
Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees - tech-historian
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/6/3/21278233/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-walkout-employee-meeting-leaked-audio
======
danielfoster
So long as their speech remains legal, social media sites should not be the
business of censoring elected officials. That is the job of voters and
Congress.

It’s too easy to walk down a slippery slope where suddenly these sites have to
regulate in accordance with whatever is the popular opinion of the day.

~~~
koboll
>social media sites should not be the business of censoring elected officials.
That is the job of voters and Congress.

What about Paul Nehlen, a political candidate who (before he was permabanned)
frequently railed on Twitter against the "Jewish media" and mused about the
"JQ", which stands for Jewish Question? Who called Jewish critics "shekels-
for-hire" and used the phrase "The goyim know!" as an imitation of their
involvement in a supposed conspiracy? Who said he wouldn't mind "leading a
million Robert Bowers [the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter] to the promised
land"?

Is that something Twitter is within their rights to ban for, in your view? If
so, would that change if he were elected?

Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox, it
is a set of privately owned servers where people can persist small amounts of
data that comply with a set of rules. You break the rules, you get kicked off
the private property.

~~~
legostormtroopr
> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox

Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter - they have monopolised
that "short catchy text stream" market. Other services, like Gab, exist - but
when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream
alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go
somewhere else.

For better or worse, Facebook and Twitter consumed blogs, and there are no
real alternatives.

~~~
lancesells
That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for
your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For
better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for
their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.

~~~
brigandish
Facebook and Twitter are _ostensibly_ platforms. The analogy would be if a TV
network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even
though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going
to film or had filmed or might film.

If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing
you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If
they're the former _and_ you allow them to discriminate then what's your
argument against other businesses discriminating? Can't see that ending well.

If, however, we accept that they're publishers - which in my view they are, as
they edit what can be seen in several ways - then by all means let them
discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media
companies.

~~~
hnick
TV channels refuse advertising based on politics or community standards.
That's pretty similar - provide your own content, and rent airtime, but get
rejected because of what you say.

~~~
brigandish
That's true but let's take it a step forward - if the TV station published a
list of rules and your content did not cross the line but you were denied,
would that be okay?

Would retroactive application of rules be fine, or new rules created and then
retroactively applied?

Would it be okay if they refused simply because of who you were? Or what you
did elsewhere? These kind of questions seem to be more applicable if we're
comparing to Twitter et al.

~~~
hnick
I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :)

But, if I'm going to answer I think legal issues are grey and it can be tough
to accept as a programmer dealing in binary. There aren't many absolute rules
and sometimes a rule works well at one scale but not another.

Part of the reason we should avoid monopolies is so people and governments can
leave companies alone and those who disagree with their rules can go elsewhere
because they have options. But this is in complete opposition to products and
platforms that flourish because of network effects. By its very nature,
Twitter wants to be the only game in town. I think that changes things and
opens them up to scrutiny because we have fewer realistic options.

So as a non-answer, if we had many viable social networks or TV channels to
choose from I'd be happy with them arbitrarily deciding who gets to play in
their playground for any or no reason (as long as it's only in that one place,
and there's no secret cabal or cartel). Protected reasons and classes aside.
Keeping in mind, many times rules aren't rules, they're flagged as guidelines
and subject to change for subjective reasons.

But I don't think that really reflects what is going on in modern social media
networks. They are similar but distinct, each is used for different types of
speech, and the key players dominate their niche. Users can choose to some
degree what they prefer to receive. Networks also choose for the users via
their feed algorithms.

So they are already taking on the role of arbiter and have been for some time.
That sounds more like a publisher to me, as you say. They don't change the
content of each post - but they do change the collection of content you get
presented, just like a magazine editor rejecting articles and putting together
this month's issue. Except every single article is tagged _opinion_.

On top of that I think we are just running up against another "too big to
fail" situation. They're our only platform to communicate this way, so we
don't like the idea of them suppressing speech, and speech can be
inflammatory, inciteful, or libelous. That's not really incompatible with free
speech in other areas, and I think once a platform reaches a certain size we
should treat it as a public arena. This would be consistent with not allowing
them to remove posts for arbitrary reasons, but allow them to do it if they
think it falls under one of those categories.

