Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks Politics

Zuckerberg Defends Hands-Off Approach To Trump's Posts (nytimes.com) 128

In a call with Facebook employees, who have protested the inaction on Mr. Trump's messages, Mr. Zuckerberg said his decision was "pretty thorough." From a report: Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, on Tuesday stood firmly behind his decision to not do anything about President Trump's inflammatory posts on the social network, saying that he had made a "tough decision" but that it "was pretty thorough." In a question-and-answer session with employees conducted over video chat software, Mr. Zuckerberg sought to justify his position on Mr. Trump's messages, which has led to fierce internal dissent. The meeting, which had been scheduled for Thursday, was moved up to Tuesday after hundreds of employees protested the inaction by staging a virtual "walkout" of sorts on Monday. Facebook's principles and policies around free speech "show that the right action where we are right now is to leave this up," Mr. Zuckerberg said on the call, the audio of which was heard by The New York Times. He added that though he knew many people would be upset with the company, a review of its policies backed up his decision. "I knew that I would have to separate out my personal opinion," he said. "Knowing that when we made this decision we made, it was going to lead to a lot of people upset inside the company, and the media criticism we were going to get."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Defends Hands-Off Approach To Trump's Posts

Comments Filter:
  • by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:08PM (#60137080)
    "...saying that he had made a 'tough decision'..." --- it looks like he just decided to keep the money flowing in, ever, all else be damned.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      Since when is it the "tough thing" to not stand up to the POTUS? Much tougher to stand up to him.

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        Since there are millions of radicals in the country who don't give a damn about the bill of rights and other protections and freedoms of our democracy who are far more vocal. I know heckling Trump is fun and all but personally I'm fond of having democracy and democracy isn't what you have when governments and mass communication monopolies and oligarchies control the flow of information that shapes the basis for your votes. How the importance of this can be lost of people under effective quantine baffles me.

    • I agree. I'll add that I don't believe this SHOULD be a tough decision. If you have rules regarding how people are to behave on your platform, people who break those rules are to be blocked, either post by post or banned from the platform altogether, regardless of who they are. But I guess if you get all caught up in your desire to make a big down payment on your yacht, that decision is easy to - ignore your rules in favor of people and discussions that drive views, and to hell with everything else.
      • by cusco ( 717999 )

        I think he secretly is a Biden supporter. The more he lets Rump babble the more voters will leave.

    • Hmm... If I ever had a mod point...

      Yes, following the money is easy, but I'm still predicting he'll change his tune when people start goring his oxen badly enough. Yes, he has a peculiar psychology, but he's still human and I'm betting the trolls will get to him one way or another.

      And I still think the best solution approach is the dual-icon thing with self-proclaimed icon versus public-reputation icon (and even though I see many ways that approach can be abused and gamed, too). The fundamental principle sh

      • Yes, following the money is easy, ...

        Perhaps when Zuckerberg has saved up some money from all his endeavors he'll ease up -- oh, wait... I know he has a fiduciary responsibility to the company and its shareholders, but when is enough money enough? Perhaps that's a dumb or naive question, but, seriously, after a certain point, more money doesn't necessarily make things better.

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          That's why I call the insane love of profit a fake problem. There is no amount of profit that can "solve" the "problem" of insufficient money to love. The corporate cancers can only pursue more money, no matter how much they made last week. Facebook is one of the worst of them (though I still think Twitter is the greatest lie and brain fart propagation machine ever created).

          I should note that I also think it is insane to allow the stock markets to be open at all. Especially as regards Covid-19 but also now

        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          I forgot one point I should have included. However this is getting into the area of psychological speculation. I think a normal person would dislike being called a sociopath or psychopath. But I think Zuckerberg doesn't care at all, whatever that means about him. Must mean something? I am not at all convinced that his behaviors are driven by an insane love of money, however. Whatever oxen he's protecting, I don't think that Facebook's stock price is one of them (though I could be wrong there).

          However I'm st

          • Most of the GOT used to be GOP.

            I always thought there was something suspicious about Game of Thrones. :-)

    • Consider that Facebook has a tight control on who gets an 'impression', so Zuck doesnt have to act upon Trump's posts at all. Facebook just runs Trump's posts on low priority behind other sponsored posts and other 'friends' posts.
    • In other words, Trump gets special privileges and is exempt from Facebook Terms of Services.

