
Zuckerberg asserts Facebook stands for free expression - furcyd
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/business/zuckerberg-facebook-free-speech.html
======
hnuser54
The passive voice of "Facebook...has been assailed" is amusing given that the
present publication has been the one leading the charge.

The central exhibit of this piece is an assertion is that a political ad
should be censored by Facebook and others because it "falsely claimed [Biden]
committed corrupt acts in Ukraine". It did not make such a claim. The ad,
which was much harder to find than the dozens of articles declaring it
"false", repeated a video statement by Biden that he used a US-backed loan
deal to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, and it repeated a statement by the
Ukrainian prosecutor claiming he was fired because he was investigating a
company associated with Biden's son. But other sources assert that the US
wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he was corrupt himself, or
because he was getting in the way of other corruption probes.

See [https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-
misleads-...](https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-on-
biden-and-ukraine/) and [https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-
bidens-20...](https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-
bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived) for the ad and two
fairly well researched but opposing takes on the issue.

This isn't libel, this isn't accusing someone of a crime, this didn't
fabricate sources or quotes: it's just political innuendo. Demanding
censorship of electoral material because it's tacky or slightly misleading by
dubbing it "false propaganda" doesn't seem right.

~~~
merpnderp
I’m pretty confident every one of those articles attacking the ad knew exactly
what they were doing and knew it only showed Biden’s own words, and took
advantage of the fact that the vast majority of readers will never research
this themselves and are happy to believe lies they wish were true.

------
jdkee
As another poster notes, Facebook's speech codes are far more restrictive than
those afforded by the First Amendment. Of course, as a private entity Facebook
is not constrained by the 1A.

This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a
conservative administration.

~~~
lacker
_This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a
conservative administration._

That doesn't really make sense, since the current issue at stake is some pro-
Trump ads, which Facebook allowed and CNN did not. This speech is more like
Zuckerberg defending this action as neutral, while the NYT and Elizabeth
Warren are attacking it as unfairly supporting Trump.

~~~
akersten
It makes perfect sense in the broader context that the current administration
has been bloviating about "looking into" Facebook and other tech giants to
investigate alleged anti-conservative bias. Keeping the video up and defending
yourself as a neutral entity is precisely what I would expect Facebook to do
if they wanted to keep the DOJ at bay. Not because they're breaking any laws
by having a bias, but that they're currently staring down the barrel of anti-
trust investigation. If they wanted to win some points with the current
administration, this is exactly how they'd do it.

------
gfosco
It was a good speech. Reasoned and thoughtful, providing historical
precedents, and examining the benefits and risks unique to global internet
platforms. Can't say I agreed with everything, but on the whole, I think it's
a great direction. Worth a watch, or a read when the text comes out.

------
throwaway_law
Its been beat to death but Freedom of Speech is a limit on Governmental Power
to silence citizens.

What is often missed in the Free Speech discussion is the concept of the
"marketplace of ideas", that is the importance of Free Speech is allowing the
market to decide which ideas/speech is the best. The problem with FB and all
other platforms is they are replacing the market with their own algorithms to
maximize advertising revenue.

Facebook standing for Free Expression is such a play on words...Facebook
stands for monetizing the content users give them for free.

~~~
merpnderp
Isn’t that a little bit overly reductive? Facebook is also where likely >90%
of political discussions happen, and Facebook’s own self interest is aligned
with societies if they promote free speech.

~~~
throwaway_law
>Facebook’s own self interest is aligned with societies if they promote free
speech.

Facebook's interest is in capturing more market share and maximizing their
profits...not sure how that aligns with the interest of society, but I guess
it sounds good to call it promotion of free speech.

~~~
merpnderp
Profits are a good thing as usually some portion of them are brand new wealth,
which makes us all richer. And if Facebook can create new wealth while
promoting free speech, then society wins twice. Profits are simply the
creation of new wealth and it is ridiculous to think they're bad.

------
lacker
The text of the speech is available here:
[https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-
stands-...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for-
voice-and-free-expression/)

It's too long to paste here. I found it interesting to read, though. You don't
have to be logged into Facebook to read it.

------
zestyping
Facebook suppresses free expression every day — by consistently promoting
clickbait above factual content.

Ranking algorithms constitute editorial intent, for which Facebook is
responsible.

~~~
quotemstr
The argument that ranking exists and therefore FB and other social media
companies get to censorship what they want is invalid. There's no reason for
ranking algorithms to take _viewpoint_ into account. You can rank in a
viewpoint-agnostic way that preserves freedom of speech.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/ocSqN](http://archive.is/ocSqN)

------
wavefunction
Zuckerberg continues to increase my support for a breakup of the
facebook/instagram/whatsapp/oculus. He's not the sort of person that should be
entrusted with the awesome power he's wielding over the world, if there are
any.

~~~
clay_the_ripper
I’m curious why you think that. I find Mark Zuckerberg to be measured,
reasonable, thoughtful and I believe him to genuinely care about the values he
espouses.

Personally I could not think of anyone I would rather have run Facebook. With
such great power, I think it’s positive to have a platform that represents a
diverse set of views, and is committed to not policing content unless
absolutely necessary.

~~~
r00fus
His own words. His inability to have moral standings that interfere with his
company's profits.

He not only runs FB, he owns it and has 100% control over it - he has the
majority of vote share on the board.

If he goes bad or power gets to his head, there's nothing to stop him but
government.

~~~
fsociety
They could easily go the Apple route and sellout their own mission to be a
product in China but they didn't. That's a moral standing which does interfere
with an enormous amount of profits.

~~~
wavefunction
You sure about that? [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-
censo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-
tool-china.html) I know they're not operating in China but that appears to be
because Chinese authorities have blocked them and not any particular moral
stance.

------
mc32
Let’s see how this works out. Certainly I think they are in their rights to
censor illegal activities and speech. But we’ll see if the delve further into
censoring otherwise legal free speech.

If they start looking into truthfulness of political ads, they’ll eventually
have to monitor all ads for truth and deceit. They probably don’t want to go
there.

I also hope this turns into a productive discussion.

~~~
jdkee
They would likely lose Section 230 protections as a "provider" and be
relegated to that of "information content provider" if Facebook begins editing
political speech.

------
rubbingalcohol
Facebook's Community Standards are the antithesis of free expression.

~~~
bitwize
It's 2019 and "free speech" is now widely considered a dogwhistle word for
"white supremacy".

~~~
smt88
This is both untrue and likely to start a flame war.

You're likely thinking of the debate over reddit, YouTube, and Twitter policy
changes, where the people banned were largely white supremacists.

Of course in _those specific debates_ , "free speech" _was_ being conflated
with "the right to say racist stuff on private companies' networks".

~~~
dmix
Of course it starts with the actual bigots and racists. It's how they forever
expand the meanings of various terms to "anyone I don't agree with" is when it
starts getting ridiculous and dangerous. It's a predictable outcome with
plenty of evidence supporting it.

~~~
rubbingalcohol
Kind of like how the existence of terrorists and pedophiles justifies putting
backdoors in all encryption. It ends at a place where all your rights get
eroded away, and doesn't even end up protecting anyone anyway.

~~~
dmix
The 'terrorist' label is a great example of how the meaning of terms get
conveniently expanded and broadened for political ends.

