Since the election the NY Times has been instrumenting a consistent series of attacks against Facebook and other social media because these companies are competitors to mainstream media. While the NYT is expected to hew to very high standards, the laissez faire free speech approach of a for-profit tech business doesn't really care to, and in so doing competes for the same eyeballs but with an advantage.
Issues tend to be very complex until you look at the incentives of the actors at which point issues always boil down to what is in their advantage. NYTimes is picking its ideologies based on its own advantage, and thus the comically anti-left and authoritarian position against free speech which doesn't historically fit their politics (but then again the left used to be for American labor as well).
9
Rich guys often think they have all the answers, and align to the right. The FTC and antitrust law should reign him in. Zuckerman’s new love affair with trump lies will come back to haunt him
5
Mark Zuckerberg must also believe yelling fire in a crowded theater is just fine.
2
Zuckerberg has toxic pollution spewing from his portal into the public arena and he says it's not his responsibility to do anything. And Lebron is arguing for a neutered, mute stance in regard to China. $$$
4
Face it. Facebook is evil. Zuckerberg's defense of lies and misinformation clearly demonstrates this. There is nothing Facebook has done to protect your privacy or advance the truth. Want "fake news?" Go to Facebook.
8
Mr. Zuckerberg, does this include hate speech that has a political agenda? Lies that are pieces of propaganda? I have observed such speech on Facebook; unadulterated hate and slurs to further the cause of an ultra conservative and racist agenda?
4
I can't believe he so stupid that he can actually call political lying & fake 'facts' "messy" rather than propaganda, & be comparing it to Frederick Douglas rather than Joseph Goebbels.
Is he really so stupid? Or is it just the bottom line?
If he's really that stupid, someone should try to educate him with examples of what political propaganda has historically done (MLK's daughter has already responded, but more forceful & detailed response is apparently necessary.)
I personally don't feel that 'hate speech' should be censored; I'm full of hate for the disgusting crud spoken & written & done by conservatives these days, & I think I am 100% justified in expressing my loathing of their hatefulness.
But fact-checking political speech & flagging *lies* (w/at least links to the evidence that they are lies, if not attaching summaries of the facts) while allowing the political speech to stand is the obvious solution.
Since that doesn't seem to be an option in his mind, the only possible conclusion is that he doesn't want to pay to have the fact checking,flagging & linking done. The shareholders might object to the expense.
That, in short, it IS his bottom line, & the smarmy free-speech self-congratulations are all a disgusting, disgusting cover-up of mad, endless greed.
3
Facebook's corporate mission is “to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” - so far FB helped that the world grew apart and build successful hate groups. With their algorithms FB feeds into hate speech. Every single day. There are clear scientific data how much FB is responsible for the new ground of Nazis and Co could gain around the world. FB gets paid for unraveling the world. The Kurds drama wouldn’t be there without Trump, and Trump wouldn’t sit in the WhiteHouse without Zuckerberg. It’s that easy. No difference to the enablers who helped Hitler killing millions. Zuckerberg has obvious a Dunner Kruger problem.
5
He promotes Freedom of Speech from his Tower of Affluence and yet when I practice Freedom of Speech on Facebook, I am put in "Facebook jail." No freedom here as so many can attest to. I will be leaving Facebook as soon as this political tragedy of a man is dethroned.
5
Facebook's policy and Mr. Zuckerberg's ideological position, while unpopular with those who choose to leave thinking to their virtue-signaling politicians, is principled, fair, and the most condusive to a sceptical, informed polity. Facebook should not be REQUIRED to censor political views based on some vague standard of what is "true" and what is not. It also, however, is not REQUIRED to provide a platform for speach it finds offensive. The user ultimately gets to decide if she will continue to use Facebook. If our democracy is so fragile that it can't stand to hear the lunatic fringe, and recognize them for what they are, and if we need to 'protect' ourselves from the publication of bad ideas, then the game for liberal, self-governance has already been lost. Our political order will go the way of other forms of governance have.
8
This is a man who profits off hate speech, lies and the controversy and violence it causes but he will wipe his hands clean of it.
4
"I'll take anyone's money to print lies, libel, destructive manipulations from any source because my only goal is to make more money than any human could possibly spend in a lifetime. And if it screws up my kid's America, he can always run away somewhere safe with all the money I'll leave him. Hahahaha to the rest of you fools."
There, I fixed it for you.
7
Little Trump! What other reason, besides greed, would prompt this "educated" enabler to think this a good thing? I too am rethinking my FB membership.
4
Being more like China is exactly how progressives want the USA to be. They want more central power, based on "science and experts", to plan a better world for all citizens without regard to effort, skill or luck. They want equal outcomes, no guns, restricted speech they don't like, some capitalism, but mostly communism to ensure a "good citizenry."
7
@David Being more like China is exactly how Trump and the GOP want the USA to be. They want more central power, based on lies and propaganda, to plan a better world for all citizens without regard to facts, truth or ethics. They want your money and your soul, restricted speech they don't like, unfettered capitalism, but mostly fascism to ensure a "good citizenry."
4
Just greed and societal irresponsibility. Any media outlet, and Facebook is a media outlet per excellence, must screen out obvious disinformation and slander, just as the press, radio and TV have that obligation. These are people minting money hand over fist who don't want any part of the cost and work of maintaining social responsibility. They are hiding behind "freedom of speech" inappropriately in order to do so.
4
FB and banks are afraid of Warren, then she's the person for president. Can't think of anyone better to run bc these corrupt institutions fear her.
6
Zuckerberg is flat out lying. HIs left wing social justice warriors have been censoring ALL information about the dark side of the radical transgender ideology for years. People who post any information negative about transgender politics and procedures have been heavily censored with their accounts closed, and no criticism or open discussion of this dangerous ideology is allowed. FB has banned all open discussion of material reality.
3
FB owned Instagram has been censoring and blocking the Pole Dance community as well! Both companies are hypocrites! The ban, #shadowban, is affecting the livelihood of teachers and studio owners worldwide!
What exactly is the truth? Who's truth? I'm certain we cannot rely on Mr. Zuckerberg anymore than we can rely on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC or Rush Limbaugh. Why bother with any of them?
4
And people still ask me why I'm not on Facebook.
38
I must give you an “ atta boy” Gary ! I’m with you!
5
@Gary
I quit back in 2012, no regrets. BTW, might Zuckerberg be the wealthiest man on the planet with a bowl cut?
6
It is funny Facebook polices nipples quite forcefully but verifiable lies it does not. I’m not talking hate here or neo-nazis or antifa or whatever may push someone’s buttons. I’m not even talking about somewhat “debatable” topics like climate change. I’m talking about straight lies which take only a few minutes to verify as false. I’ll give you an example: Ontario Proud and other similar media outlets have circulated a meme on Facebook saying that Ontario farmers will pay more for fuel due to carbon taxes. A quick check of the freely available tax law states fuel used in Agriculture and Fisheries is carbon tax exempt. On top of that, fuel use to deliver Agricultural or Fisheries fuel is also carbon tax exempt. Yes, these types of lies. Facebook is directly guilty on letting them circulate.
3
This is an old game. Google flies a free speech banner to justify all sorts of egregious business practices. It’s arrogant. It’s myopic. It’s flat out wrong.
Yang in last debate said you can’t use 20th century law in the 21st century. He’s incorrect. I think our answer is opposite. Facebook is a publisher. It must be held to publishing standards. It’s a tabloid. It must abide by libel laws. Free speech has never been unrestricted speech.
Trump, if he had put in email half of what he tweets he’d have been arrested long ago. We don’t need new law, we just need to treat social media for what they are and not be intimidated by their new technology or size.
5
Being an accomplice to slander should not be a misdemeanor when it can possibly ROB a person of a well deserved job or political career Mr. Zuckerberg. That is NOT free speech. It is malicious intent and YOU should be held accountable if you or your staff KNOWLINGLY engage in it's publication on Facebook.
3
If a drug company announced that it was doing nothing to ensure the quality of its product, people would stop buying drugs from that company. Looking to Facebook for reliable news is like rooting through a dumpster for dinner.
3
Where there is a lot of talk nowadays about athletes "staying in their lane," Zuckerberg and FB don't seem to realize what lane they are in: publishing, not just technology. FB has evolved into a news and information publisher/vendor and with publishing comes a responsibility to vet information published - just like every responsible journalist and publisher. In fact, FB and other technology platforms have contributed significantly to the demise of funding sources that previously was spent on newspapers and actual hard-news journalistic efforts since FB (Google, Apple+ ...) just grab the news from actual journalistic ventures. So not only have they grabbed the end products of real journalists, but now FB claims the right to simply mix it in with any kind of fake or unverified "news" from anyone willing to pay FB to publish. Zuckerberg and FB want all the upside of publishing without any of the responsibilities. This is not a force for free flow of information, and dramatically undermined the art and practice and discipline of real journalism.
2
Mr. Zuckerberg doesn't seem to realize that free speech concerns apply to government entities far more so than commercial ones. He has a complete right (and many would say obligation) to run his company in a way that benefits society. At this point in our history, the problem with lies and fake news outstrips concerns of free speech. Facebook is a great enabler of that. By taking a neutral stance, saying he encourages all speech, he's siding with the evil-doers.
3
Yes, Zuckerberg, the broadcast of inflammatory lies is always in the public interest, and should never be impinged upon.
That's why shouting "Fire!" in a public theater is not only legal, but should be encouraged so that the listening citizens can rationally deliberate, balance the pros and cons of the information that they've received, make up their minds about how to react.
Is that the argument you're going to stick with, Mr. Zuckerberg?
3
While social media may be used to disseminate falsehoods, political or otherwise, they can also be used to challenge and refute them.
2
I agree with Zuckerberg. For all of you saying that FB content should be vetted - who should be the ultimate arbiter of what is true and what is false? Who can truly be unbiased. I would venture to say that Alex Jones' content, compared to say CNN or Huffpost's, may even be less harmful since his material is so outrageous that it's easier to see it for what it is. Whereas material from CNN, The Washington Times, Huffpost, the Blaze, etc. often produces content that has the scent of truth wrapped around biased opinion.
4
He, Zuckerberg, is right for exactly the reasons he states in his speech, among them that a social media outlet should not be arbitor of Truth in the political realm.
What may very well be the outcome of all this propgandizing on social media is that Facebook and others will gain a reputation for political sensationalism and political falsehoods, a place sensible citizens don't go to read political views and news. And, then. Thank goodness for that. I get my news from the New York Times and other reputable news organizations and so should be the example to others.
if facebook publishes plainly false and fraudulent speech (which obviously is not "protected free speech"), courts should authorize litigation against it, and recognize that damages could be very large, to be determined by juries.
the first amendment not only protects "speakers", it also protects the interests of the "audience"--society--to hear diverse opinions based upon factually true statements.
if facebook promotes fraud, it is an abettor and should be held accountable.
2
Boy, he is afraid of Elizabeth Warren!