    • No, he had to explain to a bunch of whiney kids that free speech is a thing.

    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      And it makes no nevermind to you that he's right? He wants to protect their status as having common carrier protections. News and information should not be censored by technology companies anymore than the government and for many similar reasons. There is a reason the government is blocked from this kind of behavior in amendment ONE. The same reasons apply to organizations which serve as choke points for communications to huge swaths of the population.

      The thing about truth is there is this great myth that i

  • It makes sense... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Facebook is also taking a hands-off approach to the many, many Facebook posts I see advocating for the violent riots that have been sweeping the nation. They don't appear to care to remove the posts that call for "protests" at a specific place (which happens to be an area with a lot of box stores) at a specific time (that happens to be after dark). If those posts don't warrant action by Facebook, it seems perfectly logical that nothing Trump posts can possibly warrant action.

    Then again, I can pretty much gu

    • by gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:20PM (#60137136)

      Does seem to be right - Facebook has decided that it must be a platform after all, and not an editorial publisher. Hence, only dealing with things that are actually illegal (ehich, in FB's twisted world view, means stuff that calls for violence against Trump and supporters is 'hands off' free speech, and the opposite is totally banned)

      This will annoy the FB employees who thought that they coudl join this "progressive" platform in order to spread their world view and only allow their world view to exist. Now they have to accept other people have different opinions, they're upset. Pathetic children really.

      • Yes, it really annoys the "freedom for me, but not for thee" crowd and is very telling of the twisted logic of the morons bitching about it!

        They never understand that the tools created to silence the people they want silenced, will be used to silence them later. I always laugh when they get their comeuppance.

      • Re:It makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @04:36PM (#60137452) Homepage

        Hence, only dealing with things that are actually illegal (ehich, in FB's twisted world view, means stuff that calls for violence against Trump and supporters is 'hands off' free speech, and the opposite is totally banned)

        Curiously, I've heard the exact opposite claim from people on the left that FB is only going after left-wing speech while ignoring right-wing calls for violence. What is most likely happening is that everyone sees bias as primarily against their own preferred group. There's some interesting studies concerning this sort of thing. For example, given the same articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, partisans of both groups considered the articles biased against their side. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791301?seq=1 [jstor.org]. My guess is that the same sort of thing is happening here.

        • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          Thats the problem, everyone is compelled to pick sides. Critical thinking says we should evaluate all sources critically... especially criticism of our own bias.

          People tend to respond to statements to that effect with 'everyone has a bias and they are impossible to defeat.' The a preposterous reason to stop being critical of oneself and ones bias. How else would one grow?

      • Re:It makes sense... (Score:4, Informative)

        by pknoll ( 215959 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @04:46PM (#60137490)

        Zuckerberg, in October 2019, answering a question from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez during a congressional hearing:

        “If anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause, that is calling for violence or could risk imminent physical harm—or voter or census suppression, when we roll out the census suppression policy—we will take that content down.”

      • by Gimric ( 110667 )

        Got it. Pictures of breastfeeding mothers need to be censored, but misinformation and threats of violence are A-OK.

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:11PM (#60137100)

    "I knew that I would have to separate out my personal opinion," he said. "Knowing that when we made this decision we made, it was going to lead to a lot of people upset inside the company, and the media criticism we were going to get."

    He clearly left out the important part, "but we knew this was the more profitable avenue and that's why we took it."

    • "I knew that I would have to separate out my personal opinion," he said. "Knowing that when we made this decision we made, it was going to lead to a lot of people upset inside the company, and the media criticism we were going to get."

      He clearly left out the important part, "but we knew this was the more profitable avenue and that's why we took it."

      I doubt that. I don't think Facebook's decision is any more profitable than Twitter's decision. It's not likely that Trump fans are actually going to abandon either platform just because the platform fact-checks and adds a link to more information, or even if they click-wrap posts that violate the platform's rules. And that sort of action is likely to make advertisers feel more comfortable with the platform.

