
Zuckerberg Leaves Racial Justice Leader Frustrated After Call - jhowell
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/zuckerberg-leaves-racial-justice-leader-frustrated-after-call
======
jhowell
> In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson
> said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I
> feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time,
> explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very
> much lacks the ability to understand it.”

~~~
tomp
> explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very
> much lacks the ability to understand it

That's the problem with getting only one side of the story. Maybe he just has
a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a
problem (or _the biggest_ problem).

~~~
jhowell
> Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he
> disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem).

Given the unique ability of his technology to magnify and control the
distribution of information should we impose greater liabilities if their
actions are demonstrably negative?

------
DoreenMichele
So the President of the US says on social media "when the looting starts, the
shooting starts" and people want Facebook to take this down and this is their
issue with Zuckerberg, that he won't take this down or do anything about it.

People are idiots. Removing the post does nothing to prevent the President
from ordering "the shooting" he has indicated he will order. Taking the post
down amounts to denying people valuable information they may need to try to
protect their lives in this mess.

There is a reason that democracy values a free press. There is a reason that
humans have historically developed policies like "Don't shoot the messenger."

It's worse when you can't get the word out that someone with real and serious
power to order this to happen is told "Shut up. We don't want to hear from
you." It does nothing whatsoever to stop him from ordering in the troops. In
fact, it makes it more likely he will do just that in part because it makes it
less likely people will get the memo that "If you do x, the consequence is Y,
so maybe don't do x."

This is a bullshit complaint. Silencing the President on Facebook isn't
remotely the same as silencing some random asshole whose words might foment
violence but who otherwise lacks the ability to literally command armies to
come into your town and shoot people. Because one of the hats the President
wears is Commander in Chief and his picture is on the wall of many a military
barracks as the top guy in the chain of command, along with all the officers
in that unit locally and all the officers between the local Captain (or
whatever) and the Commander in Chief.

~~~
archagon
Disagree. Private channels have zero obligation to be propagate any political
leader's inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, I'd say the social media feedback loop
does substantially more harm than good when tensions are high, since Trump
feeds on attention and tends to double-down when pushed. He can publish a
press release on an official government website if he wishes, just like any
prior president.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks
Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even
news? It is agitation for a desired outcome.

It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the
right side of this issue.

Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do
people find it so offensive?

~~~
rumanator
> Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses
> them..

You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact
was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with
questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction
was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.

~~~
A4ET8a8uTh0
Is it possible that the civil rights leaders misunderstood meeting for
something it was not. For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is
doing something, while keeping business model intact ( it works, why I should
I break it ). I suppose that means we are in agreement.

I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something
comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager
to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not
doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby.

Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your
petition will be acted upon.

~~~
rumanator
> For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something,
> while keeping business model intact

The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing
absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights
leaders.

> Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby.

There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens
of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or
that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that
a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all
men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject
where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.

~~~
etherael
> Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases
> to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or
> form.

Except this assumes that's what both sides of the argument are actually about.
Just checking but do you realise this is an artificial construct that exists
entirely in your own head? Zuckerberg in this particular instance, and the
free speech absolutist argument in general _does not_ imply acceptance that
it's reasonable to support racial violence. Equating the two shows either an
intent to deceive or quite intense confusion on the subject.

------
Barrin92
Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality.
Not just on this particular issue, but on every single one, he gives, without
exception, the same pre-arranged PR department answer imaginable.

No matter if it's issues with AI, privacy, advertisement or now political or
racially charged content, you can be sure you get the "we're trying to connect
the world" stump speech

~~~
rumanator
I'm not convinced he is that detached from reality. I do believe that the
status quo is to his liking and thus he plays his hand to ensure it stays that
way, but still plays it safe by pulling the plausible deniability card.

------
whatshisface
If Zuckerberg were to make Facebook politically active, it would probably be
his personal views that they pushed. Why would it be anything else?

~~~
jakelazaroff
Zuckerberg _is_ politically active, and his personal views _are_ being pushed.
Their current policy of allowing incitement to violence and voter suppression
in the name of free expression is the result.

~~~
whatshisface
Allowing something isn't pushing something. To see how, look at the following
debate:

Liberal: "Stop trying to push your views on us, let people decide for
themselves whether they want to be gay."