2
We all have the ability to the the rude, crude, abusive and deluded lies that Facebook allows onto its platform. When faced with such things, stop putting yourself in front of them. Leave Facebook. Pursue more thoughtful dialog, just as you would if someone was lying or yelling or abusing you in person. I did this a year ago and, believe me, I felt much better without Facebook in my life.
2
This is the answer! Personal responsibility. Blame is everywhere except where it belongs ; with the people. We elected Trump for example. Stop blaming him. “ The fault is not in our stars dear Brutus, but in ourselves that we are underlings”.
Julius Caesar.
1
It would be tempting to dismiss Zuckerberg’s idealistic naiveté as a result of him being an anti social nerd. His background and history says as much: cloistered, socially and culturally limited in scope, and with really little connection to the outside world.
However he’s being disingenuous in suggesting FB is some kind of defender of free speech and he is tone deaf n co paring himself to Frederick Douglass or Rev Martin Luther King. He’s also - at best - irresponsible in failing to fully acknowledge the hatred, divisiveness and clear enablement of so many bad actors, criminals and thise who mean to do no good to the US. THAT IS NOT PROTECTING FREE SPEECH IT IS BEING A CO-CONSPIRATOR TO CRIMES.
Do, save your pablum and ivory tower philosophizing for your employees struggling to come to terms with the criminal enterprise you are running.
3
As noted, traditional media companies as well as cable news channels fact check political advertising and will not print those they find to contain false allegations. Printing false accusations can subject the publisher to liability for libel. If Facebook seeks the free speech protection accorded to the media it should be prepared to accept the financial risks attached to that right, particularly if it is unwilling to remove content found to be false.
1
Facebook was correct when banning Alex Jones' comments and dis-information. They should follow that up with banning political ads that spread lies and dis-information as well.
2
The only real power that We The People have left in this country is to buy, or not buy the products made by those with whom we agree, or disagree.
If enough people disdain the abuse of Facebook and stop using it, it will end Facebook.
Ditto, Amazon.
Ditto, Monsanto.
Ditto, fossil fuels
Ditto,.....
2
Zuckerberg has redefined lies as "ideas that challenge us." The solution is more regulation of Facebook. A lot more.
3
How is misinformation free speech..specially targeting misinformation to a special vulnerable audience..facebook should have the same liability to fact check all advertising on its portals as newspapers or tv stations or any other medium
3
Facebook, the best Free Speech platform money can buy. Ask Putin if you don't believe me.
3
Right? Since when is very expensive advertising actually free speech? Oh, wait, corporations are people...
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”. . . . (Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain)
2
This article, by Cecilia Kang and Mike Isaac, was doing fine as an actual news piece until it claimed that Trump falsely claimed Biden committed corrupt acts in Ukraine. Biden publicly bragged that he threatened to withhold $1 billion, directly to the Ukraine leadership, unless the prosecutor investigating the company his son was on the board of was fired. The video of that is easily found on Youtube. This is worse than what Trump is accused of non-verbally insinuating during a phone call to Ukraine leadership. And while the Trump admin WAS withholding lethal military aid from the Ukraine, the Ukraine didn't learn that was on hold until a month after the Trump phone call, so it wasn't like it was being dangled like a carrot. You can't convict someone of insinuating a threat or offering a pay-for-play reward that isn't ever offered verbally or textually.
3
Why doesn't someone begin a new social media site that doesn't allow political speech.
1
Journalists were not permitted to ask questions.
Mr. Zuckerberg, you do more than allow shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. You lock the doors.
4
“Journalists were not permitted to ask Mr. Zuckerberg questions.” Does that not fly in the face of his claiming to be a free speech advocate?
7
I'm sitting here in my living room reading this and I'm trying my darnedest to think of a more despicable human being than Mark Zuckerberg.
Can't do it, and I know a LOT of people . . .
4
Anonymity.
Under this new and developing system, nobody can tell who is who, who is telling the truth , or who is just being sneaky.
Just as your mouth is permanently registered with your face, your words should be identified with your person.
This nonsense will continue until real identities are included with words.
The founder of Facebook is proud that it has become a sleazy tabloid for spreading political lies, as he rakes in money hand over fist.
5
As Ben Colins (@oneunderscore_) of @nbcnews notes yesterday, Facebook has a staggering issue with fake accounts and they conflate this issue with free speech, for to address it would hurt them. Zuckerberg’s schtick notwithstanding, he’s far less concerned with free speech than he is with profits.
Perhaps a poor analogy, but like classified ads were once a - not the - key revenue source for the print news media today’s bots and fake accounts are Facebook’s lifeblood. Kill the foodsource, kill the beast.
2
Better to foster democracy. Requiring that political statements be true fosters democracy and enables citizens to make better decisions. Misrepresentations hinder democracy and citizens forming sound views.
Further, requiring statements to be truthful is not censorship. It's having standards - standards that democracy needs to function.
80
@es True vs. false is not so easily known in advance. You suggest that you can determine this on whatever another says without due process. Good for you?
5
What is truth? This is not science. That is why you cant censor it in any non-biased way. All Trump supporters have a different view of truth than the rest. Who is to be believed? This is a very dangerous path and I am disappointed by Warren for even mentioning it.
3
@David
Due process? What could you possibly have in mind? Please elaborate.
Real journalism seeks to discover truth. Sadly, Trump relies on media that distort truth.
1
This article was the push I needed to finally permanently delete my Facebook. Thank you NYT.
162
@Erin I rarely miss it. Their use of my photos to develop their facial recognition software did it for me.
17
@Erin I don't have a facebook account. I have never been to facebook, nor shall I ever. It is an evil presence on the planet. Read Zucked! by Roger McNamee. He outlines all of the disastrous decisions and actions Facebook has taken.
Remember: NOTHING comes for free. If you think that you are getting something for free, YOU are the product being sold.
6
@Erin
Ditto.
3
I am a FB user but am firmly against the platform knowingly running political ads that blatantly lie. Will be watching the next few months closely, and may shut down my account if FB enshrines propaganda that results in GOP wins across the board. My trust in them has never been lower.
56
@JS "Will be watching the next few months closely, and may shut down my account if FB enshrines propaganda that results in GOP wins across the board."
This threat probably has Facebook quaking in its boots.
2
@JS Lies are the norm. As is the promise of free stuff for a vote, aka corruption as vote buying.
1
@JS
Why wait? "...that results in GOP wins..."
Already happened. Trump in 2016.
3
Warren is correct. Facebook will be the exclusive domain of intentional, well financed propaganda on a global scale; disinformation-for-profit machine.
80
@Ghost Dansing
Yep... sums it up nicely... because it's all about earning revenue from whatever is put on Facebook... either directly or indirectly.
Constitutionally, FaceBook as a corporation is free to limit what is said, how it is said, and by who on their web properties. If they are biased about it without just cause.. they can be sued for damages, so that tends to keep them from going too extreme. Yet we see that the mere suggestion that they show some professional discipline and restraint in their user community.. and Zuckerberg has a melt down about it. Reason: he needs unfettered freedom of information on Facebook because it supports his revenue model. ANY restrictions imposed means he loses ad revenue.
The real power though is in the hands of users collectively, if users will simply walk away from FaceBook. FaceBook earns a lot of revenue by selling your personal information to 3rd parties, without your consent. If you are not on FaceBook... Zuckerberg cannot make money by pilfering your personal information and browsing habits, interests, and preferences.
3
@Ghost Dansing
Agitprop! The entire platform will become that, Zuckerberg was "Autcratized." by Trump.
Facebook will experience a mass migration to an other platform. As they should.
Facebook is leaning Right for the moolah and a fear of Trump.
Allowing FAKE political Ads intended to stir the wrong emotions in folks.
Freud. Blame it on him for influencing the Nazis regarding the human psyche and how it can be manipulated. Goebbels was a 'genius' of Propaganda and mass hypnosis.
If only the GOP was not facing re-election, we may see justice for the Constitution, which has been stomped upon with joy for the stompers.
3
@Ghost Dansing If it's so bad, just don't go there. You don't have to be on Facebook anymore than you have to read the NY Times. You have agency. Use it rather than pretend others are evil because they don't have your tastes.
1
Zuckerberg’s claims about free speech would be true IF Facebook posts were not targeted. He can’t pretend his army of psychologists haven’t deliberately leveraged biases. Therefore it is not ‘free’ speech. It is propaganda.
177
@Erich Richter - Well said. As a content provider - which Facebook becomes when it disseminates does-called news and political advertisements - why isn’t it subject to the same regulations that TV and radio stations are?
21
@Erich Richter Yup. Zuckerberg is more interested in policing little user groups offering various things for sale (I.e., livestock for example) than policing great big liars who spread disinformation on a regular basis. Kind of disingenuous to restrict one but not the other. Oh, but wait, we’re talking about the same guy/company who bowed to Communist China’s demand to restrict speech on the Chinese FB. So there’s that...
1
@Erich Richter Why is propaganda no free speech? That you disagree with speech doesn't make it illegal except in places like China that seem to the new goal for USA hating Americans.
Facebook doesn't create much content; any they do will be their responsibility. Why not complain to the ISP or your browser or OS vendor for allowing you to see such horrors as facebook postings since they are also complicit.
Don't attack the messenger. It's old wisdom.
4
Zuckerberg and Sandberg are loyal to their greed. I don’t care what they say or write. Their actions/decision making reflect the truth.
250
@A Yes, they are "leaning in" laughing all the way to the bank.
14
@A Yup. I leaned out about two months ago. Life isn’t merely good, it’s better.
1
Facebook and Zuckerberg do not care about free speech. They care about making money - and will do it through any and all means possible.
490
@BMD Cha-Ching is the only sound Mark Zuckerbug recognizes. He doesn't care that he destroys American democracy in the process.
19
@BMD To be fair, that is the norm for most corporations today. (Not condoning it, just sayin'.)
5
@BMD That's rich from a group of Americans that demand free stuff from government, which takes money from others to provide substandard, ruinous services. But they are the greedy ones? Do you think the NY Times cares not about profits?
2
Break-up Facebook.
2
"... the Trump campaign released a 30-second video ad that falsely claimed Mr. Biden committed corrupt acts in Ukraine."
The ad I found on Youtube* includes a video clip supposedly showing Biden saying certain things. Is that clip authentic or not? The linked Times article doesn't say anything about the video clip in the ad.
Anyway, anyone who takes political ads seriously is naive or uninformed. Now that Elizabeth Warren has found that lying is liberating, maybe we will get more ads like her fake-lying ad. :-)
* Biden Corruption
Donald J Trump Youtube channel
Sep 27, 2019
1
Okay, we have heard that loud and clear--Facebook will not self-regulate for the good of our democracy. I do not know why we would expect Mark Zuckerberg to look out for our democracy, for our long-term, societal interest: he operates for the short-term, narrow interest of Facebook. Clearly, we need to use our government to regulate Facebook (and other tech companies) for our common good. Time to figure that out folks.
2
So if I call a Republican a fascist, the comment will not be removed, same if I say that they are just like Hitler or the anti-christ....Facebook is good with all of that. That is what politicians are posting. Fact Checking is too darn expensive and Zuck is another capitalist that only cares about cash. No wonder people are avoiding FB.
