Lawmakers Are Skeptical of Zuckerberg's Commitment To Free Speech (theverge.com) 45
An anonymous reader shares a report: Meta's latest whistleblower, Sarah Wynn-Williams, got a warm reception on Capitol Hill Wednesday, as the Careless People author who the company has fought to silence described the company's chief executive as someone willing to shapeshift into whatever gets him closest to power. The message was one that lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and counterterrorism were very open to. Their responses underscore that amid CEO Mark Zuckerberg's latest pivot in cozying up to the right, his perception in Washington has not yet totally changed, even as he reportedly lobbies President Donald Trump to drop the government's antitrust case against the company.
"He's recently tried a reinvention in which he is now a great advocate of free speech, after being an advocate of censorship in China and in this country for years," subcommittee Chair Josh Hawley (R-MO) said, pointing to longtime conservative allegations that Meta has suppressed things like vaccine skepticism and the Hunter Biden laptop story. "Now that's all wiped away. Now he's on Joe Rogan and says that he is Mr. Free Speech, he is Mr. MAGA, he's a whole new man, and his company, they're a whole new company. Do you buy this latest reinvention of Mark Zuckerberg?"
"If he is such a fan of freedom of speech, why is he trying to silence me?" Wynn-Williams asked in response. Meta convinced an arbitrator to order her to stop making disparaging statements and halt further publishing and promotion of the book, which details Meta's alleged dealings with the Chinese government and claims of sexual harassment from a top executive.
"He's recently tried a reinvention in which he is now a great advocate of free speech, after being an advocate of censorship in China and in this country for years," subcommittee Chair Josh Hawley (R-MO) said, pointing to longtime conservative allegations that Meta has suppressed things like vaccine skepticism and the Hunter Biden laptop story. "Now that's all wiped away. Now he's on Joe Rogan and says that he is Mr. Free Speech, he is Mr. MAGA, he's a whole new man, and his company, they're a whole new company. Do you buy this latest reinvention of Mark Zuckerberg?"
"If he is such a fan of freedom of speech, why is he trying to silence me?" Wynn-Williams asked in response. Meta convinced an arbitrator to order her to stop making disparaging statements and halt further publishing and promotion of the book, which details Meta's alleged dealings with the Chinese government and claims of sexual harassment from a top executive.
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Well I'm shocked! The soulless eyed lizard person is a shapeshifter?! Go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
If I were him I would embrace it. See if Mattel's Hot Wheels could produce a government Limo in his name.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how he got there? He was out running one morning as an early adult and God dropped a tree on him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
'The Lizards were extremely philosophical by nature, and often sat thinking for hours and hours together,'
--Oscar Wilde. (Real quote)
Josh Hawley (Score:2, Informative)
Ran away from the "friendly tourists" on January 6th. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Concerning (Score:5, Funny)
Convicted rapist Mark Zuckerberg was seen kissing the ring of an elderly dementia patient for political favors.
This post has not been checked for facts
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like
I am skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
of the commitment of the so-called "law makers" to "free speech", "the rule of law", "defending freedums", "morality and fairness" and so on.
But I trust them to lie and sell themselves to the highest bidder, including zuck the lizard among the latter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Law makers" don't have to worry about fuckerberg's commitment to any one thing or another. All "law makers" need to do is undo the damage they caused with Section 230 carve-outs for big tech, and YouFaceTubeBookTickGramAppTwitX and all the rest can then adapt to the consequences of what they are: private media companies, 100% responsible for 100% of the content they publish. The sick regime of corporate commons created by 230 is the problem, and the solution is entirely straightforward: kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
All "law makers" need to do is undo the damage they caused
Carry the light, bro. Be a reminder to the "law makers" to be honest, to reject corruption and to faithfully represent their constituencies.
The lord almighty knows there can't be enough of this.
Re: I am skeptical (Score:3)
You do understand that will apply to slashdot, too, right? The of 230 would also mark the end of these forums.
Re: I am skeptical (Score:5, Informative)
Yep.
In fact, getting rid of 230 would be a pro-Zuckerberg move.
Large companies would be able to afford lawyers and automated filtering tech.
Forums the size of Slashdot and startups would all be killed by the end of 230.
An overview from the EFF:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Much Harder Problem (Score:3)
All "law makers" need to do is undo the damage they caused with Section 230 carve-outs for big tech
Unfortunately the answer is not as easy as that. If you make online platforms legally liable for the comments that their users post then places like Slashdot are going to shutdown. At the same time I agree that something has to be done about the deliberate lies that can cause significant damage to people when they are spread with the megaphone of an online platform.
I'd suggest removing anonymity as a condition to maintain immunity from liability. This does not have to be done openly i.e. you can still l
Re:Much Harder Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd go further and get rid of anonymity altogether if a platform wants Sec. 230 protection. Everyone posts under their real name, verified by government photo ID. If they don't want their real name displayed, then they have to pay a $1/month subscription fee. (Their name is still known and verified by the platform; just not displayed.)
This gets rid of most trolls and bot farms while still preserving some online anonymity for people who genuinely need it.