~~~
brigandish
> I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :)

Any insightful comment, even "just" descriptive, deserves a response, _nay_ ,
a challenge to force the speaker to tease out more! :)

And I'm glad I did because your opinion is spot on, in my opinion.

------
elwell
> Zuckerberg’s decision was supported by the majority of the company, but that
> people who agreed with it were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing
> insensitive

I find that interesting and dangerous.

~~~
tech-historian
It's not entirely clear how they came to that conclusion without any data to
back it up. How could they know? Was there an internal survey or something?

Or perhaps Facebook employees generally lean right maybe? Any FB employees
here care to comment?

~~~
sevreview38402
I’m at FB (throwaway account for good measure).

It’s impossible to tell, especially working remotely. It’s not like you can
ask these kinds of questions over Workplace chat unless you’re close with
other team members.

But the perspective that there are people who agree with Zuck’s decision and
aren’t speaking up is valid. I’m one of them despite generally agreeing with
BLM _and_ being a person of color.

You have people changing their profile pics to BLM icons which makes it ever
so apparent that a non-negligible percent (20%-30% maybe) of co-workers in
each group chat support the cause.

During Q&As, 95% of the comments are from BLM supporters making quite blunt
remarks about Zuck’s decision making.

Director+ levels are also vocally against Zuck’s decision (although they
accept that they can’t change his mind). I’m not willing to torpedo my career
progression here, and imagine others feel the same.

So yeah, I’ll be keeping my mouth shut and silently nodding along with the
rest while Zuck gets rocks thrown at him.

~~~
sultanofswing
Just out of curiosity, what keeps you from speaking out (besides a strong
feeling of group think).

Have you actually experienced firings / ostracism from people at the company?
While I do feel like your points would be contrarian (and may get shouted at),
I'm wondering what the actual repercussions would be.

Most of what I've seen (in regards to dissenters) have been relatively
spirited debates and strong digital dissension but no strong tangible effects.

I'm asking this in good faith as someone who sits on the other side of the
fence on this issue (though like with most things am not 100% assured of my
decision).

------
opportune
Zuckerburg has a history of this type of behavior in the past where he sucked
up to Xi Jinping asking him to name his child (wtf...). He obviously doesn’t
care about politics nearly as much as he does courting influence and money
from politicians in power. The embarrassing part is his attempts to justify it
without outright saying “Look, we have to keep Republicans happy because they
have the power to hurt Facebook or stop giving us money and I’m not OK with
that.”

Dorsey and even Bezos are more principled than he is.

~~~
youeseh
About baby names: This was in 2015, when the Democratic presidential front
runners for the most part were pro-China and in favor of the TPP.

Edit: TPPP -> TPP

~~~
dbmikus
You mean the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)? That partnership was not to the
benefit of China. It did not include China.

~~~
youeseh
Ah, that is correct. It's possible that, since China and Vietnam have a free
trade agreement, that there would be some misuse
([https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-
tp...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-tpp-
benefitting-china/)), but you're right.

------
caiobegotti
If Facebook and Zuckerberg personally did not profit from such acidic and
destructive kind of free speech they would fix that pronto, it's as simple as
that and it appears fruitless to me to spend a lot of words to counterargue
them without considering this. Karl Popper would be going nuts by now were he
alive today, I'm afraid.

~~~
splitrocket
They know it's destructive and harms people and they do it anyway:
[https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-
divisio...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-
news-feed-algorithms)

Barry Schnitt, former spokesperson for facebook:

 _Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices Facebook
makes are the ones that allow the most content — the fuel for the Facebook
engine — to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence that
Facebook’s choices align with the ones that require the least amount of
resources, and the choices that outsource important aspects to third parties.
I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in
power who have made misinformation, blatant racism, and inciting violence part
of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side
of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and
cowardice._

[https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-
employees-7d01761e5...](https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-
employees-7d01761e591f)

------
bzb3
>Here are my top takeaways from the roughly 85-minute recording

Is that recording publicly available?