Conservative: "You are also pushing your views, and the fact that gay marriage
is allowed is a result of that. By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your
views on everyone."

So, that's clearly wrong, because as smart as it sounds to say things like
"the null policy is a policy," being permissive is actually possible to
distinguish from any of the particular ways one could be restrictive.

~~~
testbot123
> let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay

> By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone

This is a straw man. People don't choose to be gay, and conservatives are
depriving people of their rights for something they can't choose. Allowing
individuals the right of self determination is nowhere near allowing a sitting
president to incite violence against American citizens.

~~~
whatshisface
I think you're misusing the term "straw man." A straw man is an argument that
nobody ever uses, brought forward purely to discredit. I am pretty sure I have
heard that argument before, so it's not a straw man.

In any case, it doesn't even matter whether that example has happened in a
debate before. It's simply meant to illustrate the error in failing to
distinguish between liberality and restrictivism.

~~~
jakelazaroff
A straw man is misrepresenting an argument so that it's easier to counter. I
don't think this is a straw man, I just think it's a poor analogy.

The difference between same–sex marriage and what Trump is doing is that
same–sex marriage affects no one except for those getting married. No one is
being forced to have a same–sex marriage or go to a same–sex wedding. "Forcing
your views on us" means "we don't want to live in a society where this is
permitted, even if I am never personally affected by it."

Trump, on the other hand, has posted propaganda about voter suppression and
incited violence. This absolutely affects other people. It's not neutral to
unaffiliated parties at all — how many protesters will be hurt because Trump
has openly called for violence against them?

~~~
whatshisface
Going back to the original point, if Zuckerberg was in charge of deciding
which policy positions were good and which ones were bad, it would be his
personal opinions that mattered. So your or my opinion about whether Trump
tweets or gay marriage are good or bad, are not very relevant.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Yes, I agree with you about that. The point at which we diverge is that I’m
saying it’s not hypothetical — Zuckerberg _is_ making political decisions
which reflect his personal values.

------
splitrocket
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
on his not understanding it.”

\--Upton Sinclair.

~~~
conanbatt
Well said, but about whom.

~~~
ardy42
> Well said, but about whom.

The answer is clear...unless you think racism is a hoax and civil rights
leaders are mainly in their line of work for the money.

~~~
conanbatt
I don't think facebook is a hoax!

A "Racial Justice Leader" which is an amazing title, is confounded about how
the CEO of one of the largest media organizations in the world does not want
to partake in spreading his message and thinks its because "he doesn't
understand".

Please.

------
sneak
It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their
customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular?

I, for one, don't want any third party telling me what I am or am not allowed
to read. If someone wants to put something on the internet, it's not the
hosting platform's job to say that they shouldn't, provided that material is
legal. If it's bad content, I won't read it. Maybe other people will; not my
business, nor yours.

When did we go from "I don't want to read that" to "nobody should be able to
read that"?

Would you tolerate arbitrary censorship of your own webpage by your web host?

Why are so many people demanding that Facebook play cop? Being wrong on the
internet isn't illegal, nor should it be, and Facebook is correct for staying
out of that, no matter how repugnant the stupid shit posted to Facebook
becomes.

Ultimately, any platform used by billions is going to be filled with stupid,
repugnant, _wrong_ shit, or filled with censorship. I'd prefer the former,
because the latter is unacceptable.

~~~
poisonborz
This. The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to
life, or messages trying to disrupt the service itself. Everything else is
just making bed for subjective censorship.

That said, FB is a private company that can show and hide whatever it pleases.
It is the bad infrastructure of these walled content megalodons that results
in this being a problem.

Truly distributed networks and darknets may be the only future for the
internet we know.

~~~
sneak
> _The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat /harm to
> life_

It's not a stretch to point out that the post made by POTUS falls within that
description. He was literally threatening protestors/looters with summary
execution by the military.

------
ceilingcorner
This article has zero content. Why were they frustrated? What did they
propose? What did Zuckerberg say?

Bad journalism.

~~~
Shivetya
[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-
stunned...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-stunned-
after-call-with-zuckerberg.html)

they want Trump's post to come down, simple as that. The story I linked has
more substance but it all comes down to they don't like Trump or anything he
says and so they want Facebook along with Twitter to both label or block it.

