easy rule to follow and seems the most fair.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CajunArson ( 465943 )

      Twitter should treat Trump like any other Antifa rioter who used the service to plot specific, violent actions and was not censored, "fact checked", or deplatformed in any way whatsoever.

      And Trump never really called for violence anyway beyond making a factually-accurate statement that looting leads to shooting... including the shooting of an innocent black man by looters: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/a... [sfgate.com]

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by lilTimmy ( 6807660 )
        Well, to be fair, Trump is more like the white supremacists who have been at the protests stirring the pot, roughing people up, looting... They're more his type. And Jesus Christ, get real... he "never really called for violence." You guys will use even the smallest mouse hole to crawl out of anything he says... it's pretty obvious what he meant to most of the world. Especially when he said "We will assume control ... when the looting starts the shooting starts" The proximity of those sentences in his
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Any halfway-skilled politician, even Trump, knows the importance of ambiguity. Say something that your supporters can interpret the way you want them to, but your can still claim your opponents are misinterpreting. Slogans, coded language, memes and dog-whistles are useful things.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Well, to be fair, Trump is more like the white supremacists who have been at the protests stirring the pot, roughing people up, looting..

          The "white supremacists" thing is entirely made up. I mean, they couldn't even be bothered to photoshop some MAGA hats on violent protestors, they just used pictures of Antifa and called them "white supremacists".

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by jwymanm ( 627857 )
            This liltimmy guy is a plant obviously. Got to mention the white supremacists somehow nicely engaging with black people and helping them loot and destroy businesses. They are trying to gas light here and everywhere on social media trying to get the it's Trump's fault when these are all horribly ran democratic cesspools. These are antifa people or some kind of organizers and it is painfully obvious they are not against other races. They are constantly working and paying everyone involved to destroy things. K
          • The funny part is that probably 90% of "white supremacists"--the real ones, not just any white person who tacitly supports the status quo--hate Trump and call him a Zionist stooge. His nickname in those circles is Zion Don on account of not only his unrelenting support for all things Israel but also his close relations being Jews themselves. How happy do you think those guys are about Jared Kushner being put in charge of practically everything?

            That's right folks, the white supremacist Nazis are out wreaki

        • by Cederic ( 9623 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @12:12PM (#60131500) Journal

          Here we see white supremacists restocking on jackboots:
          https://twitter.com/BenPopeCST... [twitter.com]

          In this video white supremacists steal the wealth of a black neighbourhood:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          White supremacists have stolen so much that they need high quality bags to carry it:
          https://twitter.com/FarukFirat... [twitter.com]

          Here we can see white supremacists attacking an innocent store owner:
          https://twitter.com/PatrolRpd/... [twitter.com]

          But it gets worse. A whole gang of white supremacists attempted to crush a black man to death:
          https://twitter.com/CarpeDonkt... [twitter.com]

          If you thought that one was bad, don't look at this footage of a white supremacist setting an innocent black protester on fire:
          https://twitter.com/Holbornlol... [twitter.com]

          You too can support these white supremacists by agreeing with Donald Trump.
          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t... [cbsnews.com]

        • Really? Are you seriously suggesting that "white supremacists" are flooding minority neighborhoods in the middle of the night to help riot? That just doesn't hold water.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by GlennC ( 96879 )

      The problem is that Trump (and his acolytes) don't want that. They want his word to be law, and his rule unquestioned.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:41AM (#60130962)

      The problem is that Trump is the President of the United States.
      That position gives him power, this power includes whatever public statement he makes, is considered an official message.

      As president you cannot make a public off handed joke without any repercussions. Your stream of consciousness posted can be interpreted as an order.

      Trump cannot unfortunately be treated like any user because of the amount of power he holds.

      A someone who use to be a Republican, this guy needs to be voted out of office at all costs. He is incapable of properly controlling himself, and use his power for the good of the nation vs just boosting his own ego.

      Yes other presidents may get a power rush, however they will work on tempering their message, realizing that there will be a large group of people who would be negatively affected from any decision made.

      • The way social media treats any other user is like shit. If you have to be the president to be treated right then your problem isn't the president.
    • Yeah, once they made the Trump exemption it's hard to roll that back. But not impossible, but it'll cause some pain.

    • by Hentes ( 2461350 )

      There's an argument to be made that platforms should treat world leaders differently because the government has a monopoly on violence. When someone calls for violence against a group that's illegal, when a president orders the military that's within their power. Like every platform, Facebook has to follow the law in every country they have a presence in. And unfortunately the world is a shitty place and sending the military against unarmed protesters is accepted in many countries. If Facebook got political

    • It's an easy rule to follow

      History shows them always saying this.

  • Orange Man Bad! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lgw ( 121541 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:22AM (#60130898) Journal

    Zuck isn't a secret conservative. Zuck knows Orange Man Bad. But Zuck also has a business to run, and baiting the government into hurting your profits is bad business.

    Plus, in his role on the board of Facebook, he has a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders. "Fiduciary duty" means he sets the corporate goal (profits) above whatever his personal politics are. As an (indirect) FB stockholder, it's nice to see him remember that from time to time.

    • Re:Orange Man Bad! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:47AM (#60130978)

      The issue is getting people all up and emotional about stuff, is good for business.
      Truth and what side has nothing to do with it.

      This is a problem with Facebooks business model. I don't think Zuck is a secret conservative. But I think his greed exceeds his political opinion.