      It's tempting to believe that every decision made by every corporation is a careful part of a sop

    • we knew this was the more profitable avenue and that's why we took it

      Oy oy oy, the boy gottta make a living already.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:36PM (#60137222) Homepage Journal

      He should own his decision to be a lot more balanced and mature (though still problematic on free speech) than Twitter and others.

      I disagree completely. Twitter still lets you see "latest tweets" and doesn't filter what you see. Facebook, on the other hand, completely curates what you're allowed to see. Facebook constantly makes decisions on what you're allowed to see on their platform. It's just that the majority of those decisions aren't driven by humans, they're decided by algorithms.

      For example, I "follow" the local National Weather Service office on Facebook. (I think the official Facebook term is adding yourself as a "fan" of that page, but I don't remember what they call it.) That means their posts can show up on my timeline.

      They don't.

      Facebook has decided that people don't engage enough with their posts, so their posts are essentially censored. Strictly speaking, they aren't: you can still view them if you go directly to their page, but doing so involves essentially searching for them by name. By doing that, I can see that they post things like weather forecasts and general seasonal trends and sometimes notifications about weather education classes they offer, but none of those posts have made it onto my timeline.

      Occasionally, their posts will get enough "engagement" that they'll make it through the Facebook filter. These tend to be things like severe weather alerts or hurricane tracks - except they only show up days after they're relevant, because only then do they have enough "engagement" for Facebook to consider them worth showing. (No, I don't rely on Facebook to get warnings about severe weather.)

      So, sure, Facebook may claim that they're being "neutral," but they are not. They constantly make decisions on who sees what. Those decisions may not be made based on political ideology, they may be entirely driven by algorithms, but they're still decisions on what speech is effectively "allowed" to be published on their platform. And they know that, because you can pay to "promote" a post and increase the chances of the algorithm showing it to people.

      And as someone pointed out when I made this point last time, I'm ignoring the fact that they absolutely do censor posts. There are Facebook "community standards" and if you violate those, your post will be removed and your account may be banned. But even if we were to ignore the fact that they do moderate (some) content, Facebook isn't a free speech platform. They actively pick and choose what they show to people. Something like half the content on my Facebook timeline aren't posts by friends or pages I follow, they're "promoted" or "recommended" posts Facebook's algorithms have picked. Facebook is in no ways a neutral platform. They may argue they support free speech, but their platform constantly picks and chooses what speech people are allowed to see.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by inhuman_4 ( 1294516 )

        I disagree completely. Twitter still lets you see "latest tweets" and doesn't filter what you see. Facebook, on the other hand, completely curates what you're allowed to see. Facebook constantly makes decisions on what you're allowed to see on their platform. It's just that the majority of those decisions aren't driven by humans, they're decided by algorithms.

        These are not the same.

        Facebook is using algorithms to identify and present to you the content you are most likely to want to see based on your past behaviour. Something has to go to the top of your feed, and Facebook is trying to present the stuff you are interested in. They are not censoring nor are they preventing you from finding what you are looking for. It's the same thing retailers do when suggesting products to you based on your past purchases. Twitter in contrast is censoring content. And that ce

        • That narrow UI, constantly pushing crap at you, difficult to search.

          I am amazed it has survived so long.

          An independently written Facebook Viewer might help, but they would ban it instantly.

      • That's a great observance. What's the difference between "moderating content" and "curating content"? I suspect none. Twitter is pretty transparent in this regard.

    • Except they flagged Project Lincoln's post so your argument is fallacious.
    • by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @04:28PM (#60137424)

      He should own his decision to be a lot more balanced and mature (though still problematic on free speech) than Twitter and others. He should call Facebook a safe harbor for free speech where only asshole behavior is punished. Then if people want to virtue-signal, they can fuck right off the employment rolls and Facebook can diversify to other parts of the country where people trend toward "I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."

      You accidentally stumbled on the point. Silicon Valley CEOs, like most CEOs, are sociopaths. They don't care about politics, just money. Zuckerberg has no principles. I would bet Tim Cook, Pinchai, Nadella, etc...don't give 2 shits how many black people die from lethal force or the state of the nation or Trump's tweets.

