Zuckerberg Leaves Racial Justice Leader Frustrated After Call

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-02/zuckerberg-leaves-racial-justice-leader-frustrated-after-call

by _x6vl • 6 years ago

35 91 6 years ago

jhowell10• 6 years ago

In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”

tomp2• 6 years ago

explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it

That's the problem with getting only one side of the story. Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem).

jhowell10• 6 years ago

Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem).

Given the unique ability of his technology to magnify and control the distribution of information should we impose greater liabilities if their actions are demonstrably negative?

cptskippy2• 6 years ago

explaining to him why these things are a problem

Well "a problem" is not the same as "a problem for Mark Zuckerberg" and until it is, he's not going to give two shits about it.

ardy422• 6 years ago

Well "a problem" is not the same as "a problem for Mark Zuckerberg" and until it is, he's not going to give two shits about it.

That's describing a cartoonishly self-centered attitude.

hckr_news• 6 years ago

I’m convinced he has Asperger’s syndrome (nothing wrong with it) but could explain why he behaves and understands things the way he does.

_2d30• 6 years ago

Zuck walked right into that trap.

ceejayoz• 6 years ago

I was at F8 when Zuck announced "the future is private".

It's entirely possible he's simply that lacking in self-awareness.

mehrdadn• 6 years ago

It wouldn't be his first time, if people remember the Puerto Rico incident 3 years ago.

fullshark• 6 years ago

The attempts to work the refs and shape political discourse on FB leading up to the election are only going to get more and more intense. Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.

Zenbit_UX3• 6 years ago

Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.

And I still blame her for the current state of the world. Her gross incompetence in regards to her campaign and underestimating her opponent has directly lead to human rights violations, the erosure of trust in America from its allies and countless unnecessary deaths in the handling of the pandemic.

She lost to who is likely the dumbest and most incompetent president in history, so what does that make her?

rumanator5• 6 years ago

Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.

There is no room for doubt that the extensive campaign of voter manipulation and propaganda mounted by Russia was key to Trump's election.

splitrocket• 6 years ago

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

--Upton Sinclair.

conanbatt2• 6 years ago

Well said, but about whom.

Zenbit_UX3• 6 years ago

The Zuck.

rumanator5• 6 years ago

Zuckerberg, of course.

What's hard to understand?

This is the Cambridge Analytica problem playing in repeat: if it affects business as usual then his go-to defense is to play dumb and pretend that there is no elephant in the room.

wayneftw• 6 years ago

It's a very straightforward quote about any man whose salary depends on not understanding a certain set of facts that are being presented...

ardy422• 6 years ago

Well said, but about whom.

The answer is clear...unless you think racism is a hoax and civil rights leaders are mainly in their line of work for the money.

xwdv• 6 years ago

Nothing he said could have satisfied them. Don't even know why he did this. People just don't understand this isn't a Facebook problem.

spamizbad2• 6 years ago

One new problem I see on Facebook these days are lots of images shared of false claims of people coming to attack/riot in neighborhoods... like really poorly doctored snapchat screenshots that wouldn't fool anyone under 40 but get proliferated everywhere by boomers.

There's now a massive line outside my local Home Depot with people standing in 90 degree heat trying to return plywood and OSB for looting and imaginary "ANTIFA caravan riots" that never came. Absolutely corrosive stuff to social order in its own right.

weewee20182• 6 years ago

So if you’re born in 1980 or earlier you’re a boomer? Oh my. Ageism shines through.

meddlepal• 6 years ago

Boomer is the new Millenial..., as in all "old people" are Boomers and all "young people" are Millenials.

Welcome to Stupidlandia.

spamizbad2• 6 years ago

I'm not interested in getting into a PC slap-fight: Old people are more likely to spread disinformation online and there's studies that prove it. Facts don't care about your feelings: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586#F1

whatshisface4• 6 years ago

If Zuckerberg were to make Facebook politically active, it would probably be his personal views that they pushed. Why would it be anything else?

jakelazaroff3• 6 years ago

Zuckerberg is politically active, and his personal views are being pushed. Their current policy of allowing incitement to violence and voter suppression in the name of free expression is the result.

whatshisface4• 6 years ago

Allowing something isn't pushing something. To see how, look at the following debate:

Liberal: "Stop trying to push your views on us, let people decide for themselves whether they want to be gay."

