21–30 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is warning people not to loot 'fanning the flames'?
"When the looting starts, shooting starts" Read that above statement, how is it not fanning the flames? That a way a president get to talk to an oppressed black population?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t tell if you are trolling or not. Do some reading. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368/the-history-behind-...
If it's genuinely not obvious, I'm surprised you believe a conspiracy that Trump was secretly refering to an event most people have never heard of, rather than rhyming.
The only conditions under which a company should react to activist input is if they have done a company wide anonymous poll (and probably of their customer base as well). Otherwise, they will just hear from those who are committed to the cause (radicals/zealots) or have psychological safety to voice their views. Given that big tech companies are mostly SF-based and secondarily Seattle-based, those internal cultures reflect only one perspective (the far-left progressive). Just remember, those far-left progressives make up just 8% of the population (https://hiddentribes.us/profiles). There are almost certainly moderate and conservative employees that back Zuckerberg's position as well.
What do you do when a bully is the most powerful person in the world? Well you stand up to them as a community.
Take away his microphone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"When the looting starts, shooting starts" Read that above statement, how is it not fanning the flames? That a way a president get to talk to an oppressed black population?
You should not treat black people as synonymous with looters.
Our administration acts like that's the case (especially during the HK protests) but it doesn't ring true.
At this point. If Trump can violet TOS and get away with it. Why can’t I or a bot. Side need to chosen and battle needs to be fought. It’s a lose lose for the likes of Twitter but at least Twitter is doing the right thing now.
Whenever I see articles like this, my BS radar detector goes off. These articles make it seem like huge numbers of employees are up in arms and ready to quit, but really it is almost always a loud vocal minority looking to impose their personal worldview on the company. The only conditions under which a company should react to activist input is if they have done a company wide anonymous poll (and probably of their cu…
Zuckerberg knows he has a large conservative older user base. Losing them I bet is his concern
The side effect of people internet hating on stuff on FB is lots of ad revenue for FB (aka page views). It doesn't matter what side is what, if things on FB are fact checked then there is likely going to be less sharing since there would be less content.
Trump's tweet showed he was concerned, not glorifying. If he wanted to glorify it, he would probably say something more along the lines of "Get in line or we will use our GREAT guns and military and open fire on you thugs." He also wouldn't need riots as an excuse to tweet about such things.
Zuckerberg is supporting freedom of speech when his company didn't have to choose to. He is correct that censoring only worsens the problem and it removes opportunities to improve the situation. If Trump were censored, people would not know him or what he is doing as well as they do now. Amidst all the risk to MZ's company and the violence happening around us, his decision is highly courageous and respectable as he is serving the American people and their rights, even though he said himself that he doesn't like what Trump said.
I don't even believe Trump was glorifying violence, but calling him out as if he did sure could rally the people who are actually starting the violence against innocent businesses and civilians. Too bad Twitter doesn't have to govern themselves. Trump's tweet showed he was concerned, not glorifying. If he wanted to glorify it, he would probably say something more along the lines of "Get in line or we will use our GRE…