
Facebook boycott leaders ‘disappointed’ after meeting with Zuckerberg, Sandberg - theBashShell
https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/07/facebook-boycott-meeting-stophateforprofit-zuckerberg-cox-sandberg/
======
gentleman11
"(...) made some decisions that were “significant setbacks for civil rights"

Which civil rights? Whose? Is the claim that you have to shut people up in
order to protect people's feelings, or is it that you have to protect the dim
witted from dangerous ideas? Is it that people are herd animals who will
inevitable follow whoever signals the most followers, so we need to prevent
bad people from signalling? This particular case isn't one of bot spam, its a
real person making real(ly dumb) statements.

Facebook's obsession with free speech is one of the only good things about the
company. I said it in another thread: they should be boycotted, but not for
this.

edit: sorry for the formatting, its just cutting my words in half if they are
at the end of a line for some reason

~~~
JungleGymSam
This is SJW right-speak: vague words that can mean anything to anyone
interpreting them at the time.

There are no hard and fast rules because the language doesn't allow for it.
It's always shifting and getting hard to comply with as more and more radical
people gain a foothold in culture. Each new person decides the previous one
didn't have enough control and _therefore_ more control is needed because
_obviously_ the previous generation was evil.

It's so lame (and dangerous to all people too).

------
finnthehuman
Social Media decided to exercise editorial power over content. Now every
person, organization and group with power in society will redouble attempts to
use their own power to influence the way social media uses theirs.

They're all fighting to direct the mindshare of the hoi polloi beneath them.
Let them be stuck fighting it out, good riddance, IDGAF anymore.

~~~
yummypaint
A publicly funded social network wouldn't have this problem. If it's run by
the US government, free speech protections apply. It creates a mechanism for
voters to determine how things are run instead of appealing to some
corporation. It also removes insideous tracking and privacy practices
ultimately motivated by thirst for revenue. Engagement metrics could also be
thrown out. Im surprised this possibility isn't discussed more. We take
physical public spaces for granted, surely the cost would be a drop in the
bucket?

~~~
gentleman11
What will the US government's content policies be if the politics turn in
favour of silencing people? Remember the sedition laws when everyone was
worried about Communism? What about satanic groups (usually aetheist groups,
see The Satanic Temple) during the satanic panic in the 90s? Gay people only a
few decades ago might not be welcome either due to 'family values' arguments.

~~~
yummypaint
If the government decides to attack your rights, facebook won't save you. Your
examples are all valid things to be concerned about, and i would argue that
being reminded of the government's existing power over our lives would
increase civic engagement.

------
vuln
Levi’s just laid off 700 corporate employees. They can’t even afford a
Facebook ad campaign right now.

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/levis-stock-wobbles-as-
rev...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/levis-stock-wobbles-as-revenue-
falls-short-of-street-view-2020-07-07)

~~~
tehwebguy
I’m sure their survival plan involves marketing.

~~~
mrits
I wouldn't be sure. I've seen failing companies get restricted to just organic
marketing as often as not.

------
woodandsteel
The thing you have to keep in mind about corporations is that, unlike human
beings, they lack consciences, at least most of them. They may say they have
them, but for various reasons this is usually not at all true.

As a consequence, corporations do whatever will maximize their size and
profitability, and are entirely indifferent as to whether what they do is good
or bad for the society as a whole.

Now in the case of Facebook that means following policies that at least in
some very important ways are quite bad for the world. That is the very nature
of its business model. Furthermore I can't think of any way external pressure
or governmental laws could seriously change that, so we need to be looking for
alternatives.

------
tibbydudeza
Well they even failed their own commissioned independent audit of 2 years
around their policies.

"Facebook has not done enough to fight discrimination on its platform and has
made some decisions that were “significant setbacks for civil rights,”
according to a new independent audit of the company’s policies and practices.

Then Sheryl even posted this ... yeah right

"We are making changes – not for financial reasons or advertiser pressure, but
because it is the right thing to do."

------
thinkingemote
Here's the same article via MSN / Microsoft News for those unable to opt out
of Techcrunch's dark pattern cookie tracking accept policies.

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/facebook-
boycott-l...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/facebook-boycott-
leaders-say-meeting-with-zuckerberg-sandberg-was-a-disappointment/ar-BB16s7xD)

------
mrits
5 years ago the internet couldn't decide if they wanted to censor child porn
and now here we are.