~~~
throwgeorge
i've been looking for it as well and haven't been able to find it. i wouldn't
be surprised if journalists are keeping it close because fb puts a watermark
in streams to catch leakers. so it's not available to keep the leaker
anonymous.

~~~
bagacrap
or to make sure the journos still have a purpose

------
uniqueid
I like very much the approach the author took to writing this piece. He does a
great job of putting the situation in context (ie: his "the optimists and the
pessimists" positioning).

------
yalogin
I don't think the policy will ever be black and white like that in terms of
free speech. If that is the case no social media company will have any terms
and conditions on their site, other than don't spam us. All of them will have
the same free speech limitations that the country has.

For example will facebook be ok if the next democratic president says "we will
stone carl if this post gets 10k upvotes" will it be ok? Lines are always
drawn and they are always in he sand. Its just that FB decided that is where
they want to draw that line. Everyone will have their own opinion on whether
its good or not.

------
intended
so wait - what would Facebook do during the Arab spring?

>“If we were entering a period where there may be a prolonged period of civil
unrest,...

Should they be censoring rioters? What if foreign governments compel them to
censor material? What if you censor the "good" guys?

------
titzer
Megacorp gonna megacorp. There are 655 billion reasons why Facebook will
continue to act in the interests of its sole reason for existence as a money-
making enterprise, as it has for a decade. All the hemming and hawing and
hand-wringing and agonizing they portray...ignore it. Just watch the actions.
Actions speak louder than words, Mark.

------
Daub
I like how o.p. edited the title of the original article from ‘Nine things we
learned from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg facing his employees’. Good move.
The ‘x thing you never knew’ format has become the hollow candy of internet-
acquired knowledge.

------
tech-historian
Also, while we're on the topic, I'd like to understand why this post was
flagged here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393676)

------
gwbas1c
"Free speech" is a very nuanced term. You can't shout "fire" in a crowd unless
there's a fire; and you can't force me to distribute anything.

Traditional media (TV, Newspapers, Radio, Publishers) always use discretion
about what they print and broadcast. A TV station deciding not to broadcast
something, or a publisher declining to publish something, is not censorship.

IMO, Social Media is not like a generic web hosting company. They can use a
lot more discretion in what they publish, how they publish it, who they show
it to, and what context they put it in. To be quite honest, I honestly believe
Facebook needs to be more proactive in curtailing misinformation. Calling lack
of discretion over what they promote in feeds "Free speech" is ruse to try and
distract people from their poor credibility.

Nothing's blocking Trump from creating his own website where he can say
whatever he wants.

~~~
EGreg
I remember seeing that “yelling fire in a crowded theater” was technically
untrue as it is usually presented. Anyone with more knowledge can elaborate?

~~~
brownra04
Here's a good summary: [1]

Basically, the analogy of shouting "fire" in a theater was meant to illustrate
the "clear and present danger" doctrine - if an act of speech could lead to
clear and present danger which there were laws against, then the speech was
not protected. What's false about this analogy is that the "clear and present
danger" standard isn't the standard that speech is measured against today.
Instead, speech is restricted according to the "imminent lawless action"
doctrine, by which speech that could lead directly to people breaking the law
is not protected. This was decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio[2], and the central
tenet of the ruling is:

"Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment
protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."

Thus, standing on a street corner and praising the merits of rioting and
damaging property might be protected speech if it was very unlikely for anyone
to take those actions, but if you did it during a restless protest march the
protections of free speech may not apply.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)
[2]:
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/)

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
It's worth noting that the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" comes
from a Supreme Court case in which the government imprisoned socialists for
handing out flyers urging people not to submit to the draft during WWI.[1]

It's one of the most infamous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court,
at one of the darkest hours in the history of the First Amendment. I think
most people would be surprised to learn how far the Wilson administration went
to suppress free speech during WWI. I had no idea until I read "The Great
Influenza" (about the 1918 pandemic) recently.

As an aside: the Espionage Act comes from that time, and is the law that was
used to jail opponents of the draft back then. It's also the law being used to
charge Assange today.

1\. Schenck v. United States:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)

------
lanevorockz
Free For All of Social Media censors won't last very long. It became
mainstream to hate the internet and push for the end of platforms, effectively
turning Twitter/Facebook/Google into publishers. By doing that they
automatically loose the ability to claim to be platforms and become
publishers.

As a publisher it is much harder to guaranteed that things said in the
platform won't end up in the arrest of your employees. Zuckerberg is trying to
find a middle ground where he does not push an agenda but at the same time can
keep its advertisers by removing things based on a clear policy ( showing
violence / pornography / etc ).

Don't forget the media as a whole does NOT have that benefit, if a company
publishes or defames people they will be severely punished. We should think
really hard before asking for Social media companies to breach that vote of
confidence, there is real chances Twitter will be the first giant to fall
regardless if Biden wins the election.

