
Facebook Employees Criticize Zuckerberg’s Inaction over Trump - calanya
https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/facebook-employees-criticize-zuckerberg-s-inaction-over-trump
======
throwawaysea
Whenever I see articles like this, my BS radar detector goes off. These
articles make it seem like huge numbers of employees are up in arms and ready
to quit, but really it is almost always a loud vocal minority looking to
impose their personal worldview on the company.

The only conditions under which a company should react to activist input is if
they have done a company wide anonymous poll (and probably of their customer
base as well). Otherwise, they will just hear from those who are committed to
the cause (radicals/zealots) or have psychological safety to voice their
views. Given that big tech companies are mostly SF-based and secondarily
Seattle-based, those internal cultures reflect only one perspective (the far-
left progressive). Just remember, those far-left progressives make up just 8%
of the population
([https://hiddentribes.us/profiles](https://hiddentribes.us/profiles)). There
are almost certainly moderate and conservative employees that back
Zuckerberg's position as well.

~~~
syockit
But when you sample only Silicon Valley companies including Facebook, the
percentage is much higher than 8%.

------
gentleman11
I’m going to be the guy in this thread who says that censorship is scary. Bots
need to be stopped, and politically inflammatory fake news needs to be flagged
and corrected... but we don’t get to say what we want unless people we
hate/fear also get to say what they want.

------
paulydavis
Zuckerberg knows he has a large conservative older user base. Losing them I
bet is his concern

~~~
matt_s
I think his concern is the amount of money from political campaigns this
coming season. If that stuff was fact-checked, they would not be making as
much money.

The side effect of people internet hating on stuff on FB is lots of ad revenue
for FB (aka page views). It doesn't matter what side is what, if things on FB
are fact checked then there is likely going to be less sharing since there
would be less content.

~~~
gopi
Political ads are a tiny portion of FB revenues, just around 0.5%. In fact,
they may be losing money on this as it needs a lot of manual moderation

------
DeonPenny
Zuckerberg isn't insane. People in silicon valley sometime forget how much of
a bubble they live in. Twitter just effectively started a full-scale war with
the federal government.

Zuckerberg knows the blowback is coming. I can't see how twitter doesn't
become a life long target of the Trump administration to make an example of.
If Facebook doesn't want to get caught in the splash zone they might want to
back away from this one.

~~~
ForHackernews
> Twitter just effectively started a full-scale war with the federal
> government.

This is kind of true, but also points to just how insane this historical
moment is. Can you imagine any prior administration acting this way? Can you
imagine Bill Clinton raging out about AOL, or GW Bush trying to sic the FCC on
Yahoo because it sent his email to spam?

~~~
CapricornNoble
>>>Can you imagine any prior administration acting this way?

I wasn't alive for them, but I wouldn't be surprised if Truman or Eisenhower
would crush Twitter in the age of McCarthyism. Although they tended to focus
on individuals rather than companies or organizations.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)

~~~
lacker
Yep. Truman called the press “paid prostitutes of the mind”.

------
sjg007
As they should. All it takes for evil is for good people to do nothing. FB and
Twitter have been weaponized. This reduces the value of their platforms.

What do you do when a bully is the most powerful person in the world? Well you
stand up to them as a community.

Take away his microphone.

------
knodi
At this point. If Trump can violet TOS and get away with it. Why can’t I or a
bot. Side need to chosen and battle needs to be fought. It’s a lose lose for
the likes of Twitter but at least Twitter is doing the right thing now.

~~~
aeternum
The Twitter TOS are pretty ridiculous if you read through them. For example
you cannot celebrate, praise, or condone murders or mass shootings committed
by civilians. However you can celebrate, praise, and condone murders and mass
shootings all you'd like if they were committed by governments.

~~~
lern_too_spel
From Twitter's Glorification of Violence Policy: "Exceptions may be made for
violent acts by state actors, where violence was not primarily targeting
protected groups."

"Exceptions may be made" doesn't sound like "you can [do it] all you'd like."

~~~
aeternum
Right, but this is another problem which is at the crux of the issue. These
exceptions throughout the TOS give Twitter the power to editorialize without
requiring them to take on any liability for the content on their site.

------
kren
I don't even believe Trump was glorifying violence, but calling him out as if
he did sure could rally the people who are actually starting the violence
against innocent businesses and civilians. Too bad Twitter doesn't have to
govern themselves.

Trump's tweet showed he was concerned, not glorifying. If he wanted to glorify
it, he would probably say something more along the lines of "Get in line or we
will use our GREAT guns and military and open fire on you thugs." He also
wouldn't need riots as an excuse to tweet about such things.

Zuckerberg is supporting freedom of speech when his company didn't have to
choose to. He is correct that censoring only worsens the problem and it
removes opportunities to improve the situation. If Trump were censored, people
would not know him or what he is doing as well as they do now. Amidst all the
risk to MZ's company and the violence happening around us, his decision is
highly courageous and respectable as he is serving the American people and
their rights, even though he said himself that he doesn't like what Trump
said.

~~~
kren
Besides, even if he were censored, people would see it and repost screenshots
anyway

------
kukx
Is this news or opinion piece? Incendiary is clearly an opinion. "(...)not to
take action on incendiary comments posted to the social network by U.S.
President Donald Trump."

~~~
hatenberg
Last I checked there is flames everywhere now and he is certainly fanning
them.

~~~
nailer
How is warning people not to loot 'fanning the flames'?

~~~
derwiki
The exact wording was a reference to what a police chief in Miami said in
1967. It was meant to evoke that event, which could easily be called “fanning
the flames.”

~~~
nailer
> The exact wording was a reference to what a police chief in Miami said in
> 1967 it was meant to evoke that event

Really? I'm pretty sure it was meant to /rhyme/.

~~~
cmurf
This is the same attempt at plausible deniability of Republican institutional
racism since the Nixon Southern Strategy as clearly, undeniably, articulated
by its inventor. [https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-
atwa...](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-
infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/)

Trump peddled a racist lie and conspiracy theory for five years, before he was
even in politics. Birtherism. And before that, the Central Park Five. And
before that the federal lawsuit against him and his dad for discrimination in
housing. It's not plausibly deniable. And this is the same thing.

~~~
nailer
Exactly re: birtherism and Central Park five. Trump's racism is overt. Not
secret messages.