1
The definitions of fraud and libel need to be expanded if we are going to allow malicious people to create elaborate campaigns of lies. An individual at least has a mechanism for protecting themselves when harmed by falsehoods. Groups and society as a whole need similar tools to hold blatant propagandists accountable.
1
Zuckerberg is one of the most dangerous people on Earth. Words cannot express how I despise that man for all the destruction his libertarian fantasy has unleashed on the world. Zuckerberg says he'd "go to the matt" to keep Warren from being president. VOTE, Elizabeth Warren.
2
I do hope that he knows that his "being fair" is giving Trump a very one sided advantage. No one else will lie as often or vulgar as Trump.
1
Mr. Zuckerberg thinks lies are okay. Then give an interview to FOX? Did trump tell him to do what he is told to do or he will be crushed?
1
My New Years Resolution for 2020 is to shut off Facebook and get ride of my Google email addresses! Enough. If they can’t be responsible citizens then they don’t get my data.
If a see a Facebook post stating something false I can reply and everyone can see my reply and judge for themselves whether I am more factual than the original post. If I see something false on CNBC, CNN, NYTimes the only way I can set the record straight is the comment section (if there is one) and assume it pass the censors, it will not be taken as seriously as the journalists’.
Social media is like Wiki-news if there is such a thing. Citizen journalists can publish whatever they want and it is up to you to fact-check and judge what’s factual or not. Traditional media regularly publish fake, inaccurate or biased pieces and there is no mechanism for fact-checkers to bring the facts to the attention of readers unlike social media.
Some may argue traditional journalists can self-regulate so their “facts” are more factual than citizen journalists. Then I am going to ask if you know a self-regulating industry that isn’t rife with abuse.
3
@AmateurHistorian I agree with your position. As a college student in the early 70s, I attended a speech given by Walter Cronkite on the importance of "getting the truth" by reading/viewing multiple news sources. It's up to the individual to be the judge of what is true. Why would we want to turn over the responsibility of determining what is true to a group of FB employees?
Having said that, I also believe there should be consequences for BLATANT lies that should be pursued in our judicial system. The content provider AND distributor should be held accountable.
From the beginning, I always thought Facebook was the root of all evil and have never used it. Making money by selling lies in this political climate is a abhorrent.
Facebook MUST STOP accepting political advertisements NOW.
1
So many comments pointing to profits and the almighty dollar and Mark is placing greed over doing the right thing.
If he is to be believed, political ads are a negligible portion of revenue. So what is his motive in resisting vetting ads, or refusing ads and/or more closely monitoring ads posts?
I think it is about control. This is his company and nobody is going to tell him how to run it.
He's framing the controversy in lofty ideals of free speech. Bottom line, he is king and no one is going to dictate to him.
2
There is an app that will block out your friends' and friends of friends' baby pictures.
At some point the fad will be replaced by a newer technology.
The argument is that any lies will be countered by the truth so the lies will be neutered. But that assumes the people who consume the lies will also be aware of the counter argument, which we know is not always the case. The best example is the belief that vaccines are directly linked to autism. This nonsense has been debunked countless times but we know that people still chose to believe it's true.
It's pretty easy to see if the unlimited free speech argument is justified. Pick an obvious lie promoted through Facebook that has been roundly countered in the press and elsewhere and check to see what people believe - the truth or the lie. We already know that at least some people will think the lie is the truth, I suppose we would have to decide what percentage is acceptable. Would 10% be ok, but 15% too much?
2
I’m all for free speech. But just as the men who passed the bill of rights could not have anticipated assault rifles, they probably did not imagine the internet in the age of Google and Facebook monopolies. I think we’re forced to grapple with the effects of the freedoms we’re granted, and create laws that ensure the exercise of those rights doesn’t harm our more fundamental right to life itself. The literal interpretation of the first and second amendment, with no sideboards, means we descend into an increasingly divisive and stressful national culture. I’m so tired of feeling anxious every single day when I read the news online. I spend less time on Facebook than previously but every time I go there I leave feeling a little sick and tainted by the extreme and I unverified content.
3
I never had a Facebook account and never will. Like the character Gordon Gekko said in the film "Wall Street" - "Know what happens to sheep? They get slaughtered."
Nor should they.
People post a lot of terrible things on FB, but censorship is not the answer. If anything, allowing these people to post their hate, is allowing the rest of us to identify them. Censoring them will just push them further underground and harder to deal with.
5
If Americans want to make a difference regarding privacy protection, the excess of power in tech companies, and to safeguard the 2020 elections...
...come together and create a campaign to demand Facebook stop all political advertising until after the 2020 election.
If the citizens of Hong Kong can march, by the hundreds of thousands, for 19 consecutive weeks for their freedom...this is the least we can do to protect our freedom and democracy.
3
Facebook can be helpful in this gig economy, but I don't use it. When friends send me a Facebook link, I won't even click on it -- and I always tell the sender why. I cannot support the rumor mill, conspiracy theories, or Facebook's lack of moral conscience.
4
When China blocks content, we call it censorship. When Europe does it, we call it regulation.
In the U.S., the traditions and constitutional protections of free speech and free expression indeed allow false speech and, yes, even hate speech. The antidote is not censorship or regulation; it is more and better speech.
If we abandon those principles in the interest of “truth”, we embark on a dangerous road to totalitarianism.
Who will be the first Minister of Truth? Kamala Harris? Lindsay Graham? Anderson Cooper? Sean Hannity?
3
@John Hi John (nice name, by the way). If you are arguing there is no objective truth then how are you able to walk onto an airplane reasonably assured that it will take you to your destination and not fall apart in the sky. You are confident the flight will work because thousands of regulations and best practices by a countless number of different bodies exist to ensure a positive result.
When Trump posts a video on Facebook stating that Nancy Pelosi started the impeachment process before the whistleblower filed his complaint, that a lie. That's a lie which can easily be disproved by reviewing the record provided by thousands of unaffiliated websites and the memory of millions of people.
So why allow that easily disprovable lie to be posted on Facebook?
1
Zuckerberg sells free speech to the highest bidder.
6
There are laws on the books now, just tweak them, the solution I think is just to fine them for propaganda, false advertisements, lies, etc. Just use fines and have a panel of judges or whatever to assess and 'levy' the fines.
I admire Senator Warren's desire for honesty in political discourse. One way to insure that free political speech is honest political speech is for politicians not to create false or misleading narratives like claiming that they are Indians or that they were fired from a teaching job because they were pregnant.
3
What do you expect, the kid left Harvard after a year.
He is a coder, not a philosopher.
Of course Facebook will not regulate political speech. He would have to start another company in order to fact check and vet every post. Let us just say it would cut into the bottom line. He would rather spend money on litigation than doing the right thing.
He's obviously learned how to turn and twist, turn and twist, just like the individual in the White House.
For shame.
5
The right of free speech, like any right, comes with responsibilities. Freedoms without responsibilities is anarchy. If Zuckerberg wants make billions of dollars to give a platform for billions of people to shout out their views to the world, he must accept the responsibility of making sure what is shouted does not endanger us. We do not have the freedom to shout fire in crowded theaters.
5
I agree with Zuckerberg that speech should be free, even in the online space. However, it is not treated equally on Facebook. The algorithms control what gets seen by its users and those mechanisms tend to favor extreme speech. It’s not a level playing field. The polarization of our country and our two political parties rushing to extremes is the result.
2
He just doesn't get it. Can't stop thinking about his vision of who he is long enough to really understand what he is doing to society.
3
Like it or not, Facebook and other social media platforms are the digital equivalent to the village green or other public spaces. It should be treated and regulated as a utility, just like the phone company. Can you imagine some anonymous corporate executive listening in on your phone conversation, not liking what he or she is hearing and cut your service? Well, that is exactly what short-sighted people are doing with social media platforms. There are rules and laws for crossing the line with specific types of speech that already exists and that have been enforced. The defamation lawsuits by the Sandy Hook families against Alex Jones and some of his crazy followers is a good example. Yell fire in a crowed movie theater and expect consequence. Defame someone and expect a lawsuit. We should be very caution about giving these huge corporations regulatory power over speech, and especially political speech regardless of how odious because one day you may find that your speech is arbitrarily deemed conspiratorial, hateful or inflammatory. Don't allow politicians who are very susceptible to the money interests of corporations, and corporations who are all to willing to carry out the wishes of powerful politicians, to form this potentially very dangerous relationship that can infringe on peoples first amendment rights.
5
It's not the free speech that is at issue; it's the false speech intended to mislead people to make very wrong decisions in the voting booth.
Zuckerberg is hiding behind the broad brush of "free". Like yelling fire in a movie theater, fake and false speech intended to mislead is as dangerous.
What's he afraid of?
3
The problem with Facebook is the combination of disinformation with targeting. Yesterday, a friend was showing me his Facebook news feed. It was 100% right wing disinformation. From his point of view, that was the only news out there. He literally did not realize he was in an echo chamber, an echo chamber constructed by Mark Zuckerberg.
5
@Bert No fan of how FB is not 'facing' the fact that false content could mislead the world down a path of dystopian proportions, but your friend must be reading and liking, clicking on the anger icon, or reading the articles when these right-wing posts thereby attracting more of them.
I click on, read, and react to left-wing posts and virtually only ever see left-wing, liberal posts by liberals and Democrats. That's how the algorithms work. The type of posts you pay attention to are the posts that will show up.
There is also the option, with every post, to opt-out of that post. After a while, FB recognizes a pattern. I'm not interested in any right-wing posts, whether it is from Fox or Breitbart, or an ad for a Republican candidate - and so by now, I NEVER see any of this content on my FB page.
@Bert
If your friend is getting a news feed like this, do you think for a moment that he would ever vote for a candidate that isn't right wing? Why is he not persuaded by what on on CNN, MSNBC or the big three networks? Why is he not persuaded by what is published in the New York Times, Washington Post and virtually every other print newspaper?
1
He's asking for the internet to be regulated the same as broadcast airwaves (which is an ever decreasing amount). Really, it's as or more important to public discourse so why shouldn't it be regulated that much? Silicon valley companies cheat on not taking blame for ads they support same as they cheat on profiting from piracy or non-payment of royalties movies and music that they distribute.
2
I despise Facebook and the rest of the tech industry that spy on us intensely. I don't like Zuckerberg.
But Zuckerberg is correct on this issue. He is defending freedom of speech. That is seldom popular among those who do not welcome the content of the speech defended. The far right has always been an enemy of freedom of speech and of many of the freedoms contained in the Constitution's Bill of Rights (the true source of whatever freedom we have). Now, the American left has come to also embrace censorship. Freedom of speech is now under even greater threat.
The idea of censoring politicians' speech for untruth is also ridiculous as well as a threat to freedom. Politicians of all parties rarely ever speak truthfully. If they were on permitted to speak truthfully, there would be almost no speech from them (that might be a redeeming benefit but still not worth sacrificing freedom of speech).
6
Zuckerberg thinks Facebook facilitates free and open speech.
It is an ad platform.
