Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Mark Zuckerberg is concerned about political hate speech, fake news, and possible foreign election meddling on Facebook. So he does the single best thing he could do to make it worse   (reason.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Social media, Freedom of speech, Facebook, Censorship, Democracy, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook  
•       •       •

3110 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Apr 2019 at 3:52 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



73 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-04-06 1:47:01 PM  
He knows the government can't do anything about it.  This just lets him off from having to do something about it himself.
 
2019-04-06 1:59:59 PM  
Took him three grafs to get to Venezuela? Pffftttt ... you gotta do better than that.
 
2019-04-06 2:30:00 PM  
We can't (won't) censor ourselves. Someone else will have to do it.

Tomorrow: govt is censoring free speech
 
2019-04-06 3:17:35 PM  
The coward actually wants the responsibility of moderating his shiat taken out of his hands. . . Because if the government were to step in, they'd take the brunt of the ire and controversy, and Zack gets to sit back, content in not having to a stance.

It's astounding to me, that we're living in a culture of such corporate cowardice, that entities like Facebook, Steam, Twitter, etc, etc, would sooner invite government regulation than directly upset a few vocal piss babies who think their white supremacy and misogyny should be given a platform on their services.
 
2019-04-06 3:38:02 PM  
Punk.
No, the government can't do that, jackass.
 
2019-04-06 3:56:33 PM  
It's HIS freaking site, if he wants political speech regulated, HE can arbitrarily write some rules for it TODAY and have it in place TOMORROW.  The government could write some rules for it in a few years, have them obstructed by Republicans for a few more, and then struck down by the courts on first amendment grounds after that.

farking loser trying to pass the buck in a way he KNOWS is unworkable.
 
2019-04-06 3:58:51 PM  

lindalouwho: Punk.
No, the government can't do that, jackass.


Some can....
 
2019-04-06 3:59:43 PM  
I understand you're overwhelmed by the nuts and bolts of the real world, Mark. But you should at least pretend you know it exists, you fecking jackwagon.
 
2019-04-06 4:00:50 PM  
All he wants to do is abdicate any responsibility
 
2019-04-06 4:01:11 PM  
The best thing Facebook could do it just to completely close up shop an dissolve. For the sake of humanity
 
2019-04-06 4:02:33 PM  
If "we" don't want a private company to decide what is or is not political speech, it seems even more obvious that we don't want the government to do so...


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-04-06 4:02:46 PM  

berylman: The best thing Facebook could do it just to completely close up shop an dissolve. For the sake of humanity


MySpace had the decency to quietly delete (some of) itself...
 
2019-04-06 4:04:38 PM  
He's concerned about it in exactly the same way that a fishmonger is concerned about fish.
 
2019-04-06 4:04:43 PM  
Holy Fark.  He wants the government to regulate not only speech, but POLITICAL speech.

Just so he can absolve Facebook is responsibility.

He's a fascist beacause it's the easy thing to do.

Wow.
 
2019-04-06 4:07:13 PM  
"Wah. We need more government regulation to regulate the platform I could have regulated myself but was too busy profiting to give a shiat!"
 
2019-04-06 4:08:11 PM  
The idea that a forum owned by a private company is anywhere the 1st Amendment applies is fantasy thinking. How come I never once read or heard anyone complain Reader's Digest took away their right to free speech for not publishing their joke?

/ dingbats
 
2019-04-06 4:08:36 PM  
All political advertising should be restricted from any mention of a particular opponent or opposing party. They should only be allowed to discuss or promote national topics (the environment, economics, etc) and/or the platform of a specific candidate or a specific party; no matter how or where it is broadcast or displayed.

So, instead of saying "the Democrats will ruin the economy", you'll have to say "a political approach to politics such as this will ruin the economy" or you can say "we will improve the economy."
 
2019-04-06 4:08:50 PM  
He really is a garbage person, isn't he?
 
2019-04-06 4:09:12 PM  
Didn't Facebook start out as a way to rate the sexual attractiveness of his fellow collegians? Wasn't Mr. Z a huge a-hole all of his adult life? The answer is c) Yes
 
2019-04-06 4:11:21 PM  
So apparently the organization of literal crimes by actual, literal terrorists and terrorist recruiting are "unspecified social harms" to Reason.

... guess that clears up what side that publication is on pretty thoroughly, then.  I wasn't expecting the reveal to be quite that... unambiguous.