Re: (Score:2)
of the commitment of the so-called "law makers" to "free speech", "the rule of law", "defending freedums", "morality and fairness" and so on.
But I trust them to lie and sell themselves to the highest bidder, including zuck the lizard among the latter.
Exactly, the current US governments definition of "free speech" is "everything I agree with must be allowed, any criticism of this must be suppressed"... I can't believe Meta would be on the wrong side of this. Then again the entire world has gone topsy turvy now that China is seen as the good guy and source of economic stability in the world so maybe Zuckerberg has grown a pair of balls (at least 6 months too late mind you).
Re: (Score:2)
All in all, the limits of growth have been reached. Now there's only fallout to look forward to, maybe.
Can't we just outlaw all this shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
No more social media. No more YouTube. No more TikTok. No more Twitch. The world would be a better place.
I don't give a damn if they censor. It's all a fucking wasteland.
Enshitification is real.
Re: (Score:3)
you can try, but you'll have to answer to the coca cola company, amajor investor in this enshittification process.
All we need is slashdot .... (Score:1)
No more social media. No more YouTube. No more TikTok. No more Twitch. The world would be a better place.
Yep, all we need is slashdot for our unbiased and thoughtful discussions of current events.
Re: (Score:2)
Outlaw? They'll probably get bailouts when the AI bubble pops. Big Tech is too big to fail now. It's critical to President Musk's portfolio, and mumble mumble "national security".
The tech bros are embedded in the government even deeper than the traditional suits now.
Re: (Score:2)
No more social media.
TheMiddleRoad posted on Slashdot unironically.
Re: (Score:2)
This got me thinking though, is Slashdot social media? Has it always been even though it existed before "social media" was really a thing? Are all forums social media? I think there is a compelling case that say, SomethingAwful or Fark have always been social media but yet they lack certain key elements we associate with Twitter and Facebook. Sorry it's been a very long day and imma lil high.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say no. All the social media we can think of share that content unit is a user-generated story (which appears under a user profile or user group). On Slashdot, all stories are posted by staff and appear directly under website main page. That makes Slashdot a media outlet (or a corporate blog) with a comment section. Compared to say the NYT, Slahsot gives more importance to the comment section, and the stories on slashdot are essentially reposts, but these are only quantitative differences. The quali
Re: (Score:2)
/. is not social media. It's a nerd news site with comments. Forums are also not social media either. Discord is not usually social media, though it can be.
Social media started OK, as a place to post pet pictures and chat. It became feeds of attention grabbing content that rot the brain. You're either watching snippet after snippet for crap, or you're watching somebody as they pour idea bullshit into your brain, like AM radio on steroids.
Zuck is very committed (Score:4, Insightful)
How much is free speech worth? Like a dollar amount please. Because that's how dedicated Zuck is to free speech!
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on.
Do you mean being for actual free speech? I'm sorry that could lead you to being deported to an El Salvador death camp, or sued for $1B by Trump, or the government.
Being against free speech? Well, you could defend Trump in court and make some money, join Elon on Twitter, or something I guess. Anyway the prospects of making money definitely seem better in today's environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they could always give his donations back (Score:3)
The art of omitting exactly the right words (Score:1)
The reason the arbitrator forced her to be silent, is that she got fired then signed an agreement to not say anything in return for a pile of cash.
She probably wouldn't go to jail if she broke the private agreement, but she might have to pay back what she got.
Complaining about free speech being violated is good and important, but not if you've taken money to not say anything first.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason the arbitrator forced her to be silent, is that she got fired then signed an agreement to not say anything in return for a pile of cash.
She probably wouldn't go to jail if she broke the private agreement, but she might have to pay back what she got.
Complaining about free speech being violated is good and important, but not if you've taken money to not say anything first.
I wish I had mod points to add. The political slant of the average /. community member cannot be more exemplified than by the above being Modded to 1 after accurately pointing out that Sarah Wynn-Williams did indeed sign a non-disparagement agreement in order to get her severance. Fact is, she might be financially liable for any harm her speaking out causes.
I'm 100% in favor of protecting whistleblowers and free speech in general, but I'm not for protecting those who willingly give up those things in exch
Everyone is stupid. (Score:3)
Dear Subcommittee Chair: You are only being told what people think you want to hear.
Dear Sarah Wynn-Williams: Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Freedom of Speech exists along side laws of Defamation. You're doing something that can move a share price, expect them to silence you.
Dear world: The people who claim they are for Free Speech have the biggest problem with criticism and are some of the most damaging people to free speech. That includes politicians and C-suits across the political spectrum.
It's Not Just Lawmakers! (Score:2)
.
Don't flatter yourself !!! (Score:2)
"If he is such a fan of freedom of speech... (Score:2)
"...why is he trying to silence me?"
Because he believes that silencing others should also be protected speech, just as some libertarians believe that slavery should be legal [wikipedia.org] because freedom or something. It's a real head scratcher.
Zuckerberg hates free speech. (Score:2)
American Edge = Facebook (Score:1)