      Why the liberal "virtue signaling?" (your trite term, not mine) It's quite simple. They are dependent on having raw talent coming in droves. If the red states produced conservative intelligent tech leaders or good coders, every CEO would be as "conservative" as they need to be. Every Google campus would have a shooting range on site if Red State "conservatives" could actually code. They'd have rustic mountain offices. They'd have well-funded gun clubs and coding sessions on fishing boats....they'd cater to your every conservative/red-state whim and set up as many offices as they could build in your area...if you guys actually had talent or offered them something of value.

      Silicon Valley leadership is neither red nor blue...they only care about the green

      Here's a message to you conservatives...think tech has a liberal bias? Become great coders. Zuckerberg is not from CA. He set up shop their to get Silicon Valley talent and VC investment. Almost no one WANTS to be in Silicon Valley...it's expensive AF and your top talent is constantly getting poached...and good workers have a huge sense of entitlement because....well, the market says they deserve it. I think they'd all be much happier somewhere else with less traffic, lower taxes, wages, and cheaper land. Google doesn't want to give free meals and crazy perks. They just believe making their campus more like a fraternity and less like a place of work will retain the talent they depend on and keep them from going over to Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, Apple, etc. Develop some actual skill and they will bend to your whim as well.

      Keeping the talent you depend on happy is mission critical when it's very trivial for them to switch jobs elsewhere, typically for higher pay. Unfortunately for you folks with anti-liberal views, about 90% of useful technical employees I've met either had an overt liberal persuasion or an anti-Republican one, even in red states....even if you think I am wrong, this is the prevalent view in tech leadership. I am confident my CEO only cares about success, but boy will he trumpet diversity and inclusion as loud as he can...why? because it's important to his employees and his employees are the ones that enable his success. Find a way to enable his success and he'll do whatever it takes to make you happy.

  • Zuckerberg, for all his efforts to appear objective and unbiased, is part of the problem. Police are killing black people, and Trump is encouraging it. This is WRONG, people, and there's no way to claim it isn't. Emboldened by Trump's Twitter rants, the police now appear to have turned on journalists and peaceful protesters, assured that their violations of the law will go unpunished.

    We have a problem here, people. Mr Zuckerberg? Are you paying attention? Or are you too busy counting the profits?

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      I think this post by _xeno_ [slashdot.org] said it best.

  • The 14th rule of the Internet: "Dont feed the trolls!"
  • by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:23PM (#60137160)

    Let me get this right?

    If you don't sensor someone the way you want them censored then you are guilty of what they are saying as well? I guess all the history books are just more tools spreading racism, hate, and bigotry then. So are movies about these subjects.

    When you seek to control any portion of the message you are human trash yourself. I keep telling everyone that they hate the constitution and the idea's that create it... but they always deny it... however your actions are proof of what you are.

    Speech that you hate is protected by the 1st. Any attempt to control speech leads to a fate WORSE than the problems caused by letting people talk! The best solution to bad speech is more speech in response.

    If you want to silence people... silence yourself first!

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      If you don't sensor someone the way you want them censored then

      Also censer and senser. These words are making me tents.

  • You can accomplish free speech and also provide a disclaimer to ensure people are informed of other opinions.

    The only thing it messes up is your echo chamber that is FB.

    Side note:
    He donated $10m to racial injustice (his net worth is $38b). That's like an engineer who makes $100k and drops a $1(IOU) to the tip jar when ordering a $4 coffee. IOU since I'm sure it will take time for him to provision what's to be done with it and maybe in the form of FB stock etc.

    • by Cylix ( 55374 )

      Oh no, he didn't give away all of his money to a cause! Oh dear!

      He shouldn't have given jack and shit.

  • If you post anything about Eric CIA* on Facebook, the post will auto-disappear.

    They've even extended that to private messages.

    Good investment, In-Q-Tel.

  • That Zuckerberg is essentially Peter Thiel's puppet. [yahoo.com]

  • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:25PM (#60137172) Homepage

    This isn't "inaction" - this sounds like he is standing up against censorship. Hating him for his stance on privacy should not mean we admonish him for doing the right thing on this issue. Twitter has learned the hard way that social media cannot be the arbiter of truth - nobody can be. If you try, you we either be hated by the left, or hated by the right. Facebook will have the same problem if they try. So don't.