// What actually seems to be happening is that Zuckerberg is complaining about lack of clear guidance from the government regarding what's actually in compliance and what isn't, which... I mean, yeah, world's tiniest violin for the guy with the world's largest data-mining and analysis operation in existence basically trying to claim that he didn't "understand" all of the thousands of laws his company regularly pretty blatantly intentionally ignores on a daily basis.  fark him.  But he's also not doing what this stupid blog is claiming, really.
 
2019-04-06 4:11:29 PM  
If you don't want your idea stolen don't hire this fark to do the code; fool me once...
 
2019-04-06 4:11:37 PM  

Name_Omitted: Holy Fark.  He wants the government to regulate not only speech, but POLITICAL speech.

Just so he can absolve Facebook is responsibility.

He's a fascist beacause it's the easy thing to do.

Wow.


The government already defines and places limitations on political speech, elections, and campaign advertisements.

Am I the only one that's ever heard of the FEC?
 
2019-04-06 4:12:01 PM  

MattytheMouse: The coward actually wants the responsibility of moderating his shiat taken out of his hands. . . Because if the government were to step in, they'd take the brunt of the ire and controversy, and Zack gets to sit back, content in not having to a stance.

It's astounding to me, that we're living in a culture of such corporate cowardice, that entities like Facebook, Steam, Twitter, etc, etc, would sooner invite government regulation than directly upset a few vocal piss babies who think their white supremacy and misogyny should be given a platform on their services.


I had a brain fart and accidentally short handed Mark Zuckerberg's name as Zack. WTF is wrong with me?
 
2019-04-06 4:12:02 PM  

eiger: lindalouwho: Punk.
No, the government can't do that, jackass.

Some can....


We're obviously talking about the US.
Obviously.
 
2019-04-06 4:12:40 PM  

Virtually_Human: He knows the government can't do anything about it.  This just lets him off from having to do something about it himself.


This.
 
2019-04-06 4:13:59 PM  

lindalouwho: eiger: lindalouwho: Punk.
No, the government can't do that, jackass.

Some can....

We're obviously talking about the US.
Obviously.


Of course we are. But are you sure he is? A lot of criticism has come up against facebook about their giving in to censorship overseas. Attempts by the US government (even if overturned) to censor facebook would likely give him cover for that.
 
2019-04-06 4:15:45 PM  
My hosts file:
127.0.01 localhost
127.0.0.1 Facebook.com

A good start.
 
2019-04-06 4:17:27 PM  
Alex, I'll have "Abdicating Responsibility" for $500.
 
2019-04-06 4:26:26 PM  
As a sidebar, I've been somewhat enjoying a growing tendency among the GOP to refer to outright fascists and White Nationalists when the complain about censoring "Conservative" voices. Just a few years ago they were still trying to deny that equivalency.
 
2019-04-06 4:27:55 PM  

MattytheMouse: The coward actually wants the responsibility of moderating his shiat taken out of his hands. . . Because if the government were to step in, they'd take the brunt of the ire and controversy, and Zack gets to sit back, content in not having to a stance.

It's astounding to me, that we're living in a culture of such corporate cowardice, that entities like Facebook, Steam, Twitter, etc, etc, would sooner invite government regulation than directly upset a few vocal piss babies who think their white supremacy and misogyny should be given a platform on their services.


It's also about how expensive proper moderation of the social media space would be
 
2019-04-06 4:29:29 PM  
Remember when Zuckerberg got butthurt about the fiction of The Social Network?

He better hope that nobody does a movie that accurately portrays what an asshole he is, his commodification of privacy, and how his company has helped to erode trust in democratic institutions.
 
2019-04-06 4:30:54 PM  

MattytheMouse: The coward actually wants the responsibility of moderating his shiat taken out of his hands. . . Because if the government were to step in, they'd take the brunt of the ire and controversy, and Zack gets to sit back, content in not having to a stance.

It's astounding to me, that we're living in a culture of such corporate cowardice, that entities like Facebook, Steam, Twitter, etc, etc, would sooner invite government regulation than directly upset a few vocal piss babies who think their white supremacy and misogyny should be given a platform on their services.


Alternatively, if the government regulates this space then the only people that can compete with Facebook would have to afford a team of lawyers and lobbyist. Which would effectively give them a monopoly. No more people creating an alternative app in their garages
 
2019-04-06 4:31:14 PM  

Virtually_Human: He knows the government can't do anything about it.  This just lets him off from having to do something about it himself.


