
Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha - jbegley
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-employees-slam-zuckerberg-kenosha-militia-shooting
======
hpoe
So what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut
and dry as either side would have you believe.

But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know
the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are
many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of
commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting,
rioting, and protesting.

Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your
entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have
homeowners insurance.

Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because
individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them
and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands.

Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of
police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the
rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason
for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an
individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing
it themselves.

~~~
tedivm
There's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people.
If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended
by white supremacy in our police departments.

~~~
dazilcher
Shouldn't you be arguing for fewer police killings, period? Last I checked
more white people were being killed by police than black people.

~~~
r00fus
You're misinterpreting the facts. Black people _are_ more likely to be killed
by police - they're not more in number because they're only 13% of the
population [1]. The problem is the power of police unions and _qualified
immunity_ which is a legal construct made to be abused.

[https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-
cle...](https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-
people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/)

~~~
dazilcher
I misinterpreted nothing: more white people are being killed by police than
black people [1][2]. Which part are you challenging?

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-
de...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-
police-by-race/) [2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/)

~~~
tedivm
Again, adjust for population.

> Results: Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black
> (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/)

------
Areibman
What is "slam" even supposed to mean? Sounds like a handful of employees just
left some disapproving remarks on a company live stream, but that's it.
There's only two quotes in the entire article.

~~~
z9e
Yeah, typically when I see "slam" or "destroy" in the title like this I know
it's not going to meet the expectations of that word.

These words are so overused these days in headlines.

~~~
xlm1717
They only differ in magnitude from "criticize", but they're all the same
thing. They seem overused because everyone is deconstructing everything these
days.

~~~
chiefalchemist
In the context of expectations, journalism uses critique. It's plain, simple,
and neutral, if not objective.

On the other hand, slam and destroy are judgemental. They're inflammatory
hyperbole that shamelessly intended to bias the reader. That is, these are not
words journalists use as BF does.

I'm not suggesting BF is wrong. We all know what their biz model is, as well
as the tactics they use to achieve those end. What it is, it is. It's simply
not jouralism.

------
reuben_scratton
Could we stop trying to make Facebook responsible for every damn thing that
happens?

~~~
JamisonM
Can we try to make Facebook responsible for every damn thing that happens on
their platform?

~~~
nickff
The problem is that excessive blaming will foster high levels of risk
aversion, as seen in
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275)

~~~
JamisonM
This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will
lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a
problem here?

If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've
observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices
that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?

~~~
nickff
>"This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will
lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a
problem here?"

>"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because
we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current
practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?"

I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what
you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.

~~~
JamisonM
"Excessive blaming" is just another kind of speech.

If people observe bad things happening because of stuff going on on the
Facebook platform and engage is excessive blaming that's just speech.

If Facebook becomes averse to risks with respect to what is on their platform,
that is just Facebook being responsive to customer concerns.

You're just not going to have a platform where this relationship doesn't
exist, there's always mods.. we need 'em.

------
gavman
> “At what point do we take responsibility for enabling hate filled bile to
> spread across our services?”

As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As
long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous
salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually
leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees,
and the executives at Facebook know that.

~~~
bilbo0s
This.

I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable.
Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you
power.

While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn
money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to
make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt
with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era
with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.

------
waihtis
I’ve argued about flagging policy a couple times over at HN, but the comments
in this thread during the first 5 minutes should provide a stellar example why
to flag any political content.

------
mshanowitz
Banning militia groups or similar groups or speech has upfront benefits but
hidden costs.

Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very
difficult decisions down the road.

One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts
all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used
to censure.

------
hourislate
I am curious what facebook would look like or represent if it were up to the
employees?

------
GaryNumanVevo
Typical IANAL:

W.r.t the Kenosha shooter.

1\. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state
you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1

2\. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big
deal and a big fat #2 on crime list

3\. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but
the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle.

4\. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the
perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of
business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You
can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people
if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is
the case law if you want to have a look.

5\. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15
miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle.

He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this
situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the
rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and
claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued.

6\. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not
concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed.
The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often
used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder.

No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop
probably can't pass a psychological test to become one.

Wisconsin 948.60

Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;
any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or
knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or
similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon
consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a
length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted
with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar
pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a
manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a
dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans
or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a
Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person
under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge
causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject
to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or
the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction
under s. 938.183

~~~
benmmurphy
Section 3 of 948.60 means that 948.60 does not apply to him because he is in
possession of a long barrelled rifle. More information here:
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299046068089430018.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299046068089430018.html)

A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an
illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the
statute.

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
Ah my mistake, you're right. It was illegal for him to own a long barrelled
rifle in his state of residence Illinois [0]. He then drove across state lines
into Wisconsin with that illegal firearm.

[0]
[https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+24&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=68200000&SeqEnd=71400000)

~~~
DuskStar
Do you have a quote as to what section says people under 18 or 21 cannot
own/carry rifles? A search for '18' and '21' came up with a few 'illegal to
transfer a weapon that can be concealed to someone under 18' and the like, but
also a section saying:

> (c) Nothing in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section prohibits a
> person under 18 years of age from participating in any lawful recreational
> activity with a firearm such as, but not limited to, practice shooting at
> targets upon established public or private target ranges or hunting,
> trapping, or fishing in accordance with the Wildlife Code or the Fish and
> Aquatic Life Code.

which implies there are at least some situations in which it is legal for a 17
year old to possess and possibly transport a rifle.

EDIT: Here's a summary I just found:

> Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Illinois

> Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun. State
> law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any
> person under age 18. However, Illinois also prohibits any person from
> knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID
> card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or
> have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess
> and acquire any firearms and ammunition. Further, the parent or legal
> guardian must not be prohibited from obtaining a FOID card. Persons under
> age 21 also do not qualify for a FOID card if they have been convicted of a
> misdemeanor (other than a traffic offense) or adjudged delinquent.

from [https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-
laws/](https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/)

Which says Illinois prohibits minors from owning _pistols_ , but also says if
they have the appropriate FOID card then they can own things-other-than-
pistols.

~~~
benmmurphy
It being illegal in Illinois might not be relevant because his lawyer is
claiming Kyle was not in possession of the rifle in Illinois and it was
transferred to his possession in Wisconsin.

------
tedivm
Yeah, this happens every time Facebook is involved in a murder or genocide
(which is shockingly often), and so far it has resulted in basically no change
at all. If they employees really cared about it they'd do more than complain.

------
baggy_trough
Facebook employees seem to be very confused about what people want from
Facebook. When I go to Facebook, I want to see what the people I follow have
to say or share. I don't want any editorial interference from Facebook in that
whatsoever.