~~~
ryandrake
It is becoming easier and easier to argue that these platforms _are_ actually
publishers. They are all making more editorial decisions on what posts to show
and hide, where to show what, and they all have rules about what content is
allowed and what's not. Those sound like the activities of a publisher to me.

~~~
kevinh
You are explicitly permitted to do this by the law without being classified as
a publisher.

------
kleton
Does President Trump's threat to treat them as publishers rather than
platforms have teeth?

~~~
nova22033
It doesn't because the publisher v/s platform thing isn't a real thing.

Helpful link: [https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-
deplatformed/](https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/)

------
sys_64738
Zuck will follow the ad dollars. If revenue drops due to the Trump hate speech
then it'll be gone already.

~~~
vkou
Unless he's playing the long game where he is betting the farm on a Trump
victory, and is trying his best to not antagonize him.

Which seems more likely than him being ruled by a small impact on a few months
of ad revenue.

~~~
0xy
This is a good take and one I also think is likely. Maybe Zuckerberg saw what
happened to Google.

Google essentially bet the farm on a Clinton win (Schmidt was directly helping
the campaign). Fast forward to today, Google is under dozens of anti-trust
investigations and has been iced out of all Washington influence.

------
splitrocket
Facebook thinks of itself as a state and fundamentally misunderstands it's
relationship to the traditional "big L" liberal democracies.

The first amendment[0] specifically defines congress, the law making body, as
the arbiter of free speech. This is because without the force of government
behind it, the concept of censorship is effectively meaningless.

In a constitutional sense, it is impossible for any actor other than the
government to violate a persons first amendment rights.

Facebook, as a corporation, is not capable of violating first amendment
rights. Even FCC section 230 [1] explicitly enables facebook to moderate as it
sees fit. Facebook could decide that any post that contains the word "avocado"
would be deleted on the spot. Or they could decide that only political posts
that support Vermin Supreme [2] are allowed.

This would be completely legal.

The same way you are allowed to delete spam and comments by Nazis on your
personal blog. You are also not liable if someone posts a libelous comment on
your blog, just like facebook isn't liable.

Similarly, if you decide that you are a-ok with rabid neo-nazis commenting on
your personal blog, well, then, sure, that's legal, but it also says a hell of
a lot about you and your personal beliefs. There's a word for people that
sympathize with nazis...

You could run the smallest blog or the largest, world spanning social network
and delete Nazi content legally in the US.

So, when Mark Zuckerberg says he is defending free speech, he is using
misdirection. He is fully aware that the legal, constitutional term "free
speech" doesn't apply to Facebook.

He wants you to avoid thinking that the people that run Facebook are morally
responsible for the legal, fcc section 230 moderation that they choose to
engage in, the same way you would be morally responsible for actively allowing
Nazis to comment on your blog.

It's so simple, a six panel stick figure comic can explain it. [3]

Zuck just doesn't want to show Trump the door. Why? Because he makes a lot of
money from sowing division and hate. [4]

As Barry Schnitt, former spokes person for facebook put it [5]:

 _" Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices
Facebook makes are the ones that allow the most content — the fuel for the
Facebook engine — to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence
that Facebook’s choices align with the ones that require the least amount of
resources, and the choices that outsource important aspects to third parties.
I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in
power who have made misinformation, blatant racism, and inciting violence part
of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side
of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and
cowardice."_

[0]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-
inte...](https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-internet-
speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme)

[3] [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

[4] [https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-
divisio...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-
news-feed-algorithms)

[5] [https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-
employees-7d01761e5...](https://onezero.medium.com/dear-facebook-
employees-7d01761e591f)

------
tuna-piano
The problem is really pretty simple:

-Facebook has a culture that is extremely biased toward the political left. The left has a (recent?) trend of wanting to censor speech they don't agree with.