THIS.
DONE IN ONE!
 
2019-04-06 4:33:10 PM  
Zuckerberg is joined not only by progressive Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) but conservative Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who are calling for the equivalent of a Fairness Doctrine for Twitter and similar services.

Why!?  I'd like to see citations for all of those. Later in the article they mention Hawley calling for an investigation into Twitter suspending right-wing accounts with this link. Still would like to know for the other two exactly what they're referring to.
 
2019-04-06 4:33:22 PM  

eiger: lindalouwho: eiger: lindalouwho: Punk.
No, the government can't do that, jackass.

Some can....

We're obviously talking about the US.
Obviously.

Of course we are. But are you sure he is? A lot of criticism has come up against facebook about their giving in to censorship overseas. Attempts by the US government (even if overturned) to censor facebook would likely give him cover for that.


Did you even rtfa?
And ALL businesses play by the rules of each and every country they do business in. That's nothing new, it's the cost of that kind of expansion. People critical of that simply do not know how the world works. Obviously.
 
2019-04-06 4:40:43 PM  

MattytheMouse: The coward actually wants the responsibility of moderating his shiat taken out of his hands. . . Because if the government were to step in, they'd take the brunt of the ire and controversy, and Zack gets to sit back, content in not having to a stance.

It's astounding to me, that we're living in a culture of such corporate cowardice, that entities like Facebook, Steam, Twitter, etc, etc, would sooner invite government regulation than directly upset a few vocal piss babies who think their white supremacy and misogyny should be given a platform on their services.


Alternatively you'll see an increase in defamation and tortious interference suits where the platform will be held accountable.
 
2019-04-06 4:53:20 PM  
Jewish Beer Hall owner in Munich refuses to stop selling to National Socialist German Workers Party rallies: "I'm making a killing off all these putsches! I can only imagine this will continue in the same fashion for decades!"

Where's the Jewish boy with the Asian wife going to run when the circus peanut's gestapo legacies comes after him?
A private island and a few mercs aren't going to do it.
You can't make enough money to get away from these waves of crazy. You have to stop them before they get their hands on any real power. WTF they don't teach history at Harvard?
I can't decide whether his abdication of responsibility is more ludicrous or disgusting.
 
2019-04-06 4:57:37 PM  
"The far-better solution is for platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to help users develop stronger media-literacy skills so that we can all more easily spot rotten information and develop critical reading skills "

LOL, our country is full of dumbasses. Many which vote based on stupid shiat and you're not going to get these people to suddenly become more intelligent and discerning about which information they listen to.  How would you even go about that in the first place? Make users go through a mandatory critical thinking and reading comprehension test before they use the site? Have a link to grade school material on critical thinking?

Goddamn what stupid (and almost certainly disingenuous) idea.
 
2019-04-06 4:59:49 PM  
Since that jackhole and his employees refuse to do anything, and the government and watchdog agencies cannot do much, I am fully in support of some organization targeting and completely destroying all of their servers and completely shutting them down that way.

Sorry if that's not PC or what not, but I am sick of that asshole and the morons that site breeds.

/same goes for most social media for that matter
 
2019-04-06 5:01:34 PM  

JDJoeE: MattytheMouse: The coward actually wants the responsibility of moderating his shiat taken out of his hands. . . Because if the government were to step in, they'd take the brunt of the ire and controversy, and Zack gets to sit back, content in not having to a stance.

It's astounding to me, that we're living in a culture of such corporate cowardice, that entities like Facebook, Steam, Twitter, etc, etc, would sooner invite government regulation than directly upset a few vocal piss babies who think their white supremacy and misogyny should be given a platform on their services.

Alternatively you'll see an increase in defamation and tortious interference suits where the platform will be held accountable.


That used to be a thing. Courts decided that if you delete some user content but not other user content, you show tacit approval of remaining content, so you can be sued for it.

The result was that many online services turned to using no moderation whatsoever. It was their only way to avoid liability.

Then they passed a good Samaritan law, wherein you can make an honest effort to delete objectionable or illegal content and still not be liable for anything that remains.
 