It facilitates speech to those who pay.
And those who pay more, have the greatest voice.
That is why his ideal of what he wants it to be: giving power to the people to express themselves...
Is just not working.
Get rid of the ad dollars and make it a non profit like Wikipedia and maybe it has a chance of meeting that ideal.
But for now it is just a for profit publisher of content that should be regulated just like any other broadcaster. It is no different.
Content -> Ads -> Dollars.
Speech to whoever pays more.
3
@Jane
It is illegal for broadcasters to censor the content of political candidates' ads if the ads contain the image of the politician.
1
Facebook wants all the money all the glory. But the moment someone holds it accountable for it's terrible (in)action it moves the goalposts.
Mark Zuckerberg might be a tech visionary, he is definitely rich. But to assume that all that makes him eligible to impose his world view on human society is insanity.
1
I'm sorry, but Zuckerberg is right. The problem is that there are no "unbiased" fact check organizations that he could possibly rely on. I've spent quite a bit of time studying fact check pronouncements on politically charged issues, and they often resort to manipulations such as reframing the question in order to get a result which confirms their biases.
This is why censorship never works. As our founding fathers understood, truth will always be defined by those in power.
If we force Facebook to censor, the progressive and left-wing viewpoints will eventually be suppressed.
"The resistance" seems to think that they can control censorship to conform to their own ideas of truth.
What could possibly go wrong?
6
Ask a Tutsi or Bosnian about media propaganda gone terribly wrong.
2
It is one thing not to censor political speech in posts. It is another thing to accept payment for ads that contain egregious falsehoods designed to pervert people's perceptions of what is true. So Facebook, while saying they are standing up for free speech, is actually doing what China does, i.e. promoting propaganda. After Citizens United, political office became "for sale." At Facebook "the truth" is up for sale, to the highest bidder.
1
There is a difference between what China does - blocking facts, and what his friend in Mar-A-Lago North does - which is clear lies. And before someone accuses me of being a Democratic apologist or lackey. I think that the fact checking has to be applied to _all_ political ads.
Simple: Choose a reputable fact checking site. Choose a level that is accepted, like 'Mostly True' from Snopes. And disallow *any* that fall below that level.
Defending Free Speech is a lofty goal that I support. Facebook needs to do it right by:
• Clearly identifying who is speaking, so we can understand possible motives behind their words;
• A ‘what you see next algorithm’ that doesn’t encourage going to extremes.
Until Facebook solves these flaws in it’s system, it shouldn’t promote itself as a defender of free speech.
1
Zukerberg is rationalizing a position so that he can make more money. He’s no equal rights champion. He’s kind of like Trump, a con man. Facebook needs to be regulated because, as we now see, the company isn’t going to regulate itself.
2
Facebook is now purely junk, akin to the National Enquirer. I agree w/ others who recommended dumping it if serious about concerns with it. Don’t you already have enough money, Zuckerberg? Your legacy will be one of propagating lies and hate-but anything for a buck, right? Koch approved=red flag. GOP operatives at the helm=red flag
2
I suggest people enjoy their freedom of expression and boycott Facebook
6
facebook does not care what political party you belong to if your
buying AD's or the content as long you pay for it.
1
The professional Russian trolls and other foreign enemies who are using Facebook to undermine our elections and destabilize our democracy are definitely not "expressing themselves." They are waging modern warfare on Americans. We need to fight back.
2
I wish the whole world would do an about-“face” and close the “book” on this bad chapter. Like so many things humanity creates the power of evil over takes to its power for good.
Go down to the coffee shop in gossip with your friends there if you want to know what’s happening
3
I quit Facebook in 2016. Haven't missed it.
4
I’m off FB!
2
Be a conscientious objector.
Quit Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
3
This Chia-head does not and cannot provide free speech on FB.
People need to watch 'The Great Hack' on Netflix.
1
Facebook-you are part of the reason society is in jeopardy.
Delete Facebook!
3
They are just lazy.
If Wikipedia can curate all that info, Facebook can too.
The day of the rising of a responsible, morally and ethically curated version of Facebook, surely will not be far away,
Unfortunately, Zuckerburg's misguided contortion on free speech is just a disguise to cover up the fact that he's really just out to make a quick buck. It's as simple as that.
Another simple fact - he is as greedy and without morals as the ones trying to spread disinformation, propaganda, and hate speech which - wait for it - are his biggest customers.
3
Thank you Mr. Zuckerberg,
We have a deal.
I don't want you screening my mail, and you don't want to.
1
Zuckerberg is a con man who like all CEOs only cares about his bottom line - so I'm actually greatful he isn't the one calling out when politicians make lies and stopping them from doing so. The New York Times does not declare statements by Trump or any other public figure to be lies in its news pages under almost all circumstances because of a desire to be neutral and because we can't see inside his head, even when he is to you and I obviously lying. If the Times doesn't trust itself to declare political statements lies, why should we trust Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbitrator of truth?
Mark Zuckerberg receives buckets of money for a social medial platform that earns it keep by allowing tactics used by communist party propaganda machines (Russia, China and North Korea) to spread hate, lies and fear while simultaneously keeping tabs on citizens. Bottome line... he has created a public, lucrative and sinister dark web - and appears to be quite proud of it.
3
Does he own the hospital in San Francisco? For a billionaire his hospital surely pulls every nickle and dime out of your pocket. Come to think of it, he is doing the same thing with your info captured through Facebook.
And now he is weaseling out of owning up to any harm that resulted from information passed on by Facebook.
When your life (Zuckerberg) is based on stealing others ideas (Winklevoss brothers) then you don't know what to do with it. The brothers went on to correctly predict rise of bitcoin and became billionaires. If this rings bell, you are correct, Steve Jobs was a billionaire with Apple, booted out and became billionaire again with Pixar. Innovator innovates till the day they die, stealers ... well behave like Mr Zuckerberg.
The Republicans say everything the Democrats say is a lie. The Democrats say the same about the Republicans. Do you want Mark Zuckerberg to decide who is telling the truth? Or would you like to decide for yourself?
As for ads, they buy ads all over the TV, why not Facebook? It's up to YOU to listen or not. Maybe it's time people learn to think for themselves rather than trying to force the media into doing it for them!
6
All this brouhaha over FaceBook. Not a not a word about Twitter. It is just as bad on Twitter.
Unfortunately it's all about that almighty dollar, when it comes to peoplelike Zuckerberg. He could sadly care less about the lies spread on Social Media like Facebook.
1
Zuckerberg is such a a hypocrite!
It's the same argument those opposed to gun control make:
Whatever the damage, Facebook honors "the equal right" of any deranged group or individual to "express" with words or AR-15s their madness.
We are not unaware of his base and disgusting, profit logic.
1
Irresponsibility at its finest. Adolescence never ends does it Mark?
The best way tyo stop Facebook spreading nonsense is to stop using it. I've not logged onto my account for over 18 months and I cannot see any good reason for ever logging on again.
2
I’m waiting for any other platform to appear so that I can go to it with my contacts. The only reason I still check my Facebook account every month or so is because this is the only way I can keep in touch with some people. But even so, I’m considering eliminating my account soon.
To call disinformation and lies free speech is an excuse to accept money from groups interested in destroying democracy, sovereign elections and spreading violence.
I used to believe the Zuckerberg's were interested in making the world a better place. Now I think they are sheep in wolves clothing.
They are smart enough to know the difference between orchestrated disinformation campaigns and free speech, but they find cheap excuses to to support the former for profits.
If Facebook and Twitter are nothing but vehicles to spread hate, lies and violence, they tear at the fabric of democracy and peace around the globe.
They cannot hide behind free speech.
Just like any polluter of the air or oceans should pay for the removal of its toxic and dangerous foulness, so should Facebook and Twitter be fined for spreading objectively false information and hate.
Massive lawsuits against the companies for violence committed and transmitted through their companies would be a start.
Weapons like fake social media news and the use of bots to amplify the messages in order to subvert sovereign elections should be a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment for board members and officers.
This is no joke. Zuckerberg and Dorsey seems to think it is.
They can be disabused of this notion quickly when they face severe repercussions for assisting domestic hate groups and foreign enemies.
They could develop algorithms tomorrow to clean up their respective ventures if they cared a whit.
3
Mark Zuckerberg is putting his personal profit ahead of the survival of our democracy and our right to have fair elections.
Shame.
I would support dismantling FACEBOOK.
No one is in control of the mess FACEBOOK has become.
2
Facebook "operating long into the future..." Certainly hope not, it's done enough damage already.
1
Too often I have tapped comments to find author after author with only this one post EVER. Like a political factory somewhere creating fake IDs and deluging the network with outright lies. That is not free speech and should be monitored.
Mr Zuckerberg can not be believed.
Anyone using his cyber-child Facebook pays with their privacy taken from them by Mr Zuckerberg for a lifetime.
His kind of freedom cost dearly.
His democracy is cloaked anarchy, and desperately needs to be reigned in.
1
Giving personal data to a tech giants like Facebook, Google and Amazon for free is an invasion of privacy. Facebook customers should remove themselves from this site since Facebook to hurting our democracy. All Facebook cares about is making money and losing customer trust will doom this company. This is what happens when a monopolistic company asserts market power. Zuckerberg controls the Facebook voting stock and has abused this trust to hurt America! American shareholder should drop this stock before consumer realize the true nature of Facebook.
"He said that Facebook had been founded to give people a voice and bring them together..." Hogwash. Facebook was founded because Mark needed a date – and a pretty one at that. To suggest that he's interested in anything but earning more money is a truly ridiculous premise. While it is arguably a good idea to have voices from both sides of the spectrum reflected, to somehow suggest that not policing that same forum for dangerous hate speech because it is contrary to free speech is simplistic and opportunistic. He will never cut off any flow of data, data which is used to line his pockets. The fact is that without FB I lose touch with too many people thus keeping me on the platform, a fact with which FB is all too aware.
Zuckerberg's argument is that everyone should be able to say and advertise whatever he wishes, including demonstrable, counterfactual lies--the kind we have all become accustomed to as the new normal during the Trump period. He calls that "free speech."
Zuckerberg's version of free speech does not take place on a level playing field, where one opinion or one big lie can be easily countered. Big money gives some a large megaphone overwhelming competing views and making a myth of "the market place of ideas." Zuckerberg's argument is a variation on the fatuous Mitch McConnell theme that "money is speech," now destructively enshrined in Citizens United. No wonder Koch interests praise Zuckerberg. And big lie political advertising on Facebook makes big money for Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg's portrayal of Facebook and social media as a "Fifth Estate" is both self-serving and disingenuous. Instead, they have become a Fifth Column distorting and undermining the free and fair exchange of opinion and analysis upon which any open society rests.
The problem is not whether FB allows free speech or not. The problem is that Facebook is too big. Market power causes markets to fail to provide socially optimal outcomes. Econ 101. FB has way too much market power.
You can really believe this guy when he is being transparently self-interested. But when he claims he is out to do good; when he promises to do better; just watch out. Just ask the Rohingya. Senator Warren's characterization is a bull's eye. And may I recommend completely abandoning Facebook as I have done?