-America (and the world) has a lot more viewpoint diversity.

Zuckerberg is stuck with trying to keep his workers happy but also not wanting
to alienate large portions of users, customers, politicans, etc.

In my opinion, he has chosen the path correctly and only those deep in an
ideological bubble would think otherwise.

If you disagree with this, think to yourself - would you want Trump supporters
deciding what you're able to post on Facebook?

~~~
myhnaccount2
I want to respectfully disagree with you. The kernel of your argument here is
that the speech in question is a matter of disagreement. It's important to
define what kind of speech we're talking about here, because everyone might
mean something different.

To be clear, we are talking about verifiably false speech. Verifiably false
speech that is sufficiently amplified can have serious consequences. This is
unequivocally NOT a matter of differing opinions. And, yes, I understand that
there is a huge gray area as to what is "verifiably false", but it's still a
standard that we should strive for. Misinformation is a serious problem that
is arguably responsible for tens of thousands dying in the US from COVID just
in the past few months. This is not a game.

I can't say for sure if you're framing the question as partisan bickering in
good faith, but if you are I want you to consider how flat out lies and half
truths can have extremely dangerous effects. All sources of misinformation are
dangerous, but it is undeniable that one "side" traffics in misinformation in
much, much higher volume (at least an order of magnitude). Anyways, the point
is the problem is not simple and anyone claiming such is oversimplifying at
best and being disingenuous at worst.

~~~
whymauri
I'm with you on this. In the past 150 years, pseudoscientific disciplines like
eugenics and phrenology have directly led to the deaths of millions of people.
Geographic determinism and 19th-century racial "science" directly led to the
subjugation, abuse, and exploitation of tens of millions of people. Just two
years ago, misinformation and falsified news fueled a genocide through
Facebook.

You're 100% correct: this is not a game. We have frameworks for verifying
truth, in science and journalism - that truth can safe lives.

~~~
logicchains
>pseudoscientific disciplines like eugenics and phrenology have directly led
to the deaths of millions of people

>Just two years ago, misinformation and falsified news fueled a genocide
through Facebook.

All this was done by governments (Hitler, Myanmar government), and you want to
give governments more power to control what people can do/say online?

~~~
whymauri
This is a misreading of what I've said that is so egregious that I cannot
reply assuming you're writing in good faith.

------
mlthoughts2018
This is Zuckerberg posturing to run for president in some medium term future.
Probably expected it to be leaked and is setting up the decision reasoning to
make it seem like he deals with “presidential” topics, has to assess national
civil unrest.

It’s such a complete joke. Probably will work though.

------
cryptica
I sense that Mark may be using his employees to play good cop bad cop in front
of the media. But in reality, they all unanimously want censorship. Censorship
would give Facebook a huge amount of power. Why would Mark not want that?

~~~
chippy
Maybe Mark understands his users (as in, the whole ugly world) more than his
employees?

~~~
cryptica
If he was really cared about his users, he wouldn't be a billionaire.

------
Consultant32452
I've seen videos of looting (as opposed to protesting) which say out loud that
they are being coordinated on social media. In particular, one looter's sister
was murdered by another looter. She was crying on camera, "This ain't some
Facebook shit" indicating she had been coordinated to show up on FB.

Once the general population of old people figures out that roving groups of
young people are using "The Facebook" to coordinate their plans to set the
cities on fire, social media is dead via regulation. So far that knowledge has
escaped mainstream understanding. But it's only a matter of time.

~~~
listenallyall
You're underestimating the intelligence and experience of "old people."
They've been through eras like this before, they know what protest looks like.
And they already know that the looting (and much of the protest too) is pre-
coordinated and planned by outsiders, primarily via social media.

~~~
Consultant32452
There's a difference between being technically aware of something, and having
the mental framework to take that awareness and turn it into a call to action.
It's the news that tells people how to think about things and how to act about
them. Corporate news is being slaughtered by social media. You've seen them
attack social media already with stories of how pedophiles use it to get your
kids and stuff. I don't think it will take long for the corporate news to
figure out they can weaponize this to encourage regulating their enemy
industry.

