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."
Biting the hand (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Biting the hand (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: Biting the hand (Score:2)
Re:Biting the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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)
I don't get why twitter would behave differently depending on the person, they should have just deleted the tweet and banned the account if they were to enforce their rules consistently. That's exactly what they've done to other heads of state, why should Trump be any different? I don't like censorship but it's a private platform, so it wouldn't be censorship. On the other hand, what if legitimate political views are being suppressed by a small group of elitists? That would be problematic. I'm of a mixed op
Re: (Score:2)
Please list the "other heads of state" they have banned.
Re:Biting the hand (Score:4, Interesting)
does not mean that you are entitled to unrestricted access to broadcast it from everybody else's media platform.
Yes, of course. Obviously.
But we aren't discussing what Facebook can legally do. We are discussing what they should do.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to say any stupid shit that drops into your brain out of the ether, that does not mean that you are entitled to unrestricted access to broadcast it from everybody else's media platform
Media platforms that uphold the 1st amendment voluntarily (even if they don't have to as private entities) deserve our respect for supporting free speech. That includes not deleting Trump tweets because you dislike his messages. I think the guy is a rude asshole myself, but if we censor him we are on the best way to emulate China in terms of free spech. As in, not having it anymore.
On the question of publisher or not, I'm in favor of lettting the media platforms choose between
(1) Moderate only outright ille
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, your platform, you can ban him if you like. You won't even need a reason. But now letting the the hate speech from the other side pass becomes a no-go too.
I think it won't be banning Trump that gets you into trouble.
It will be the inflammatory speech from some brown activist that you failed to censor as well. Then someone claims that you aided and abetted the riot in which their business was burned down. And takes you to court, demanding restitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is not beholden to it's users. They are not customers. They are the product. And 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.
Facebook users are not boxes in shelves in an Amazon warehouse they can leave. Nothing scares Zuckerberg more than Facebook going the way of MySpace.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg has -ABSOLUTE- control of Facebook.
I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if shareholders have some rights which could allow them to sue Facebook / Mark if he started to completely ignore the needs of all other shareholders. I doubt his control is 100% absolute, but he still has unprecedented (that I know of) control over such a large public company.
That said, I doubt shareholders could do anything if Mark decided to have Facebook take more responsibility for informing the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling and nuking the share price wouldn't hurt Zuckerberg. It would hurt the seller. He would just buy the shares at a steep discount - in the same way as one might if they have stock options.
Re: (Score:2)
the only real threat other shareholders have is to sell, and nuke the share price, since those founders have most of their worth tied up in that same stock.
Not true. Minority shareholder rights exist. For instance, a person who is a majority shareholder can't vote to sell the company to himself for $1 or even sell himself a bunch of new shares for $1 or any other action which unfairly screws the minority shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:3)
I actually did clarify my position, just later on in the post:
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)
Which censorship / "Ethics" doesn't accept the Trump remarks? Yours?
All ethical decisions are subjective. Some are easy to make, some are hard. I disagree with your implication that just because making ethical decision is hard and open for interpretation, companies should make no attempt to try.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If it's a choice between your job and someone else's human rights... Ethically it's not really a choice.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
i do think you don't follow, since i never even remotely implied that the buffoon should be excluded from this right.
he shall blurp to his heart's content! the more worrying fact is that people is actually dumb or desperate or pissed enough to buy his crap, but that's a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Third Position is defending freedom of speech by saying it is a "social construct yanked out of the ass of leftists" which is in any case less important than a job? still think you've mixed up some posts.
anyway, trump's freedom of speech is not really threatened by adding 'fact checking' to some of his tweets (although i concede this was done poorly and is a murky matter to begin with).
platform user's freedom of speech in general can come however under significant threat if providers are forced to take fina
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the right to life (i.e. not be murdered) is a) important and b) pre dates leftists?
Re: (Score:2)
is your google broken?
Re: (Score:2)
people around the world disagree about a lot of stuff, there still is a list of officially and broadly accepted human rights.
if gp wanted to ignite a deep discussion about the content of that list he might have brought up a point instead of just a nonsense question wanting to appear smart, or way smarter, or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadly accepted? Really? Rights are rights. They are not determined by popularity.
have you found the list yet? so you can start talking about your presumed point?