------
encoderer
I hate Trump but it’s not facebook’s job to censor the president.

~~~
oneplane
It's also not their job to host everyone and everyone's content on their non-
public non-government commercial platform.

~~~
banads
Their job is to make money. Censoring world leaders from your platform is a
sure fire way to lose a lot of users and money

~~~
oneplane
I'm not sure there are metrics on that, I haven't seen any publication of such
a precedent. I also wonder where those people might go, to the next-biggest
platform perhaps? Or create a new one? And what about people that don't have a
1-to-1 relation to presence and consumption but a 1-to-many (i.e., friends,
family). I suppose it's likely that someone might spend less total time on a
platform if they have to divide their time between more than one platform.

~~~
banads
FB has the metrics. The precedent is Cambridge Analytica.

~~~
oneplane
That's great, but those metrics aren't available to us so speculating on that
has little value.

~~~
banads
We don't need the metrics ourselves to have common sense:

1\. Facebook's job as a corporation is to make money

2\. Making money for FB is largely based on MAU

3\. Playing politics and censoring the chosen world leaders of large portions
of their user base is a probable way to lose those users, and thus, money

~~~
oneplane
I don't know what MAU means but I do know that humans are terrible at
predicting things, common sense has little to do with metrics and, yes, of
course Facebook's job is to make money.

The assumption that people leave assumes that there is a different place to go
to, which for most people, there isn't because social networks are exactly
that: networks. Unless you have a small isolated network that can move all at
the same time, it is not likely that people will single themselves out.

------
rsweeney21
So are social media companies a platform or are they editorialized?

Let's say we decide to go to war with China. Should Facebook censor anti-
Chinese content? Should it censor anti-war content?

I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child
pornography) and then there is a lot of gray area. My question to Facebook
employees who oppose Mark's viewpoint is: "What is your solution and how do
you prevent Facebook from censoring anything you don't agree with?"

~~~
flmlta
>I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child
pornography)

How about advocating violence or harm to others?

~~~
rsweeney21
Wouldn't that be ok in war time?

What if I say "You should defend your property from criminals." That's
advocating violence.

What about advocating for late-term abortions? A huge portion of the US feel
like that is harming an unborn human being.

What about advocating for the death penalty in states where it is legal?

I don't see how you could objectively make censorship judgements on this kind
of speech.

------
spamizbad
One new problem I see on Facebook these days are lots of images shared of
false claims of people coming to attack/riot in neighborhoods... like really
poorly doctored snapchat screenshots that wouldn't fool anyone under 40 but
get proliferated everywhere by boomers.

There's now a massive line outside my local Home Depot with people standing in
90 degree heat trying to return plywood and OSB for looting and imaginary
"ANTIFA caravan riots" that never came. Absolutely corrosive stuff to social
order in its own right.

~~~
weewee2018
So if you’re born in 1980 or earlier you’re a boomer? Oh my. Ageism shines
through.

~~~
spamizbad
I'm not interested in getting into a PC slap-fight: Old people are more likely
to spread disinformation online and there's studies that prove it. Facts don't
care about your feelings:
[https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1)

------
creddit
Zuck walked right into that trap.

~~~
ceejayoz
I was at F8 when Zuck announced "the future is private".

It's entirely possible he's simply that lacking in self-awareness.

~~~
mehrdadn
It wouldn't be his first time, if people remember the Puerto Rico incident 3
years ago.

------
fullshark
The attempts to work the refs and shape political discourse on FB leading up
to the election are only going to get more and more intense. Hillary Clinton
as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.

~~~
Zenbit_UX
> Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her
> loss.

And I still blame her for the current state of the world. Her gross
incompetence in regards to her campaign and underestimating her opponent has
directly lead to human rights violations, the erosure of trust in America from
its allies and countless unnecessary deaths in the handling of the pandemic.

She lost to who is likely the dumbest and most incompetent president in
history, so what does that make her?

------
xwdv
Nothing he said could have satisfied them. Don't even know why he did this.
People just don't understand this isn't a Facebook problem.

------
thomasfromcdnjs
This doesn't really seem newsworthy.

They should be happy Zuckerberg spoke to them and they got to share their
different perspectives with him.

He runs one of the largest companies in the world, and they are just a single
NGO with their own view point on racial ideas.

Why don't any companies ever work with non liberal NGO's?

I'd love to see more of Thomas Sowell type thinking.