1
Simple solution: anyone who cares about the degradation of our democracy and the equating of free speech with pay-per-lie bought speech should avoid Facebook like the plague that it is. Those who use it need to realize that there is absolutely nothing it provides that can't be obtained at far less cost to our society.
I am Facebook-free and somehow manage to survive, WITH friends and family!
Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is often cited when discussing the limitations of free speech. It may be worth remembering that this Supreme Court rule stems from an event in 1913, during the copper mine strikes in Northern Michigan, where thugs from the mining companies, seeing children of miners enjoying a Christmas party at the Italian Hall in Calumet, falsely yelled “Fire!” into the crowded event. The resulting stampede caused a deadly pile-up at the bottom of a narrow stairwell entrance that killed 73, mostly children. The strikes soon ended, as the miners, mourning the loss of their children, were broken and demoralized.
In this analogy, Zuckerberg may be more like the copper bosses who profited from the mayhem. He directly and handsomely profits from his cries of “Freedom of Speech!” The very fact that personal information is a more valuable commodity than oil right now should be terrifying.
Warren and other critics are correct that his platforms need regulation. Regulations are mostly written in blood.
4
Seems perfectly reasonable. But to be fair, Facebook should go dark for a month before any general election. Either that or develop a system to weed out ads and postings that are dishonest.
Getting a 30 day break from Facebook every two years would probably be a really healthy thing for all of us.
This is when American business people need to stand up against Facebook and put their advertising dollars in the many other platforms that don't support bad stuff. Government might act, but if may be too little, too late. Stakeholders before profits, that will where we need to go. Zuck is obviously not going change his bias until the ad dollars no longer support his bias.
Zuckerberg's presumption is that the general public is as shrewd and smart as he is. The facts prove otherwise. His "free speech" banner is actually a cover for falsehoods, deceptions, and misinformation. Along with Trump and his minions, Zuckerberg is probably the second most influential person in the nation leading to the nation's deterioration into a thrid-world country.
5
I agree with Mark Zuckerberg on this issue. If Facebook is going to have ads at all--which they are, because I guess that's how they make their money--then political ads from both the left and the right should be permissible. It is up to individual Facebook users whether or not they choose to read the ads and whether or not they choose to believe them. Personally, I do not use Facebook as one of my news sources. Most of the political ads I see on there from both the left and the right are so over the top that they make me laugh.
2
Why are there no alternatives to FB? I would switch in a NY minute.
3
@s if people quit there will be a demand for innovation. Most folks are simply complacent about today’s surveillance society.
1
Monopoly is why there are no alternatives.
I don't have a Facebook account mostly because I find it bizarre, but there's more to the internet than Facebook. Even if I had a Facebook account, it's certainly not the place I would go for reliable information.
When Facebook spreads false information and you try to debunk it, you can never reach back to the hundreds or thousands who have shared the false information. Most people don’t want to share the fact that they were mistaken (or duped).
1
Facebook is not the only "platform" on the internet. I'm appalled that what we are advocating is that for Facebook and every other platform that they hire people who will examine what is posted and determine if it is the truth or not.
I'm as concerned as anyone about the lies - but is this the right answer?
"Lies" by the way have a wide spectrum that includes innuendo. We're expecting some hired person to decide for the rest of us?
3
Mr. Zuckerberg is not running the government or an agency of government. Therefore he is not constrained by the 1st Amendment. He runs a private media enterprise, something like a newspaper, legally, and can control the product it produces in whatever way he wants. Apparently he doesn't want. Too bad for us. It leaves once choice -- don't have a Facebook account.
2
I got out of Face Book in 2017 and will never, ever open it again. I read newspapers and listen to bbc and I only use WhatsApp for contacting family and friends. I have been living so much better for it.
1
Facebook owns whatsapp, so you mighf want to find an alternative.
Facebook is just one generation short of irrelevance.
If it continues to not police its product and bad actors it will
hasten its own demise.
4
I am selling my Facebook stock because of this policy. Over the summer left Facebook as a user. I hope more do.
4
When you steal an idea you wont know what to do with it, this is Zuckerberg in short. In your eyes he is from out of the world but for people who try to solve problem, innovate day-in day-out something smells rotten. I have spent decades innovating and learnt early on that if you have it you will continue to deliver. Winklevoss brothers got duped by this fellow .... but look at the resilience the brothers, they had the foresight, characteristics of innovator, they accurately predicted bitcoin rise. Zuckerberg survival is to take over other company in hopes of staying on top so far he has but has no clue what he has in hand. It will likely be broken in pieces.
4
All I can say is I'm glad much of the the legitimate media (as opposed to social media) use editorial oversight over their content. This paper, NPR, BBC, the Washington Post, The Guardian and many other organizations exercise this most important aspect of a free and unfettered press--the publishing and broadcasting of the truth to the best of their ability. Opinions are moderated for civility. Facts and sources are checked. Formats are designed for readers and listeners to access actual information. I hope Americans will not lose sight of these distinctions because they are what free speech and democracy are made of.
5
Mr. Zuckerberg’s position is the only practical and correct position. It allows untruthful content to be challenged and shown to be untruthful. This, in turn, will mark as untrustworthy those who post untruthful content and their future postings will be considered in that untrustworthy light. Trying to fact-check everything posted is not practical. Let the marketplace impose truth and transparency on untruthful postings.
The fact that traditional media companies decline to air political ads with false content provides a false sense of security to the viewing public. These media companies are the same companies that spin facts to support their agenda in practically every story they publish. On its face, it sounds good that these media companies decline to air political ads with false content, but based on their bias, this “false content” criteria sounds like an excuse for them to refuse to air any advertisement they so choose at their sole discretion.
2
@one Nation under Law Yes, it "allows untruthful content to be challenged and shown to be untruthful." But allowing it to happen and having it actually happen are two different things.
When it does not happen, people die. It happened recently in India.
What your statement (and Zuckerberg's speech) amount to is a rejection of responsibility for what appears on FB's platform. When he enables lies, there are always consequences, and he is partly responsible for them whether or not he accepts that responsibility.
Many claim that Facebook is at the image of its creator, Mark Zuckerberg; I disagree. The platform is definitively his creation but it has evolved into an image of our society, with all its beauty and all its ugly.
There are beautiful things happening on Facebook and I personally use to exchange with my friends and to read about opinions and achievements that are close to my heart.
But many people also use it to spread hate and fear and to divide others.
Facebook is a mirror, but we cannot hold Mark accountable for holding us that mirror.
Facebook is taking it responsibility, the company is employing thousands of people to moderate content and cut off the rough and ugly edges according to quite strict rules and without affecting too much free speech.
But Free Speech is not an exact science and there will always be debate, that’s why Facebook is creating an oversight board of 40 independent specialists that will help the company to stay honest!
Facebook is a wonderful invention, it has changed the face of the world. And it is up to all of us, not just to Mark, to use it for what it is designed!
Facebook facilitated ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. How could Zuckerberg defend not intervening in the "free speech" that the politicians in Myanmar were utilizing to incite fear, anger, and hatred with the direct intent to kill? Why is Zuckerberg averse to fact-checking given that Facebook is essentially a media company under a "social" cloak? Why is it that when he was informed of how his platform was being weaponized in Myanmar that nothing was implemented to thwart this? I find it unconscionable that he would invoke the Civil Rights Movement in the same breath as his corporation. Facebook's track record of causing social disruption rather than social progress is evident.
8
Facebook facilitated ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. How could Zuckerberg defend not intervening in the "free speech" that the politicians in Myanmar were utilizing to foment fear, anger, and hatred with the direct intent to kill? Why is Zuckerberg averse to fact-checking when his company was informed in advance of the way that Facebook was being used to encourage killings and why was there no attempt to moderate the platform? I find it unconscionable that he would invoke the Civil Rights Movement in the same breath as his corporation given its track record in causing global social disruption. Facebook facilitated ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. How could Zuckerberg defend not intervening in the "free speech" that the politicians in Myanmar were utilizing to incite fear, anger, and hatred with the direct intent to kill? Why is Zuckerberg averse to fact-checking given that Facebook is essentially a media company under a "social" cloak? Why is it that when he was informed of how his platform was being weaponized in Myanmar that nothing was implemented to thwart this? I find it unconscionable that he would invoke the Civil Rights Movement in the same breath as his corporation. Facebook's track record of causing social disruption rather than social progress is evident.
1
I listened to a podcast yesterday where ‘supreme leader of the Facebook” came up and they made a point I had struggled to articulate: Mark has taken his success at Facebook and translated that into (pseudo) expertise in areas he is not qualified to speak and for which he seemly refuses to take guidance-public policy, healthcare etc.
So he promotes ‘free speech’ without understanding the role his platform must play in protecting truthfulness- a core tenant of free speech.
He wants the advertising revenue of a media platform but not the burden of professionalism that comes with it. Perhaps if enough people said enough, we will begin to see revenues streaming back to sensible people and we wouldn’t have to listen to “the supreme leader of the Facebook” deliver his 2-cents vision for the world.
5
When you see lots of groups focus on against China, and facebook still thinks it's free speech, they twisted the definition of free speech. That's why China refuse facebook to enter.
1
Facebook is not a champion of free speech and democracy, at the contrary. Facebook is the perfect example to show what happens when you leave the social media un-moderated to a company which only goal it is to make money. Facebook is cause/part of the problems that people live in extreme bubbles.
6
This is what happens when the CEO has supervoting shares and is untouchable, even by his own board. Zuckerberg doesn't get it. He is the captain of the Titanic who is "full steam ahead" even when there are icebergs out there in the sea. Unfortunately for Facebook, the outcome is likely to be the same. It is one thing to plead ignorance around falsehoods being spread on your platform, but it an altogether different situation when you are unwilling to do something about it. Facebook is going to get its comeuppance.
5
Free speech implies truthfulness, otherwise it's Ok to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Children are watching, listening and learning - or more accurately, unlearning one of the most important concepts we were taught as children: Honesty is the Best Policy.
3
Zuckerberg's nose grows everytime he is called to defend Facebook. He isn't concerned with free speech or information delivery, and he knows full well that the more divisive and inflammatory a political ad is, the more views it will receive and the more ad revenue will fall into his coffers (as well as the coffers of his investors).
No, Facebook wasn't founded to give people a voice--it was founded as a localized dating/meetup/comparing of female classmates' bodies tool, but this occurred around the time when there was a rapidly increasing online presence, and sites like Myspace, Yahoo Groups and various forums demonstrated the willingness of people to share personal information in their desire to connect with others, both strangers and friends.
Zuckerberg and other techies quickly saw a future in both selling ads and in monetizing personal data, and they will say anything to prevent any regulations that might staunch the flow of the almighty dollar.
Do you remember the time when no reputable news source would have ads or at least poor quality ads displayed side by side with actual news content?
Do you remember a time when most reputable sites promised in plain writing to respect your privacy--that they would never share or sell your data and that your data would be deleted immediately or within a short period of time should you end a subscription?
Do you remember a time when you actually believed that?
No longer.