That was the entire point which AC understood but you do not.
the point is that rights are rights?
popularity is a bit vague, but yes, they do: human and civil rights are internationally enshrined in charters (here's a hint for your still pending search) agreed and signed by a majority of governments, which have vowed to respect those in their respective domestic law systems and in turn have been chosen by popularity.
all memes (and rights are the same in that sense as religions, nations or
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: Biting the hand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Former* Facebook employees publicly criticize (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Next story: Facebook fires arguing employees.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Finally, you and I agree on what would be best all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: If you're valuable enough you do (Score:3, Funny)
More like a lavender or maybe a subtle ocean green would work. But reds are way too garish and a gouche, wouldn't you agree?
Trump should be treated like any other user (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Once again facts trump feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
KKK, Current membership: ~3000 [adl.org]
2500 Federal agents and the 500 credulous rubes they goad into criminal activity for sport.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Trump should be treated like any other user (Score:4, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
The reason the is this push back is because some people don't want more equality (competition)
Strange white people aren't suppressing Asians isn't it? It couldn't have anything to do that some people have been told how oppressed and what victims they are for so long they're enraged and don't know what to do about it maybe?
or for people they consider a criminal underclass
You're not much for statistics are you?
Re: (Score:3)
You'd look less silly if you actually viewed at the links in the article you're replying to
Sadly no, the reply says that by posting evidence contrary to the narrative, I'm a white supremacist that denies the struggles of the ordinary black American.
Which is indeed trolling, and is why I didn't reply to it.
If you want some fun, try inviting people to make these statements:
Attacking black people because of their colour is wrong.
Attacking white people because of their colour is wrong.
Being hostile to the police because they're the police is wrong.
Racism is bad.
I can happily sign up to all of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no Antifa activist has killed anybody
What the fuck sort of argument is that? "We can't be terrorists, we're too fucking incompetent."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is that Trump (and his acolytes) don't want that. They want his word to be law, and his rule unquestioned.
Re:Trump should be treated like any other user (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, once they made the Trump exemption it's hard to roll that back. But not impossible, but it'll cause some pain.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's an easy rule to follow
History shows them always saying this.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, thousands of posts stating things like "Kill all the Jews" will pass through Twitter entirely uninterfered with.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? I just went to Twitter and searched for the phrase "Kill all the Jews". I only looked at the top 10 or so pages full of tweets that included this phrase, but none of them were using the phrase that way. They were all actually using it to criticize people who might say something like that.
Re: (Score:1)
He called a bunch of rioting Nazis in Carlottesville 'very fine people' why can't he do the same for these rioters?
Save these kinds of absurd lies for someone more gullible. That last football game you went to had a Nazi in the stadium somewhere, Nazi.
Re: Trump should be treated like any other user (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call it when you make blanket judgements about people based on the color of their skin?
Orange Man Bad! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying Zuck is a whore? Who knew?
Re:Orange Man Bad! (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: Orange Man Bad! (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Employees.... (Score:5, Funny)
Mark's employees have an opinion, who knew? Also, who cares?
Good luck with that (Score:2)
... Mark is wrong, and I will endeavor in the loudest possible way ...
CAPSLOCK is going to see some use at last.
Want change? (Score:3)
Close your Facebook accounts and sell your Facebook stock, if you have any.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump isn't some neckbeard.
Some Americans deserve Trump like they deserve a Darwin Award, frankly.
That is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Americans care what "Mike" from Russia Today thinks about S230?
Re: (Score:2)
You been looting?
Zuck is a robot. (Score:1)
Off to twitter we will go (Score:2)
Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
Deactivated my Facebook Account in Support (Score:2)
When is it a government? (Score:2)
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
Easy Solution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Believe me, the 10-20% of us that are centrists have been thinking this for the last 3-4 election cycles. As far as well can tell those 30% that regularly vote (D) and the 30% that regularly vote (R) - and the politicians elected by that electorate - have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a 14-year-old boy.