Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 410 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#331

Post by keiferski »

FireBeyond wrote: post #328
keiferski wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of argument is really tiresome and comes up every single time in discussions like this. It's been done over and over and over again and I'm not really interested in arguing about it. What I am talking about is the culture of defending free speech. The cultural value of defending the right of people you dislike to express ideas that you disagree with, because the value and importance of free expression goes…

Where your argument fails is that nowhere in the Constitution, or quotes like that is mentioned the right to be _heard_. You have no inherent right to an audience (either on Facebook, or in a public place). In-person, I can walk away. But the virtual equivalent is "stifling"?

> It has nothing to do with the legal definition of free speech.

I am not talking about the Constitution. I’m talking about a cultural value. Not the same thing.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#332

Post by dominotw »

city41 wrote: post #173
mjayhn wrote: post #7

People on twitter at other $bigtech seem more than happy to bring you all on board but you've been sucking that $270k+ top-end-even-for-FAANG salary with no concern for the ethics or morality of your business for years. This isn't new. I'm less than excited to see Facebook show up on a resume and haven't been for years. Not to mention the people I've interviewed from there seem to get so accustomed to working on Face…

Do you believe you don't need to compromise morals to work at Google? They're not the most wholesome of companies. You pretty much need to compromise some morals to work just about anywhere. Just Facebook stands out as being more than most places in this regard. Your rant is unhelpful and applies broad stereotypes and assumptions to a lot of people. You also strongly imply you've never worked at a SV company, so you…

> You pretty much need to compromise some morals to work just about anywhere.

Then how come only people at FB are protesting and no one else?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#333

Post by FireBeyond »

caenorst wrote: post #136

Except that the "glorification of violence" depends on the interpretation. It can also be a warning that people will start to defend themselves with violence or that the military will intervene. If that's the case those warning are here to AVOID violence by discouraging people to engage in looting... Facebook shouldn't make such decision based on the interpretation of some emotionally biased employees.

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" - quote from a segregationist who did some pretty despicable things.

"We have vicious dogs" - Who is this, Mr. Burns? "Release the hounds!"

"I'm wondering if we can't have some kind of MAGA-counterprotest here. MAGA-people like the black folk. They like African Americans. Maybe they can show up to counterprotest." - seriously? This is about as close to Cartman-esque chanting for a "race war".

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#334

Post by Lammy »

phone8675309 wrote: post #37
blueterminal wrote: post #24

People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized applications more than ever. Thoughts of people should not be censored. Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? This is just ridiculous. I don't like Facebook but great decision by Mark. Same as they decided to not re…

>Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can'…

> That people use it does not make it a public platform.

This is literally the definition of the word public.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#335

Post by Lammy »

easterncalculus wrote: post #137

The point of social networks then is the same as it is now, to host content that does not break the terms of service of the site. Anything further than that is extra. Just leave it as things were and people are fine. We've been saying that what's on the internet is not bond since before the inception of Facebook and Twitter, so there's no reason to try and change it now. When did people forget that there was no use i…

The point of social networks is to let humans communicate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#336

Post by Lammy »

FireBeyond wrote: post #329
Lammy wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is when the effect of a single person taking offense at your speech is censorship of your speech for every other person too.

You have the right to speak. You do not have the right to either a forum (Facebook) or an audience.

I’d rather find a world where humans do have that right than stay in the ruins of this one.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#337

Post by FireBeyond »

jb775 wrote: post #299
GhostVII wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not required to preserve free speech on their platform, I don't think there are many people who would argue that they are required to do so. That doesn't mean they shouldn't given how widespread Facebook is.

Hence the executive order to take the first step towards protecting free speech. Similar to anti-discrimination laws, "private" companies should have to respect free speech. Especially when a handful of those companies control the dialogue of the populace.

To be clear, you're saying something akin to: bakeries and florists refusing to make wedding cakes (or arrangements) for gay couples? Good.

Facebook not giving unpleasant extremities a platform on which to peddle their beliefs? Bad.

Now, if you think the religious baker should be forced to make a cake? I disagree, but I at least applaud you for the consistency of your convictions. Note: "they should go to another baker" isn't any more applicable than "they should go to another web host/platform".

If however you do believe that Facebook should "have to respect free speech" of a political variety, but the bakery should have a religious exemption, I'll ask:

Why, when freedom of association (politics), political beliefs, and religious beliefs are all held on the same pedestal in the Constitution, why are you singling out only some?

And in either case, why do you feel an Executive Order by way of Presidential tantrum is an appropriate way to manage what is certainly a Constitutional legal principle, if not worthy of an Amendment?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#339

Post by koheripbal »

edanm wrote: post #318
pdimitar wrote: post #57

I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…

> Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long time. If you didn't leave yet you won't leave over this either. You might be right. But you might be wrong. And the way you're framing it, it's either a) someone agrees with you, and has already left FB (meaning you were right), or b) someone has stayed at FB, therefore ethics is unimportant to them. Your dichotomy leaves no space for…

Nuance is such a rare commodity online these days.

One telling sign of that is that few, if any, media sources that criticized Facebook's decision even bothered to publish the rationale.

Think about that. Imagine perceiving yourself as journalist and intentionally not reporting the rationale of a point of view you disagree with.

Once I heard Facebook's logic... I actually found it compelling. I think it's good we have social media companies that don't all agree with one another and act as a single entity. That would be scary.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg faces employee blowback over ruling on Trump comments

#340

Post by dominotw »

edanm wrote: post #318
pdimitar wrote: post #57

I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…

> Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long time. If you didn't leave yet you won't leave over this either. You might be right. But you might be wrong. And the way you're framing it, it's either a) someone agrees with you, and has already left FB (meaning you were right), or b) someone has stayed at FB, therefore ethics is unimportant to them. Your dichotomy leaves no space for…

why would someone work at FB if they think its unethical, given almost all of those people can find another job pretty easily.
Post reply on HN