6
A textbook example of evasion. If Facebook merely allowed lies and hate speech to be posted, that'd be one thing*. But it does much more than that. Its algorithms, designed to reward "engagement", and as corollary, controversy, actively promote lies. And no, there is no "free speech" argument that says soundbites and memes of lies and hate have the right to be promoted over more thoughtful, complex, speech.
*Of course the claim that Facebook doesn't censor is itself a blatant lie. It censors all kinds of things, including massive amounts of political speech.
3
In accepting political advertising of false content, Facebook is making itself into a 'satirical' news source similar to The Onion. Real, fictional, or in between, the stories are not invariably trustworthy, not vetted news but entertainment. Unfortunately, some Facebook readers are taking the platform's content way too seriously. My suggestion is that Mark Zuckerberg goes a step further. By accepting any paid political advertising, he is ethically obligated to announce that the ads on FB are only for amusement. Readers need to seek out bonafide news sources for real information.
2
have we all forgotten that zuckerberg started this whole thing because he wanted to rate 'hot girls' from his dorm room? We expect this guy to have morals now?
10
He spent millions to bury that truth.
I do not want to quit Facebook. I want Facebook to pay me when they make money on me using their account. Sort of like a licensing fee whereby I allow them to collect money from my content and my identity but most importantly they give me a royalty on my content or my identity. Imagine if billions of people demanded a share of the revenue for the content that Zuckerberg and his investors are making from my content. Whoever can figure out how to create a licensing code that matched our proprietary identity that could only be commodified under a revenue sharing agreement will be the next Zuckerberg, Dorsey et. al. p.s. I own the rights to this idea (tm), looking for venture funding.....
2
Mark Zuckerberg is the embodiment of greed, narcissism and evil. He could be a Trump. He will do everything he can to tilt the election towards the leader he loves in 2020. He is dangerous.
9
It is really simple- Congress-make FB (and tweeter) fall under the media regulations. Free speech-yes, slander and lies- no!
5
Zuckerberg operates a modern telephone company. What people do with it is speak over it (in more than one way of speaking). That is not something his company does. That company should have no right to obtain,collect, or to make collateral use of any of the speech that is transmitted over his telephone company --- that includes information in any form about speech or those who engage in it over his telephone company's facilities. None. That means that none of the consents to such use that his telephone company collects should be viewed or treated as legally binding or valid. If it takes a new federal law --and it seems to -- to make that simple fact plain, pass that law. Then go on your way to regulate whatever other wrinkles he puts into his telephone company so that he is prevented from giving one user an advantage of any kind over another user, including gaining and keeping access to the telephone company or using it in any way. That, too, ought to be made illegal by federal law. There. Fixed.
1
I am a free speech absolutist. In the early days of the Internet, when everything was community, there was more of a wild west quality to it. Flame wars could go anywhere. Yet there was push back and all kinds of self policing happened.
So I admire Zuckerberg's stance. At the same time, I think this'll be bad for Facebook. What will happen is that it will end up a cesspool of attacks vs. counterattacks so it becomes very slimy and people will tire of it. A person who comes up with a "cleaner social network" that's also easy and convenient to use (and moves everything from FB to the new account) will win.
I think a lot of Facebook's appeal is its ease of use. I've used Google+ and other things and I have my own preferences for disseminating info (http://ram.org) but there are plenty of opportunities for other players in the game to dethrone Facebook and do something different - provided there is a market for it.
For now, it seems the US likes the tribal fighting.
It’s not a ‘social network’, it’s an unethical surveillance system that profits billions from private data and destroys democracy.
Jaron Lanier has the right idea how to correct the system.
7
He went to Harvard?
He acts more like Trump, whom he helped elect.
1
@Paul Shindler well, he dropped out after using some other students (those twins he ripped off). And I am betting he got into Harvard cause of family connects, altho, let's face it, he was some kind of idiot savant with FB, he has a reptilian quality.
3
I think Zuck's got some green clouding that vision.
The coordinated spread of lies and disinformation in an attempt to maintain power and control is a threat to freedom of speech - Especially when the liar spreading the disinformation wants to jail (kill ?) those who report inconvenient facts and information about said liar.
4
Facebook has no ethics and operates only on one principle -- how to run more ads and make money, truth be dammed. It is notable that the traditional media that is struggling and can use the money refused to run the same ads from Trump that Facebook happily did.
8
As a Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the freedom of speech does not give the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's time for Zuck to own up to his responsibilities.
7
Why would anybody expect a corporate C.E.O. to be interested in anything other than profit? If you think Facebook is different from Wells Fargo, ExxonMobil, Smith & Wesson, or Boeing, you are simply kidding yourself.
Or, maybe you find it easier to not buy a gun than to not sell yourself to Facebook.
For the relevant record, the First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."
Note that it says nothing about free speech and private entities. It merely prohibits Congress from acting to limit it.
1
if you're compelled to comment against FB, but use Facebook, then you're part of the problem.
7
How's this Mark? My organization won't be buying any more ads on Facebook. Your goal is solely to avoid any government oversight of your social network. At least be honest about it.
3
Facebook cares primarily about their bottom line. They don’t seem to care that the Republican and Conservative political agenda is to lie, and spread misinformation that helps them win elections yet undermines our Democracy. They care about profits only. I have months ago closed my Facebook account and anyone who is sickened by the proliferation of outright political lies and falsehoods should do the same.
4
I agree with Mark Zuckerberg. There is probably nothing more fundamental to our American way of life than the First Amendment. I'm completely disgusted with the incredibly controlling, anti-free speech crowd who paradoxically consider themselves the bastion of progressive thinking.
There is nothing liberal about liberals anymore. The whole progressive movement in this country has turned fascist.
We love to see the mighty cut down. And the media does understand that. While you are so worried about people consuming disinformation be mindful of what you are yourself consuming, eh?
4
Who censors the censor?
2
Great to see Zuckerberg support free speech and expression. People need to stop thinking that lies and falsehoods are some product of the internet age. The issues that plague Facebook have plagued all forms of communication since people first started writing and speaking to each other.
I'd rather have a Facebook filled with these so-called lies and falsehoods than a restrictive environment where fewer people get to speak (which benefits news organizations like the NYTimes, infallible as it may seem to many of its readers).
Has the effectiveness of these things even been studied? Do these memes really change people affiliation from one party to another? Would it be more effective to call "lies and falsehoods" "entertaining speech" or "feel-good" speech for those already in the camp the statement/video/image supports?
3
"Free speech" is just a red herring for being irresponsible and not accepting the negative consequences of negative words. Facebook is in the communications business but acts like it's just an innocent bystander. It's like a car company saying that it just puts together a piece of machinery but isn't responsible for brake failures, ignition switch failures or exploding gas tanks. "Free speech" is just an excuse to keep pulling in money but not caring if it leads to an opioid epidemic. Facebook's version of "free speech" is just like the tobacco companies claiming cigarette smoking does not cause lung cancer. Mr Zuckerberg is not a champion of free speech. He is a tobacco executive of yester year spinning a similar line so he can make more money and not take any responsibility.
6
My issue with Facebook is more that it tries to curate what you read in your feed. Facebook is responsible for creating an echo chamber where users are almost exclusively exposed to content they are more pre-disposed to consume. They only see content validating what they already believe in, and are not challenged to consider alternative viewpoints. Sure, the content is “relevant” to them since they would like to see it.
But is this what Facebook is thinking of when Zuckerberg says that people can decide for themselves? What kind of content are you showing people to allow them to come to their conclusions?
6
He advocates shouting fire in a crowded theater regardless of whether there’s a fire or not, on his platform is free speech
2
Time to shut it down. It's out of control.
6
@Murphy Excuse me. You think it’s time for a private company to be shut down?? By whom?
1
Facebook when it was run out of a college dorm room didn’t have any particular responsibilities to govern content. But having grown the website into a multinational operation based on advertising the Zuck has acquired some responsibilities he has yet to appreciate.
The Zuck has to moderate political speech because as we saw in 2016, his platform carried Russian propaganda that corrupted our election. I’m so sorry Mark but with great power comes great responsibility. You have a responsibility to the country that enabled your financial rise to support political fairness.
Anything less on your part is self destructive behavior as you savage the hand that feeds you.
4
It's not so much about what's said on FB as much as it is about the psychographics produced by the data-collection side of things that target specific lies and myths to certain profiles and cohorts within a bubble of disinformation and SELLS THAT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.
FB can deliver a toxic, destructive and obscene (and genocidal) lie in this way, and sell that capability to bad actors and propaganda backed groups, right into the heart of the those that are most vulnerable to believing those lies and manipulated by them in way that is evil. It is those people, believing those lies and myths who will give up THEIR freedoms and their ability to think and speak their minds to the cause of tyrants and strongmen and sociopaths and racists.
Let FB show and carry whatever messages it wants. But let those messages be delivered equally to the whole platform not to carefully targeted cohorts who have lost touch with reality.
It's data collection side must be spun out into another company or it needs to be ended and shut down. Along with the data collection activities of Twitter, Google, Apple, MS etc..
4
First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."
What the Constitution says about free speech has essentially nothing to do with businesses. It merely prohibits Congress from acting to limit it.
In any case, why would anybody expect a corporate C.E.O. to be interested in anything other than profit? If you think Facebook is different from Wells Fargo, ExxonMobil, Smith & Wesson, or Boeing, you are simply kidding yourself.
Or, maybe you find it easier to not buy a gun than to not sell yourself to Facebook.
3
With Zuckerberg’s permission, Republicans and Republican PACs will continue to spend money to broadcast misleading information. I see two choices for Democrats, adapt or lose. Democrats should simply use social media to effectively compete. Donald Trump convinced huge numbers of voter that Hillary was a criminal but no effort was made to paint Trump as an unethical liar. To the DNC: Why? And what’s the plan to change that? Stop complaining and engage in the fight.
Everyone KNEW Trump was a liar; ads making that point paid for by 'the Democrats' would not have made that point more clearly.
What reasonable people did not foresee is that a minority of Americans carry within them enough contempt for their fellow humans that they would cast the votes required to award Trump victory through the Electoral College.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said that false and dangerous speech is not protected under the First Amendment, in Schenck v. United States in 1919. And that more or less stands as the law of our land.
Mark Zuckerberg is illegitimately hiding under the cloak of "free speech." Sure, smart people are good at rationalizing their personal interests and twisting noble principles to do so. But make no mistake that giving voice to false and dangerous propaganda undermines our democracy, nothing less.
I am tired of this Harvard drop-out-turned-amateur-"libertarian." He *should have stayed in school* and taken an undergrad law class (or better yet, audit a Harvard Law class) before wrapping himself in sanctimonious stupidity.
Wealth unfortunately gives you a platform and influence, but here we see it does not make you wise. Only if the stake weren't so high...
5
Nice try, Mr. Z; invoking a celebrated cast of American heroes. Your writers did well for you, but not well enough. You aren’t fooling anybody. It’s all about those billions.
2
Gross. I can’t even take him seriously anymore. After reading about the way Facebook allows criminals to evade prosecution, I can’t understand why this billionaire wouldn’t close the business for the greater good.