    Social media is not an editorial platform. I'm okay with web sites auto-filtering links to goatse, ascii-art, SQL injection attempts, child pornography, and duplicate stories. But as soon as you make editorial decisions you will alternately hated by the left then hated by the right. The population of planet earth needs to realize that they can't have it both ways! If you wanted edited content, subscribe to a newspaper or web site that has your leanings. But Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and bobspersonalwebsite,com/myviews.html reflect the raw ugly unfiltered reality. We need that.

    Funny story: 6 months ago one of my Republican relatives told me that twitter or Facebook or whatever needed to censor something that a Muslim activist said. They said it can't be okay to just post anything. They pointed out that ancient anecdote that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowed theater. (Actually you can.) Then a few days ago they went rabid about how Twitter should not censor Trump. Then today it's censorship again. Goldfish have better memories than people who partake in partisan politics.

    • by Sebby ( 238625 )

      I think the court of public opinion is what tends to matter most to people in the end (rightfully or not).

      • Yea, but that is why speech needs to be open and uncensored... because the "Court of Public Opinion" likes to mass murder people. It did not care about blacks during slavery, it did not care about Jews during the Holocaust, it does not care about the Uighers in China right now.

        Fuck'em all and let whoever is in charge sort it, is the usual response by most and why it is very important for speech to remain uncensored.

        • by Sebby ( 238625 )
          You have a good point; mine was more with general judgment based on people's opinion from what they know/have observed (defined by truth or otherwise), rather than actual actions.
    • Its sad these people ignore when they censor trump for saying something as "when looting starts so does the shooting" claiming it glorified violence. It only pointed out the fact when people start stealing stuff owners will defend their business. At the same time you got people calling for more riots and destruction without a single obstruction by twitter. Even the "fact checking" they did to trump they don't do it to any democrat like Biden for example. More and more over last 8 or so years they been censo
      • by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I'm guessing you're the person who would say it's fine to use the word "nigra", like so many people did (and still do), because TECHNICALLY, it's not a bad word, right?
        • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

          Like in rap music or videos? I mean we could censor them, or ban their music altogether, but does that seem right? Haven't they been through a lot lately?

        • by Cylix ( 55374 )

          You just made up some shit. It wasn't even an argument.

          I can't believe you are such a racist.

    • Hating him for his stance on privacy should not mean we admonish him for doing the right thing on this issue.

      This really says it best. Actions need to be judged on the action and not the person, otherwise you confuse the issue in minds of idiots, and idiots make up 90%+ of the voting population.

    • by trawg ( 308495 )

      This isn't "inaction" - this sounds like he is standing up against censorship.

      I think it can be both things :) I think he, and social networks, are in a tough spot in general.

      Blocking Trump on a platform seems like an impossible task. If he posts a story about shooting looters and a network decides to delete it, do they then have to delete all the news stories reporting on what he said? Are we thinking they're going to maintain a blocklist of millions of URLs each time he opens his mouth?

      All they can do is block his account and stop letting him use it as an official mouthpiece. I am

    • These platforms all have terms of service specifying what isn't allowed, illegal stuff, hate speech, etc. Some have a wide grey area making it difficult to moderate but factual statements that are easily disproved can be moderated with no loss of free speech. Like when Trump tweeted that Michigan mailed ballots to everyone, this was false (it was ballot applications). The reality is that human bias usually wins over provable facts.

  • Censor right wing posts while leaving much more numerous and inflammatory leftwing posts up just like the NYT wants!
  • Zuck who? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:32PM (#60137202)

    You mean Mark Zuckerberg, the child molester? [twitter.com]

  • ACLU and Nazis (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:37PM (#60137226) Homepage

    Whenever such an event like this happens, I remind myself of the time ACLU defended actual Nazis:
    https://www.aclu.org/issues/fr... [aclu.org]

    Vile that it is, Nazi's right to free speech was important. What is more ironic is that it was defended by a Jewish lawyer. Even though we might not agree 1 bit on their ideas, if they cannot express them today, ours could also be limited in the future.

    This should be a very simple concept.

    • by jwymanm ( 627857 )
      It should. /. has lost it's minds. We use to be pro free speech and had censorship icons and everything. In a span of 3 years all that has changed.
      • by Cylix ( 55374 )

        The problem is we have newer generations which feel that censorship of their values is a must. They can't handle the concept of free speech. The left has been at constant war with the very same concept.