      • Zuckerberg is a traditional internet user and whatever his political stance likely appreciates at least to some extent what it means to have freedom.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Doing nothing is taking a stance. Zuckerberg might not be overtly conservative but he doesn't seem to have much of a problem with say helping Cambridge Analytica to abuse his users or allow advertisers to illegally target/exclude certain demographics.

      There is no neutral ground here, especially for the boss of Facebook.

      He recently gave $10m to some charities helping black people. That's how he covers himself, but it's complete crap. If you adjust for the average wealth of someone his age it's equivalent to a

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      So you are saying Zuck is a whore? Who knew?

    • Re:Orange Man Bad! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Halo1 ( 136547 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @10:26AM (#60131126)

      Plus, in his role on the board of Facebook, he has a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders. "Fiduciary duty" means he sets the corporate goal (profits) above whatever his personal politics are.

      The official corporate goal of Facebook, or even of most corporations, is not just "profits". Even if you look at their investor [fb.com] homepage, they have several sections on Corporate Responsibility, including Sustainability, Diversity and Inclusion, and Social Good.

      Even apart from that, fiduciary duty [nolo.com] does not ever mean "everything must be done to maximise profit", especially not "profit in the short term".

    • Re:Orange Man Bad! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @11:17AM (#60131284)

      Plus, in his role on the board of Facebook, he has a fiduciary duty to it's shareholders.

      That duty to his shareholders is not only to increase share value. Mark is well within his rights to decide that humanitarian and other altruistic goals are of value to shareholders, especially since all Facebook shareholders have knowingly invested in a company where a majority of voting shares are controlled by Mark. They can try to sue, but it would be a tall hill to climb.

    • As far as share holders goes, in case anyone was unaware, the corporate structure of Facebook is such that Zuckerberg has a controlling interest. He can not be fired by the board or over ridden in any way even if 100% of the others vote against him. Zuckerberg has -ABSOLUTE- control of Facebook. Extremely unusual for larger corporations but not illegal.

      So, he actually, doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility to share holders. He's on record saying if they don't like his decisions and how he runs Fb they sh
      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        As far as share holders goes, in case anyone was unaware, the corporate structure of Facebook is such that Zuckerberg has a controlling interest. He can not be fired by the board or over ridden in any way even if 100% of the others vote against him. Zuckerberg has -ABSOLUTE- control of Facebook. Extremely unusual for larger corporations but not illegal.

        Fiduciary duty remains a requirement, though. This is why "minority shareholder lawsuits" are common whenever a company stumbles badly.

    • People tend to become conservative once they get money. It's a natural result of not liking taxes, and not liking protests because sometimes they are against you.
  • by unixcorn ( 120825 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:27AM (#60130920)

    Mark's employees have an opinion, who knew? Also, who cares?

  • ... Mark is wrong, and I will endeavor in the loudest possible way ...

    CAPSLOCK is going to see some use at last.

  • by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:42AM (#60130964)

    Close your Facebook accounts and sell your Facebook stock, if you have any.

    • by rho ( 6063 )

      Also, if you're a web developer, refuse to integrate any of Facebook's tools on the basis that it is harmful to users' privacy.

      The arguments over Twitter comments and Facebook comments are dumb because it assumes that Facebook and Twitter are important. They are not.

      • Also, if you're a web developer, refuse to integrate any of Facebook's tools on the basis that it is harmful to users' privacy.

        This, right there, is the proper way to put pressure on Facebook. All the campaigns in the world will not make users close their Facebook accounts, and we are the ones who control wether or not we add Facebook tracking to other websites.

        Stop being Facebook pawns and explain to your clients why it's extremely bad to associate themselves with Facebook and the unwarranted tracking of u

    • Agreed. Hell just do it because Facebook is terrible.

      I don't care what they do with Trump's "content". Just shut down Facebook on principle. Die Facebook die!

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @09:42AM (#60130966)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Trump isn't some neckbeard.

      He is just being clever. His comment has distracted the crowd and got some of them to focus their hate and anger on him, thus possibly reducing the chance for the conflict to spiral out further. It's better to let some hate their "Number One Scapegoat" than to risk for them to give in aimlessly to impulses and hurting random people. Some Americans deserve Trump like they deserve a Darwin Award, frankly.

      • Trump isn't some neckbeard.

        Some Americans deserve Trump like they deserve a Darwin Award, frankly.

        That is true.

    • Why would Americans care what "Mike" from Russia Today thinks about S230?

  • And I understand he's fucking Jackie Chan's wife. I expect and hope he gets his ass kicked for this as well as his philandering.
  • "Facebook employees took to Twitter." That's rich. They need to go work at Twitter, which apparently has policies more to their liking.
  • Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @10:38AM (#60131170) Journal

    ...I'd think that the people who hate Trump would *prefer* his stupid crap gets posted and publicized?

    Honestly, if his dumbass Twitter and Social Media posts were silenced, he'd probably immediately jump 10 points. His mouth is literally his own worst enemy.

  • I support the Facebook employees who are risking their jobs to stop Donald Trump from stoking the fires of violence.
  • When is something a government? Does an entity need to be a government to be bound by the First Amendment? This is not a new concept. The East India Company was a private corporation (then called a joint-stock company) that for hundreds of years behaved as a de-facto government. Modern companies like Facebook, Twitter, and others are very close to breaking that distinction, if they haven't already. They can and do exert the kind of power to ruin individuals or groups at will. Therefore they must be bo

  • by JoeyDot ( 5981942 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @08:57AM (#60135364)
    Sack them.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...