4
As much as some people want to disparage Facebook over this, Zuckerberg is right. If Ring-Wing lies and KKK speeches are banned then all truth-telling will also be banned. The sword cuts both ways. The way to stop the sort of garbage that the Trump and QAnon people post online IS TO ANSWER THEM WITH THE TRUTH. In every venue that they post conspiracy theories and garbage, they should be met with fact-checkers and truth-tellers. Facebook should be flooded with ads telling the truth and repudiating everything that the GOP and Trump supporters post. Since Trump and his supporters have adopted Joseph Goebbels' theory of The Great Lie, resisters and opposers should adopt the telling of Great Truths.
Truth-telling is the antidote to poisonous lies. Flood Facebook and the internet with truth. Disseminate FACTS. That is the answer.
1
FaceBook is a for profit enterprise. Its goals clearly are incompatible with moral arbitration.
It is its users own naiveté that regards anything other than communications from people they know personally as anything other than a cesspool of lies, deception, and innuendo.
A news source it ain't. It isn't trying to be.
Free of Speech has nothing to do with Facebook
1
I do not care what Mark Zuckerberg says. He is only one citizen, and we the people will take his company down. The hubris to say he is the fifth estate. What an egomaniac. There are limits to free speech, and he is stepping over them. Zuckerberg promotes lies, which makes him a liar.
2
Dumped this cesspool of an app, along with twitter, about two years ago. My life is significantly better without it.
2
Free lies? Of course, you went on Fox News. Despicable.
1
Just say no to face book - its intrusive garbage
2
Those luminaries who preceded Zuckerberg in Gaston Hall were not dressed like dorks.
2
Zuckerberg is a true Kapo. He is working on the side of white supremacists and anti-semites for the sake of making a buck. An absolutely disgusting example of a man-child who never developed a sense of morality.
He is as inappropriate a leader for social media as Trump is in the White House.
On principle, I’m oppose to breaking up internet companies - they should just be more tightly regulated. But Facebook deserves to be crushed so Zuckerberg will be put out of the game.
1
Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire. If there is one thing I’ve learned in the last few years it is simply this: it is time we stop listening to billionaires. Their interests are not what is best for society. Billionaires are the true enemies of the people.
4
Facebook wants to addict users to its news feed. It shirks all social responsibility. What gets posted on Facebook is biased toward high emotional content. By offering a free service and making money by running cheap ads it has undermined the ability of local newspapers to make enough money to stay in business. These newspapers were already hit hard by losing all their classified advertising to Craig's list and because Facebook they lost their advertisers. The loss of these papers have been a big hit to democracy. All the lies in a political context that get circulated on Facebook also undermine democracy. The way Facebook can exist without undermining democracy would be to change its business model so that users would have to pay to subscribe. That would give Facebook an incentive to improve the quality of what is posted in the same way that a newspaper or magazine has such an incentive to obtain subscribers. Americans should pay for what they read or use the services of a library. That has been a successful formula in the past and needs to be reestablished for sake of saving democracy.
4
Facebook's low paid "Content Monitors" often see such terrible things that some simply adjust settings to block almost everything, even the most innocent posts.
Facebook has been helpful in bringing awareness to good causes but many a person trying to help has found his or her account suddenly blocked for "violating community standards". Facebook will allow appeals but they are rarely answered
2
Good on him. Free speech is integral to our democracy and we should strive to protect it. Someone's feelings or their personal moral compass isn't an excuse for them to silence others.
5
I don't use Facebook, and think poorly of people who use it to get their news. I also want to see Facebook broken up.
At the same time, regardless of his motivations, I applaud Zuckerberg for taking the stance on censorship that he is taking here. The very last thing I want to see is Facebook or any other Silicon Valley company becoming an arbiter of free speech, or official truth. When any company (or the government) has that kind of power, it allows political repression and worse on a grand scale. Military dictatorships and totalitarian states operate this way. No country in the west, including the United States should operate this way.
6
Free speech does not protect someone who yells "fire" in a crowded theater. Blatantly lying in a political ad is the moral equivalent. If Zuckerberg can't or won't keep lies off Facebook, he should ban political advertising all together. This is not curtailing free speech, it's protecting our democracy. A democracy that made it possible for Zuckerberg to become a billionaire by turning a childish concept into a soul crushing cultural nightmare. Ditto for Twitter.
6
Free speech has limitations such as the old adage of screaming fire in a crowded theater. Until now, such metaphors were sufficient to illustrate the reasonable limit of free speech but things have changed. Technology has allowed us to go beyond the simple limitations of scale.
For those with money, facebook has created a megaphone straight out of a Tex Ritter cartoon. Facebook is a private entity with no limitations on its ability to choose to police the overt manner in which it's propaganda megaphone is used. With great power comes great responsibility. Facebook has an obligation to serve the common good. If they don't then they should be regulated.
4
An entirely profit-driven platform that wantonly spreads lies and disinformation for fun and money is not free speech. Propaganda is not free speech. Propaganda and lies are just that, nothing more.
Zuckerberg wrapping himself in the free speech argument makes a mockery of the idea of free speech. His only concern is his bank account. I don't believe for one second he intended to unleash this beast on the world when he started Facebook, but now he is utterly unwilling to stop profiting from it.
9
Facebook and Zuckerberg are existential threats to democracies around the world. He is fearful that we will regulate his company and fortunes. He doesn’t care one iota about free speech
7
I have had NOTHING but negative experiences with Facebook when it comes to "free speech." They seem to want "free speech" if a politician is campaigning using FB. If you aren't campaigning, everything you say is scrutinized and regulated: I compared FB's color scheme to Israel's flag and after my account was suspended. NEVER AGAIN will I ever use or endorse FB, and I strongly support their break up on anti-trust grounds. Too much power.
3
It was in the 1970's at Stanford Uni that John McCarthy and Joseph Weizenbaum squared-off in the ethical battle for how AI would change the future of humanity - or be reined in by humanity's reasons to protect individualism. McCarthy, the defiant voice for AI research at any cost, won out - and here we see Zuckerberg walking in his shadow. Weizenbaum's family had escaped Nazi Germany and saw the dangers of careless tech in that historical perspective.
1
Another "Smoke and Mirrors" column. When is the government going to regulate Facebook?
1
Democrats loved Facebook.
And then Zuckerberg decided to stand up for freedom of speech.
Democrats now hate Facebook.
2
neutrality serves the oppressor
5
Interesting...
Heading into the 2020 elections, traditional media cos – including those who’d benefit from the insane amount of (often negative) paid campaign advertising anticipated – having a problem with unlimited access...
Of the people, by the people, and for the people...
And, of course, political and media consultants who’d skim off a % of that spend, for their troubles...
Doubly interesting...
How the traditional media cos completely avoid the subject of ad spending cost vs benefit in 2016:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/television-ads.html
“...Trump Has Spent a Fraction of What Clinton Has on Ads...
“...Outside groups have spent far less on the presidential election this year than they did in 2012. Travis Ridout, a professor of government...noted that swing states were blanketed in ads four years ago. “The groups that were investing the millions upon millions in ads...just weren't happy with the returns they were getting...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/this-election-was-not-about-the-issues-blame-the-candidates.html
“...Mrs. Clinton made more ads than Mr. Trump, and she vastly out-advertised him, running nearly three times as many ads as he did. All told, over half a million ads were run in 2016 during this period...
“...The content of the ads is revealing. Both candidates spent most of their television advertising time attacking the other person’s character. In fact, the losing candidate’s ads did little else...
Would you exchange your greenbacks for Facebook boy's cryptocurrency? Do you actually trust him to do right? Do you know that even if you aren't on Facebook the company still collects data on you and it's for sale.
Mark, please just go away.
3
glad it's working out for him, but it's largely a duck. So, Zuckerberg wants FB to be seen as a "free speech" platform where anything goes. At least he's clarified the fact that FB is full of fake news and will continue to be. Lets just hope that stupid people don't read it and believe it.
3
After reading what Zuckerberg had to say about refusing to take responsibility for what he's created, I now support breaking up big tech.
6
I was on FB for years, never a fan. I dropped out and will never drop back in. Any true patriot to our country will immediately close their fb account
5
Facebook was founded to make money by taking advantage of our basic human desire for status.
What was Zuckerberg’s big problem at Harvard?
He was worried about his status, whether he could get into a good club.
Facebook was all about how many “friends” you had.
Many religions consider the undo need for status to be a “vice”.
Government has a long history of regulating and taxing vices.
Like alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling, government should regulate, and tax Facebook.
It’s dangerous to indulge ourselves in our human weaknesses, and people in democracies have decided to give power to governments to regulate these areas of life.
What Zuckerberg believes to be "free" speech cost this country dearly in the last election.
8
Simple solution. When someone makes illegal speech (e.g. threats, slander, etc.) Facebook must provide that person's real world identity when subpoenaed. If they can't or won't, they are libel for the infraction.
If they want to make money off illegal speech, they should be responsible for it.
Also, the algorithms are a form of editing and curation, therefore, the ISP exclusion should not apply to any of the big tech companies.
4
"When someone makes illegal speech (e.g. threats, slander, etc.) ..."
There are already sanctions for those. In particular, people can be sued in court for defamation.
However, Elizabeth Warren and her fellow liberal-fascists are whining about POLITICAL speech, such as ads allegedly making false claims about political opponents.
Anyone who takes political ads seriously is naive or uninformed.
1
Why should we place our faith in democracy in the hand of Mr. Zuckerberg？To me, he's but an extremely lucky guy who got an early break. Enough of the myth of the Silicon Valley founders who can do no wrong.
4
He actually stole an early break.
Zuckerberg must be angling for the VP nomination under Trump. Both are working tirelessly to remake American democracy into a plutocracy (government by the wealthy) in order to better define the privileges of big money, and the obligations of all the rest of us.
Moral and ethical standards, and indeed truth, are not even potholes in their road to the unfettered vision of utopia as any world where they are in charge.
6
Facebook will end up going down on its own Petard. Mark Zuckerberg and people running this company are SO focused on making even more money that they can't see that they are working from the same playbook as Trump.
6
Zuck is a BIG part of the problem.
Break it up and regulate all the parts!
7
I agree. Instead, the actual government should be policing Facebook's media.
4
"... the actual government should be policing Facebook's media."
You are posting from "Europa", so maybe you don't know that the government cannot regulate speech under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."
And see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; ..." (Article 19)
2
@WPM Yes that must be why the US government has regulated all broadcast content for over 50 years...
T: "... the US government has regulated all broadcast content for over 50 years..."
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view."
See "The FCC and Freedom of Speech" at fcc.gov.
1
Sorry, hold FB up to the same standards as traditional media. Publish/propagate the truth or be shut down. Full stop.
12
so why have they banned me three times?
1
I have never joined Facebook, nor would I. It's a quagmire for abuse and falsehoods and all manner of garbage. Zuckerberg is a juvenile twerp who is too big for his britches and his empire should undergo the fate suffered by monopolies in the past that were counter-productive to a well functioning society.
