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

351–360 of 410 posts

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

#351

Post by koheripbal »

sp0rk wrote: post #270
nootropicat wrote: post #266

Interesting times. Many people are now demanding unelected, nearly unaccountable corporations to actively censor elected officials, and in fact consider not doing this evil - a step beyond fascism into a new brand of totalitarianism. I would have considered this absurd even 5 years ago. The only thing missing to make this reality a full cyberpunk dystopia are corporate superhuman ais, but not for the lack of trying.

> a step beyond fascism into a new brand of totalitarianism. Social pressure is being exerted on businesses to enact change. How does this have anything to do with fascism or totalitarianism when the government isn't even involved?

Many politicians have suggested that the government SHOULD be involved in cracking down on social media speech.

AOC (a US congresswoman) specifically suggested that legislation be written to curb free speech on Facebook.

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

#352

Post by koheripbal »

hkai wrote: post #264

It seems a lot of people are advocating two things: - Western social media companies are evil; and - Freedom of speech is bad. You may very well get rid of Facebook and freedom of speech, but I would like to just remind to all of you folks in the West that when you only have Chinese social media companies and no freedom of speech, there will be thousands of cases MUCH worse than George Floyd and you won't even be all…

It's almost unbelievable that people are suggesting we take the power away from elected officials and hand it over to corporations.

It's like the sky isn't even blue anymore...

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

#353

Post by FireBeyond »

Lammy wrote: post #347
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would? The world you're describing is one where every drunk ranting at a bar is entitled to have you listen. That seems like far more of a nightmare than this existing world that you describe as "ruins".

Still wrong. They aren’t the one who is entitled to an audience. I’m the one who’s entitled to be able to hear them and make my own decisions. Censorship systems make my decision for my by preventing “offensive” speech from even being seen and considered.

... on Facebook. Or Twitter.

There are plenty of platforms that would host Trump. Or PETA. Or neo-nazi groups. Or anti-abortion groups. Or radical animal rights.

They may not have as large a reach as Facebook or Twitter. But that is likely a factor of the general public's interest in what they have to say.

So "ever being seen or considered" is fallacious.

It comes down to "I have the right to be heard by as many people as _I_ want to be heard by."

It's no different to saying that ABC/CBS are required to air your views, but choose not to, and ignoring the fact that you can go on Public Access TV or a smaller market, and still claim "I'm being censored!". It's not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs.

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

#354

Post by dexen »

slantyyz wrote: post #156
dirtydroog wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. I can't imagine working for either company, especially in SV. I would be walking on eggshells lest someone hear, or overhear, something 'toxic' and my career gets ruined. It'd be safer to just not talk to anybody, or limit conversations to work topics only. That's an awful work environment. My demographic would make me a target, not a colleague.

> limit conversations to work topics only. That's an awful work environment. Ok, maybe it's because I'm older (but not a boomer), but I don't think that's an awful work environment. I use dinner party rules on social media and at the workplace. That means I avoid talking about politics, religion, etc. It's not because I'm afraid of being outed for my views or anything, it's because I look at work as work, and not a p…

>dinner party rules

That won't protect you. When your employer is actively signalling and funding support for particular groups or political positions, failure to join in is taken as a political action, and you might get attacked by co-workers for being anti-group or anti-position.

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

#355

Post by koheripbal »

binxbolling wrote: post #242

Amazing to me that so many people in these comments believe Facebook is or can be apolitical. This is a very childish stance, and Zuck is not standing up for their right to remain out of politics: they're deeply political, and Facebook is just asserting which political viewpoints they subscribe to as an organization.

Not censoring the president is political?

That seems like a very black-vs-white / with-us-or-against-us mentality.

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

#356

Post by koheripbal »

paulgb wrote: post #67
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…

> People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? I can't speak for everyone, but I just want the company not to carve out exceptions for their rules against violent speech depending on who said it. If you believe that Facebook doesn't have the right to remove any violent speech regardless of who says it, obviously that's another story. I think online…

...but that's exactly what Twitter did - they carved out an exception for politicians.

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

#357

Post by FireBeyond »

koheripbal wrote: post #349
FireBeyond wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 chan…

Are we going to analyze every tweet for its historical usages? If AOC or Bernie Sanders tweets again about "Revolution", should we censor them if they quote Che Guevara? Something tells me they won't do that. ...but more fundamentally, the question is who gets to decide? Corporations or elected officials? ...can't vote out a corporation if you make them arbiters of truth and don't like the choices they make.

> If AOC or Bernie Sanders tweets again about "Revolution"

If generic, or as a principle? No.

If they say "pick up weapons and shoot those who dissent"?

Then they're advocating or threatening, and that should be handled similarly.

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

#359

Post by Lariscus »

keiferski wrote: post #108

Remember when "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" was a thing? I certainly do. How far we've fallen as a culture since then.

Giving a platform to fascists makes them seem normal and just a quirky alternative to the mainstream. It effectively allows them to easily spread their propaganda.

In his book Mark Bray writes: "It’s important to note, however, that the vast majority of people who oppose limiting speech on political grounds are not free speech absolutists. They all have their exceptions to the rule, whether obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, press censorship during wartime, or restrictions for the incarcerated. If we rephrase the terms of the debate by taking these exceptions into account, we can see that many liberals support limiting the speech of working-class teens busted for drugs, but not limiting the speech of Nazis. Many are fine when the police quash the free speech of the undocumented by hunting them down, while they amplify the speech of the Klan by protecting them. They advocate curtailing ads for cigarettes but not ads for white supremacy."

In my opinion de-platforming fascists is indeed infringing on their right of free speech, but this infringement is justified as it protects the the safety and well-being of marginalized populations.

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

#360

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Lammy wrote: post #347
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would? The world you're describing is one where every drunk ranting at a bar is entitled to have you listen. That seems like far more of a nightmare than this existing world that you describe as "ruins".

Still wrong. They aren’t the one who is entitled to an audience. I’m the one who’s entitled to be able to hear them and make my own decisions. Censorship systems make my decision for my by preventing “offensive” speech from even being seen and considered.

FireBeyond said:

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

You said:

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

"Right to an audience" is part of what was being discussed. That part I was disagreeing with you on.

Now,

> I’m the one who’s entitled to be able to hear them

I agree with that in principle. In practice, that winds up compelling someone (some company) to carry their speech. That part I have a hard time agreeing with.

Post reply on HN