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

321–330 of 410 posts

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

#321

Post by binxbolling »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #311
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.

Trying and failing to be apolitical is different than being intentionally political. And I prefer platforms attempt the former.

"We will not curb violent speech if the speaker is a notable public figure" is already political. That's a political stance, not an apolitical one, and it's very naive to believe otherwise.

Besides, Facebook has a PAC! In what way is this attempting to be apolitical? Although their donations are split, since 2012 they've given 14% more to Republicans.

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

#322

Post by Lammy »

sp0rk wrote: post #276
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.

> "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" I'm not sure somebody's "right to say [something]" is directly equivalent to being able to tweet something on a privately owned platform.

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.

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

#323

Post by Lammy »

rocketpastsix wrote: post #240
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.

there is a difference between saying "I think this war (insert a war: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) is wrong and unjust" and your quote is absolutely true. Some people believe in the wars, some dont but ultimately its up to us to understand a statement like above can be said openly and honestly and without fear of retribution. However, and where Facebook crosses a line, is that when you allow someone to post unaba…

Your concept of what’s factual has to be rooted in something.

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

#324

Post by _8j50 »

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…

They'd take on less pay with growth opportunity elsewhere. Even with more pay! "Former Facebook engineer" helps with salary negotiation.

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

#325

Post by Lammy »

ggggtez wrote: post #315
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.

>In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" during hearings about crime in the Florida city, invoking angry reactions from civil rights leaders, according to a news report at the time. > Segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace also used the phrase during the 1968 campaign. While you might like to believe that the phrase could mean anything ,…

I prefer to live in the word where that man’s freedom of speech in 1967 means we get to remember and appreciate the progress we fight for. Censorship helps those who already have the most power by giving them an easy way to maintain it.

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

#326

Post by keiferski »

archagon wrote: post #307
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…

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. (Sorry, you can’t just say you’re tired of an argument and then continue with only your side of that argument.)

I’m not giving my side of the argument, because I’m not engaging with the argument. I’m talking about cultural values, not legal definitions of free speech.

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

#327

Post by Lammy »

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?

These businesses’ products are the way humans communicate. I don’t consider “you can say what you want, but it will be impossible for you to say it _to_ anybody” to be an acceptable compromise. Free speech that’s not absolute does not exist at all.

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

#328

Post by FireBeyond »

keiferski wrote: post #281
znpy wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say. But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you…

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"?

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

#329

Post by FireBeyond »

Lammy wrote: post #322
sp0rk wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" I'm not sure somebody's "right to say [something]" is directly equivalent to being able to tweet something on a privately owned platform.

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.

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

#330

Post by archagon »

keiferski wrote: post #326
archagon wrote: post #307

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. (Sorry, you can’t just say you’re tired of an argument and then continue with only your side of that argument.)

I’m not giving my side of the argument, because I’m not engaging with the argument. I’m talking about cultural values, not legal definitions of free speech.

Sure. But it's still one of many branches in this same exact conversation tree. ("What happened to free speech culture?" "Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequence, and these are private companies" "But Facebook and Twitter are really more like public squares" etc. etc. etc.)

If you accept that you'd never let some soapbox rando yell politics in your face just for the principle of the matter, the discussion will inevitably boil down to the role social media plays in society.

Post reply on HN