2019-04-06 5:06:24 PM  
It's really where he belongs given the problems he's caused around the world...all for almighty dollar.  How many billions does any one individual really need?
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-04-06 5:09:33 PM  
It makes sense. If his company establishes a policy and follows it, some farkface Republican (Nunes) will sue them and stand a chance of winning. Not so if all they're doing is following the law.

So thanks again, Republicans.
 
2019-04-06 5:12:45 PM  
Just sell Facebook to the NSA and be done with it.
 
2019-04-06 5:14:45 PM  
Here's an idea, how about not cutting civics education in schools?
 
2019-04-06 5:17:29 PM  
Here's another idea, offer grants or tax incentives to Hollywood to promote healthy social norms.

It'll help ward off mass shootings too.
 
2019-04-06 5:19:52 PM  

thurstonxhowell: It makes sense. If his company establishes a policy and follows it, some farkface Republican (Nunes) will sue them and stand a chance of winning. Not so if all they're doing is following the law.

So thanks again, Republicans.


Perhaps. But they don't stand to face the same superfluous litigation for something like nuking anti-Vaxx pages from orbit because it's generally a bipartisan stupidity.

Yet they won't even do that because those clicks aren't going to generate themselves.
 
2019-04-06 5:21:27 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Here's an idea, how about not cutting civics education in schools?


F*CKING THIIIIISSSSS.

Maybe if we taught civics, critical thinking, decoupled school funding from local property taxes, and made good faith efforts towards increasing access to post-secondary education this kind of stuff would decrease dramatically.

But critical thinking is anathema to demagoguery and ignorance.
 
2019-04-06 5:21:44 PM  
And this clown wonders why he needs all that security
 
2019-04-06 5:26:33 PM  
"Hey, Mark, you encouraged foreign interests to meddle in a Presidential election by creating a super easy interface to lie to America and not vetting at all. You wanna quit doing that?"

media.reason.comView Full Size

"Make me."

This is going to be THE issue of the 21st Century: the regulation of lies, insanity and reprehensible people on the internet. There are people out there arguing that, "It's my right to watch the New Zealand mosque shooting! Banning 8chan for cheering it on is CENSORSHIP!" Yes. Some things we don't need to see, like the deaths of real human beings who did not consent to being broadcast to the world in their final, desperate moments for people to spit on. Or, say, naked and exploited minors. Some things, when you look at them, you farking hurt people.

Again, right now, most media on the internet is set up to feed you engaging content - so you'll keep clicking and view ads. If you have low critical thinking skills and engage with one conspiracy theory, the internet will feed you all the conspiracy theories, and hook you up with some other people who have also been exposed to all the conspiracy theories, so they can shore you up. Same with other fringe beliefs, like white supremacy, anti-vaxx and the incel movement. Social ostracism, which used to be the price for acting a twat, no longer works. The internet will hook you up with a lot of friends who believe anything you'd like to believe. And you can encourage each other to ACT on those beliefs. We have to decide what we're going to do about that, and who's legally liable when one of these net-assisted groups blows up in a public place.

It was always possible for bad people to communicate with each other and form groups, but we now have companies whose business model depends on making that happen. People like Zuck there who make money off making it as easy as possible for anonymous people to lie to you - and other people who are WAY dumber than you and won't vet the clever meme they agree with before they spread it around. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others have NO incentive to change. The government is the only entity with enough power to make it happen. Which sucks, because have you seen our government lately? Odds are, the Trump Administration is perfectly happy with lies and liars and dangerous actors proliferating unchecked. AND we have an really farking important election coming up.

Are we boned? We may be boned.
 
2019-04-06 5:35:39 PM  
I think Zuck is in a difficult position.  Let's be generous for the sake of argument and say that he and a lot of other early Facebook creators were hopelessly naive playing free speech champions early on, and by the time it became clear that the platform was being abused to exploit human stupidity to the detriment of us all it was already too late.  If Facebook starts banning fringe nutjobs and propagandists now it'll have a disproportionate impact on the right.  They'll scream bloody murder, demand government intervention (as they already have), many will leave in protest (good riddance), and the Board won't stand for it.  "Mr. Zuckerberg, why have you alienated a substantial percentage of our users, damaged our revenue stream, and prompted government regulation?  Might we remind you that Facebook is a publicly traded company, and as such has a responsibility to its shareholders?  We suggest that you take a sabbatical.  In the interim we'll bring in an external CEO on a temporary basis.  We were thinking Steve Bannon."
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.