        Too many people believe it is a good thing to ban things they dislike.

        It will be a huge shock when they disagree with the censorship. Too bad safe spaces wont help at that point.

    • Re:ACLU and Nazis (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @03:56PM (#60137298) Homepage Journal

      Except Twitter and Facebook are not the commons, and the president of the United States has plenty other ways of communicating with the public, including major outlets that function as the media wing of his party. It's not like it is possible to muzzle him in the way you can muzzle a handful nutcases doing Nazi cosplay.

      That raises the question: what is it about social media that makes them so important to *this* particular politician? I think it is their emotional immediacy -- or put another way, the power Twitter and Facebook have to get people to react without thinking.

      This is not about some kind of high-minded debate about controversial questions of policy: it is about channeling anger and hatred, the favored tools of despots for making willing slaves of the populace. There has never been a despotic regime that could survive its own incompetency and indifference to the public welfare without the power to inflame the emotions of the masses against some scapegoat.

      • by Cylix ( 55374 )

        Many online outlets have enjoyed protections because were they considered a voice of the commons.

        While they enjoyed the protections of a platform; they themselves did not honor the right to be a platform.

        Now those protections are going to be stripped away from organizations that pretend to a voice of the commons.

        You can absolutely choose to display whatever bias you want as long you want to pay the lawyers.

    • The Nazi's wanted to speak on public streets. That's entirely different from demanding to speak on somebody else's servers. Facebook can (and should) shut down people like Trump.
      • by JackAxe ( 689361 )
        You have a simple, but very authoritarian view on this subject. If people like you get their way, the the future will become a dystopian hell hole. If you don't like what Trump says, don't read it.

        Facebook and others would have never reached their market share, if not for the liability protection afforded by the government.

        Why don't you educate yourself about 230:
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
        • by DogDude ( 805747 )
          Facebook and others would have never reached their market share, if not for the liability protection afforded by the government.

          I agree completely.

          If people like you get their way, the the future will become a dystopian hell hole.

          Oh, noes! Companies will determine what's on their own servers! What a nightmare that will be! How horrible! You mean people will have to PAY for web hosting, or learn how to host a web page? The horror. The horror.
      • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        If the real DogDude is out there, you're account was hijacked. Maybe you can reset your password via email or something to get it back.

  • Now that Twitter is deciding which tweets are false, every tweet that Twitter didn't label can be presumed to be indisputably true. Unless... Unless Twitter is using double standards and singling out specific people for punishment based on the bias and prejudice of Twitter's staff.

    • "every tweet that Twitter didn't label can be presumed to be indisputably true"

      How about every tweet where the account has 10M+ followers gets fact checked? It's a bit much to ask them to perfectly fact check every single tweet, but for those few souls who have the loudest voices it would seem prudent to be sure they aren't misleading the world. That's basically how the press works. Someone's blog with 8 readers is not going to get the same level of scrutiny for accuracy as the London Times or New York Pos

      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        "every tweet that Twitter didn't label can be presumed to be indisputably true"

        How about every tweet where the account has 10M+ followers gets fact checked?

        So make up the standards on the spot and change them whenever. Just because. But don't accuse them of having double standards or bias.

        • Aren't all standards made up by someone and changed as needed?

          If someone has a disproportionate amount of power, it generally needs to be checked. The founding fathers knew that and thought having an individual like a king was a bad idea. Having 80 million followers gives an individual a loud voice. And if they did it to accounts with 10M+ followers then they'd also be fact checking Shakira, Justin Timberlake, and CNN's Twitter feed.

          And sometimes it's a good thing to single out "specific people for punishme

          • by Kohath ( 38547 )

            Aren't all standards made up by someone and changed as needed?

            Twitter is accountable to no one. If they want to demonstrate unmistakable enmity toward 40+% of Americans, they should keep it up.

            • I'll admit, I had to look up the definition of enmity. It was described as, "the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something."

              I'm guessing that 40% of Americans you reference are the ~40+% who approve of Trump. Are you implying that Twitter's fact checking link for that single individual is an act of hostility towards any and everyone who approves of him?

