Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#2Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power and also because of the issues they’re addressing. I wish our democracy was a little more civil. This is also partially facebook’s fault because they definitely have increased polarization through personalization.
At the same time I think some of these policies are reasonable but I think they should just ban political ads altogether.
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#3Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power and also because of the issues they’re addressing. I wish our democracy was a little more civil. This is also partially facebook’s fault because they definitely have increased polarization through personalizat…
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power
Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively[1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set America apart from countries that continually slipped into autocracy or never even made it out of that hole. Maybe they were relatively beneficent because of the American political culture they internalized, but at the end of the day the nation was always at their mercy. While they may have sought to burn and even succeeded in burning down some institutions (figuratively and actually), they never sought to burn it all down; not like the empowered nihilists of today.
[1] I stress relatively because such historical figures (e.g. John D. Rockefeller in the Ludlow Massacre) have supported or even directly engaged in mass murders of Americans, not to mention Native American and foreign populations. But it's hard to dispute that in an historical context their behavior was tempered as compared to similar figures in other societies.
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#4Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power and also because of the issues they’re addressing. I wish our democracy was a little more civil. This is also partially facebook’s fault because they definitely have increased polarization through personalizat…
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively [1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set Amer…
The Facebook instrument has inherently more power than what past media titans wielded.
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#5Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power and also because of the issues they’re addressing. I wish our democracy was a little more civil. This is also partially facebook’s fault because they definitely have increased polarization through personalizat…
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively [1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set Amer…
didnt hearst oppose the new deal?
and was known for yellow journalism?
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#6Mentions militias and QAnon. Does not mention Antifa and BLM as the groups likely to organize "violence" after the election. Nice dog whistle, Zuck!
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#7Anyone who has a Facebook or twitter account is contributing to the destruction of humanity
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#8Wow some of the contents of this post scare me, I can’t believe we are at the point where Facebook has to remove content that intimidates election officials. I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power and also because of the issues they’re addressing. I wish our democracy was a little more civil. This is also partially facebook’s fault because they definitely have increased polarization through personalizat…
We don't have a democracy. It's a republic. Basically a fake democracy.
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m scared both because Facebook has this much power Media titans like Mark Zuckerberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Benjamin Franklin have always had this much power. What Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch have made crystal clear is that regardless of how "evil" we think Zuckerberg or Hearst were, they and the people they supported were relatively [1] beneficent. That good fortune is part of what has always set Amer…
The Facebook instrument has inherently more power than what past media titans wielded.
The platform is more powerful, but political and cultural power is also more diffuse and even more chaotic than in previous eras. (And that may not be a coincidence.) So I'm not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, and certainly don't believe that he has more direct political influence than previous titans. Perhaps he could add to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely consequential manner, but at the very least he's clearly not deliberately trying to do that. In fact, Zuckerberg strikes me as someone acting with relative sincerity, good faith, and even civic mindedness, notwithstanding his self-serving libertarian ideals. And I come to that opinion based on his views alone; I'm always forgetful of his actual philanthropy.
Re: Zuckerberg: this election is not going to be business as usual
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Facebook instrument has inherently more power than what past media titans wielded.
The platform is more powerful, but political and cultural power is also more diffuse and even more chaotic than in previous eras. (And that may not be a coincidence.) So I'm not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction, and certainly don't believe that he has more direct political influence than previous titans. Perhaps he could add to the chaos and confusion in a uniquely…
> not convinced Zuckerberg has a greater capacity to push society in a particular direction,
He can, but only in one direction: incivility and divisiveness.