Conservative: "You are also pushing your views, and the fact that gay marriage is allowed is a result of that. By allowing gay marriage, you are forcing your views on everyone."

So, that's clearly wrong, because as smart as it sounds to say things like "the null policy is a policy," being permissive is actually possible to distinguish from any of the particular ways one could be restrictive.

oneplane7• 6 years ago

It would be anything else if it makes more money.

pesfandiar• 6 years ago

I don't know his political views very well, but since Facebook's user base in the US skews towards older demographics, I imagine "old folks conservatism" would be better for business.

banads4• 6 years ago

Not necessarily. Nothing raises engagement quite like a good rage flame war

jlarocco• 6 years ago

I agree, and I feel like these guys might not realize the full consequences of what they're asking.

On the other hand, with no transparency, it's hard to know what kind of censorship and filtering already goes on. If Facebook removes content offensive to advertisers, why not remove content offensive to real people?

encoderer2• 6 years ago

I hate Trump but it’s not facebook’s job to censor the president.

oneplane7• 6 years ago

It's also not their job to host everyone and everyone's content on their non-public non-government commercial platform.

encoderer2• 6 years ago

As much as many people hate the fact, he is still president.

banads4• 6 years ago

Their job is to make money. Censoring world leaders from your platform is a sure fire way to lose a lot of users and money

astrea• 6 years ago

But they are free to do so.

ceilingcorner• 6 years ago

This article has zero content. Why were they frustrated? What did they propose? What did Zuckerberg say?

Bad journalism.

Shivetya• 6 years ago

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/civil-rights-leaders-stunned...

they want Trump's post to come down, simple as that. The story I linked has more substance but it all comes down to they don't like Trump or anything he says and so they want Facebook along with Twitter to both label or block it.

thomasfromcdnjs• 6 years ago

This doesn't really seem newsworthy.

They should be happy Zuckerberg spoke to them and they got to share their different perspectives with him.

He runs one of the largest companies in the world, and they are just a single NGO with their own view point on racial ideas.

Why don't any companies ever work with non liberal NGO's?

I'd love to see more of Thomas Sowell type thinking.

rsweeney212• 6 years ago

So are social media companies a platform or are they editorialized?

Let's say we decide to go to war with China. Should Facebook censor anti-Chinese content? Should it censor anti-war content?

I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography) and then there is a lot of gray area. My question to Facebook employees who oppose Mark's viewpoint is: "What is your solution and how do you prevent Facebook from censoring anything you don't agree with?"

flmlta• 6 years ago

I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography)

How about advocating violence or harm to others?

rsweeney212• 6 years ago

Wouldn't that be ok in war time?

What if I say "You should defend your property from criminals." That's advocating violence.

What about advocating for late-term abortions? A huge portion of the US feel like that is harming an unborn human being.

What about advocating for the death penalty in states where it is legal?

I don't see how you could objectively make censorship judgements on this kind of speech.

Barrin92• 6 years ago

Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality. Not just on this particular issue, but on every single one, he gives, without exception, the same pre-arranged PR department answer imaginable.

No matter if it's issues with AI, privacy, advertisement or now political or racially charged content, you can be sure you get the "we're trying to connect the world" stump speech

rumanator5• 6 years ago

I'm not convinced he is that detached from reality. I do believe that the status quo is to his liking and thus he plays his hand to ensure it stays that way, but still plays it safe by pulling the plausible deniability card.

tomp2• 6 years ago

Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality

and the most principled.

sneak2• 6 years ago

It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular?

I, for one, don't want any third party telling me what I am or am not allowed to read. If someone wants to put something on the internet, it's not the hosting platform's job to say that they shouldn't, provided that material is legal. If it's bad content, I won't read it. Maybe other people will; not my business, nor yours.

When did we go from "I don't want to read that" to "nobody should be able to read that"?

Would you tolerate arbitrary censorship of your own webpage by your web host?