              And I'd argue that Twitter is accountable to its shareholders. Honestly, I don't understand the appeal for the app or how

              • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                Are you implying that Twitter's fact checking link for that single individual is an act of hostility towards any and everyone who approves of him?

                Not implying. Stating it directly. If they only "fact check" one side or use double standards when they do it, it's a demonstration that they view that side as the enemy. Making enemies when there's nothing to gain from it is stupid.

                • They appear to be fact checking for more than "one side", unless you believe Trump also believes the coronavirus originated in the US.

                  Twitter fact-checks Chinese official's claims that coronavirus originated in U.S. : https://www.axios.com/twitter-... [axios.com]

                  • by Kohath ( 38547 )

                    And the police hurt white people too sometimes. Would you say their black victims don't have a valid complaint?

      • Would not work because some of the things Twitter labeled as false were items about the future. Do we want to trust twitter to forecast the future?
      • How about every tweet where the account has 10M+ followers gets fact checked?

        Twitter is mostly a marketing and advertising platform. The last thing advertisers want is to be fact checked.

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @04:14PM (#60137368)
    I've said this many times before: Facebook sells ads. That's their business. That's what they do. That's why they exist. The social-networking platform is NOTHING MORE THAN A HONEYPOT TO DELIVER THE ADS.Yes, yes, there's also their business of selling user data to anyone with a checkbook, but that's really just a sideline to the bread and butter. Zuckerberg is an AD MAN. Realize this, and most of his behavior becomes crystal clear. Watch a bit of Mad Men. The tech platform, the dress and the culture have changed a bit, but the core business is exactly the same.


    Let me spell this out for anyone still unclear on the concept: Companies exist to make a profit. Facebook profits from selling ads. They aren't going to do anything that gets in the way of that. Trump's freak show draws a LOT of eyeballs, and this sells a LOT of ads. Do not expect these companies to muzzle Trump in any way at all. As long as he's president, his posts make them a lot of serious bank. Complaining to Zuckerberg about giving Trump a pass on Facebook is like lecturing the man in an ice-cream-truck about how bad sugar is. Spectacularly bad choice of audience, my friend.

    Want to shut this guy down? For now, there's nothing we can do. We voted him in, and elections have consequences. We'll get another chance in November. It's up to the voters, plain and simple. It always was. Vote him out of office and a big chunk of the country will quickly write him off as a sorry, embarrassing 4-year society-wide tantrum. At that point, people will stop paying attention to him. His posts will sell far fewer ads and he'll mostly drop off the charts. Problem solved.
    • I sure hope so. All the peeps that protested Hilary and the DNC shenanigans in 2016 by voting 3rd party or abstaining aren't going to make the same mistake. Trump's actions this year aren't helping him either.

  • except the money!

    Eat the Zuckerbergs!

  • Those challenging you are a small minority, they should find employment elsewhere. You are fundamentally right: engaging in censorship of legal speech is detrimental to Facebook's mission.

  • by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @04:54PM (#60137534)
    I know this will probably draw plenty of flame... But what you YOU do if you made decisions like this? I personally don't know what I would do.

    Think about it. How are you going to filter trillions of messages? Is it even possible to use technology to do a good job? I'm not sure its even possible and I'm pretty good at machine learning to understand the challenge.

    Humans cannot read it all. If you single people out, e.g. the President of the US, you will be branded as being unfair so that's out.

    And then there is the law. If they start censoring posts, they are no longer just the pipe - they take responsibility for content. And that invokes lots of legal issues that in the end would be a disaster. Twitter actually made the mistake and they aren't just a pipe, they are a publisher of editorial content and assume responsibility for what is said on their platform.

    Freedom of speech is not easy, but its worth protecting. We are better off teaching people to not believe everything they read.

    I say we get off Facebook's back. In this case they aren't really the bad guy here.

    I read somebody's tag line here: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death".
  • What a damn traitor to the party! Only far left, and radical Islam, can post what they want.

  • If Trump doesn't like Twitter, why doesn't he switch to Facebook?

    They've said they're not going to tell everyone what to believe.

    The media would cover his stuff off a different platform. They wouldn't take a hit to their sources and clicks / circulation.

    Twitter is only still alive because POTUS is using it.
  • The 2020 elections are Zuck's chance to print more money! He's not going to pass up on this opportunity!

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...