Why are so many people demanding that Facebook play cop? Being wrong on the internet isn't illegal, nor should it be, and Facebook is correct for staying out of that, no matter how repugnant the stupid shit posted to Facebook becomes.

Ultimately, any platform used by billions is going to be filled with stupid, repugnant, wrong shit, or filled with censorship. I'd prefer the former, because the latter is unacceptable.

Zenbit_UX3• 6 years ago

It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular?

Circa November 8th 2016

poisonborz• 6 years ago

This. The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to life, or messages trying to disrupt the service itself. Everything else is just making bed for subjective censorship.

That said, FB is a private company that can show and hide whatever it pleases. It is the bad infrastructure of these walled content megalodons that results in this being a problem.

Truly distributed networks and darknets may be the only future for the internet we know.

sneak2• 6 years ago

The only justifiable things to censor are either direct threat/harm to life

It's not a stretch to point out that the post made by POTUS falls within that description. He was literally threatening protestors/looters with summary execution by the military.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even news? It is agitation for a desired outcome.

It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the right side of this issue.

Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?

rumanator5• 6 years ago

Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them..

You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

Is it possible that the civil rights leaders misunderstood meeting for something it was not. For Mark it was a potential PR opportunity to show he is doing something, while keeping business model intact ( it works, why I should I break it ). I suppose that means we are in agreement.

I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby.

Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your petition will be acted upon.

jhowell10• 6 years ago

For some people this type of rhetoric is simple rhetoric. For others it represents a very real threat to their physical, emotional and psychological safety. For those who are most impacted by these words and pursuant actions, they represent a death sentence, they are no longer with us.

"The disaster ruins everything, all the while leaving everything intact." - Maurice Blanchot

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

Words have power. I can agree with that. But all the arguments fall flat the moment the rules are not enforced uniformly.

crispyambulance2• 6 years ago

Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?

You're right, it's "their platform", but, a significant fraction of all human beings are "in" this platform. That's a staggering amount of power in the hands of very few people with virtually no accountability. This is without precedent.

It becomes offensive when the same machinery used for advertising and marketing can just as easily be used by third parties (FB's actual customers) who want to spread disinformation, propaganda or exercise control in some way.

A4ET8a8uTh011• 6 years ago

What is your solution then? I don't use FB and Twitter for the same reasons. They both propagate disinformation and propaganda.

Or are you more concerned about wrong propaganda and misinformation ( I apologize in advance about sounding like this, but it is actually relevant to the point here )?

If we want to move past this, we need some sort of working guidance we can all agree on. In its absence, I might as well default to full free speech defense.

DoreenMichele• 6 years ago

So the President of the US says on social media "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" and people want Facebook to take this down and this is their issue with Zuckerberg, that he won't take this down or do anything about it.

People are idiots. Removing the post does nothing to prevent the President from ordering "the shooting" he has indicated he will order. Taking the post down amounts to denying people valuable information they may need to try to protect their lives in this mess.

There is a reason that democracy values a free press. There is a reason that humans have historically developed policies like "Don't shoot the messenger."

It's worse when you can't get the word out that someone with real and serious power to order this to happen is told "Shut up. We don't want to hear from you." It does nothing whatsoever to stop him from ordering in the troops. In fact, it makes it more likely he will do just that in part because it makes it less likely people will get the memo that "If you do x, the consequence is Y, so maybe don't do x."

This is a bullshit complaint. Silencing the President on Facebook isn't remotely the same as silencing some random asshole whose words might foment violence but who otherwise lacks the ability to literally command armies to come into your town and shoot people. Because one of the hats the President wears is Commander in Chief and his picture is on the wall of many a military barracks as the top guy in the chain of command, along with all the officers in that unit locally and all the officers between the local Captain (or whatever) and the Commander in Chief.

archagon• 6 years ago

Disagree. Private channels have zero obligation to be propagate any political leader's inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, I'd say the social media feedback loop does substantially more harm than good when tensions are high, since Trump feeds on attention and tends to double-down when pushed. He can publish a press release on an official government website if he wishes, just like any prior president.

Zuckerberg Leaves Racial Justice Leader Frustrated After Call

Related Stories