5
Don’t like Facebook? Log out.
7
" He said that Facebook had been founded to give people a voice and bring them together "
give people a voice to spread lies, hate speech, propaganda and disinformation.
and you call all that free speech, to fight that is a big mistake ?
145
@sam You can fight it via speech, but not via censorship.
I don't think much of a lot of Zuckerberg's actions but on this, I agree - free speech should be absolute. I'll defend anything that is limited completely to the domain of speech (i.e., only action is speech).
2
@sam would cut into profits to put resources into monitoring appropriate speech.
1
@sam The galling arrogance & hypocrisy that progressive pundits exhibit over Facebook is over the top. In 2008 Facebook, was skillfully deployed to help elect Barack Obama president & was the darling of the woke crowd. Today they hate Big Tech want a say in how's run. Yeah, that's going to happen. We know how this is going to end. Progressive zealots are going to drive Facebook, Amazon, Google & the rest of Silicon Valley right into the arms of the GOP. Brilliant move. Let's make an enemy of an industry that would have likely supported the Democratic party. I don't think it's an accident that Zuckerberg has been meeting with prominent conservatives in the last few months. Facebook, like Amazon and Google, have the financial muscle to credibly oppose the government in court in a protracted fight. It's a lose-lose situation. There's NO widespread call from the American public to do this! Progressives can't abide by anything or anyone who has the power or influence to challenge absolute governmental authority. This political battle is a good example of why progressives will never gain any traction in this country. Leftists are determined to drive the Democrats off the cliff in a pointless fight. It's going to take more than one lesson & they're going to get more than one lesson. This debacle could facilitate Trump winning a 2nd term. The excessive amount of attention to this can backfire, with Trump being reelected & it not being the result of Russian interference.
1
If I or any other individual wishes to record a lie on Facebook, I can see how Mr. Zuckerberg would regard it as free speech and I wouldn't deny it. But what gravels me is when Donald Trump or some other politician pays Mr. Zuckerberg for the privilege of posting lies in advertisements. This is what responsible publications don't allow, and I think they should be given credit for it -- just as i think the fact that Mr. Zuckerberg is taking money from these liars should be more widely publicized...
141
@Piri Halasz There is only one answer for Facebook. along with Twitter, Reddit, etc. Shut them down to save the country.
1
@Piri Halasz
Oh, but they're not a media company, they're a technology company, so that argument doesn't apply.
Yes, I'm seriously sarcastic.
@Piri Halasz The answer is not to shut them down but to fine them when this happens.
1
Why would anybody expect a corporate C.E.O. to be interested in anything other than profit? If you think Facebook is different from Wells Fargo, ExxonMobil, Smith & Wesson, or Boeing, you are simply kidding yourself.
In any case, what the Constitution says about free speech has essentially nothing to do with businesses. It merely prohibits Congress from acting to limit it.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."
4
Facebook rejected ads for my breast cancer memoir, as "not meeting community standards." I have other writer friends who've been rejected from posting book ads that are "too sexy," and one friend, holding a seminar for "Hot Women Over 50" who was likewise rejected.
But in politics, there are NO standards? That is NOT free speech, that is greed. They *could* impose a small surcharge for each political ad, and use the funds to hire an independent team of fact-checkers, to check and approve the ads before they post, and everyone would be held to the same standard.
18
Facebook is used to circumvent campaign finance laws in countries that have them. By law they should be required to keep a data base to provide investigators with who exactly is purchasing ads.
6
So many sociopaths in the world. Pretty amazing discovery.
9
One aspect of this is pretty straightforward And bears an unusual distinction: In terms of political disinformation, Facebook is saying that if it comes from Russia, it’s foreign interference, and is unwelcome and needs to be policed. On the other hand, disinformation campaigns that are American are welcome. I don’t think it’s too much more complicated on that note, I hope it is brought to the fore. I suppose I understand the distinction and it is one of legality not ethics. But I will stand at this moment with the relative of Martin Luther King who indicated that disinformation campaigns contributed to the atmosphere of his assassination. What conclusion can be drawn? It’s not about money according to Facebook, and I believe that, so I think the decisions they are making are extraordinarily consequential.
3
@Dean Rosenthal When one defends his company by saying how he loves to see the free expressions of values, has a goal of potentially spreading Western ideals though out the world, and oh, it's not about the money...[all together now]...it's about the money."
And then he does an interview with Fox News, good grief!
1
It's pretty easy people. Do not participate in Facebook. No matter what comes out of Zuck's mouth about ethics and free speech... to me it just comes down to free data mining . I find the whole platform mundane and I don't want to see pics of your cats and grandchildren, thank you.
13
I am constantly offended by Elizabeth Warren on Facebook but I am able to push on. I don't know how I do it, but I do it. I assume others can push on as well. Good luck to everyone.
4
@P&L
I'm constantly offended by the outright lies Facebook claims it adds to the discourse, how do you have a discourse about a provable lie. And how does spreading lies, benefit this country.
I'm constantly offended by all the hate, misogyny, that is on Facebook. I wonder if Facebook could be sued for wrongful death if someone is killed as direct result of hateful lies spread by Facebook, and the low life's that have found a home there. Facebook is no better than Chan 4, or any other extreme social media website.
His day is coming, Facebook will have to be regulated, the democrats need to force the return of the fairness doctrine, or truth in political ads, to stop this incessant lying. The republican lies aren't just harmless white lies, theirs have caused people to kill people of color, Jews, Muslims, speech has consequences...
16
I don't use or like Facebook. HOWEVER there is the 1st Amendment.
This is not CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN or any other like minded country.
My solution, don't read it!
5
@Rick Tornello, I don't read Facebook. But the fact is that there are people who are using this site for everything imaginable. Had Facebook stayed a dating app it might have been better for all concerned. It's not a good place to find reliable news, reliable or reputable information, or to put out anything you consider private.
Facebook should be used with more care than email. The problem with the entire internet is that nothing ever goes away. Our lives, whether we like it or not, are a click away from anyone who has the means to get to them.
7
@Rick Tornello I don’t use Facebook. But it is difficult when my community garden group does its communication with FB, my chorus shares rehearsal info over it and so forth. I am constantly amazed how many “liberal” and conscientious people I know - who always recycle and are concerned about pronouns - blithely use FB without thinking twice how they are supporting a severely ethically challenged organization that has helped cause real harm through facilitating mob violence in India, genocide in Myanmar etc.
7
He won't police political ads? Hilarious since I was blocked for 30 days by Facebook after marking one of trumps many ads as spam that began to fill up my feed. Ole Zuck decided that marking his buddy as spam was worthy of blocking me for 30 days. Of course, this was after being banned for 72 hours for reporting a pro trump link that I clicked on only to have it crash my computer. That laptop could not be revived without great expense.
16
Delete Facebook. You cannot complain if you’re willing to use his services for free....
5
"... one of trumps many ads ... that began to fill up my feed."
If you couldn't control what is in your feed, that would be grounds for complaining.
However, Facebook has options that let you control what is in your feed. Do a web search for:
"facebook ad preferences"
And see this article at cnbc.com:
How to control and limit the ads Facebook shows you
Salvador Rodriguez
Jul 27 2019
"... a pro trump link that I clicked on only to have it crash my computer."
Unless it was malware, that is hard to explain. Please post more details, including what operating system you use and whether you keep it updated.
1
Listen to yourselves. Nobody should "police" speech of any kind in this country, whether it's bawdy, religious, or political.
Facebook is not a media company. It is a social platform. Even if it were a media company in the true sense of the word, I would still object to censorship in any form just as I vigorously oppose censoring books in a library.
I'm disappointed that my candidate supports this in any form unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that such odious lies lead directly to violent act.
Citizens need to educate themselves and learn how to do credible research. Classes need to be taught in school on propaganda, how to reason, and how to research. The Supreme Court has a long history of strongly defending free speech. Once we start chipping away at it, where do we stop?
8
@Leslie Parsley Facebook is a media company as it allows one to share media and post media.It profits just like a media company and should be held accountable just like a media company. The reason they don't want to be called a media company is to avoid copyright and usage issues.
17
@Leslie Parsley See History of Rhymes comment. This is not about free speech; it's about spreading false and/or dangerous information on a platform that caters to naivete.
8
@Leslie Parsley There has always been limits to speech, whether it is libel/slander laws or now hate speech laws. Though I agree that there is a gray area that will be forever debated, speech has power that needs to have boundaries.
A platform that permits anything to be said and able to reach the world instantaneously (unlike the old days of newspapers that needed to be delivered to be read, or where you had to be with someone to be heard) the dangers associated with such speech is substantially higher. The time to evaluate very short. (Mass hysteria is a real phenomena.)
Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR are two examples of the power of such speech. Each government could reach the nation. The 'speech', reaching millions, was devastating.
And to argue that their 'national monopoly' on such speech was the problem is inadequate. To claim that any 'bad' speech can be countered by 'good' speech and relying on the masses to discern the difference is also asking too much. There were sensible people in Germany and the USSR. The mass shooting in New Zealand and the Pizzagate scandal at Comet Ping Pong Pizza are more current cases in point.
I am with you if you mean that provocative thought based on truths should be wide open. But provocations anchored on untruths that are wielded precisely for how effective they can persuade has to be limited. Alexander Hamilton appreciated this and though far from uniformly applauded, he was right to be concerned as we all should.
9
Zuckerberg's whole premise is a scam: because it's not their content they take no responsibility for it. But they don't mind making some money off of it in the meantime! Same argument Craig's List made on their infamous "Backpage".
And by the way "free speech" outlined in the first amendment refers to speech free of government restriction, not private enterprise - which is what Facebook falls under. Zuckerberg refuses to exercise moral oversight for no other reason than it will affect his bottom line, not for any lofty defense of a constitutional amendment.
9
I think MySpace just liked Facebook!
Zuckerberg's speech was a remarkably obtuse show of arrogance by a young billionaire with no sense of history and an over-optimistic view of humanity. He creates an open sewer on Facebook and invites any given rat to scurry along it and shrill out to millions. Result: genocide in Burma, rise of white nationalism in the US and Europe, foreign interference in our elections, etc., etc. There is no absolute in anything, including free speech, which can and has been weaponized to create violence and havoc. The internet has removed all the buffers to irrationality by crazies or clever propaganda by individual and all-too-human "bad actors," who now have access to the masses which they never had before. It must be curbed by government (or some independent body's) regulation...fairly light-handed, since we do value the First Amendment, but decisive and effective nonetheless. And, while we are at it, Facebook should be broken up and divided pursuant to anti-trust laws. They and their Silicon valley breathren have grown to powerful, too monopolistic, and have been given a "pass" far too long. They have brought a major new force into the world, but new forces usually have both good and bad sides to them, reflecting the better angels and the darker forces within human nature. They can NEVER be an unadulterated good. And so they must be reasonably regulated (curbed ) by law.....as we curb virtually every other aspect of society.
8
Mr. Zuckerberg will allow politicians to lie outright but he’s censoring any information that challenges the pharmaceutical industry’s and CDC’s agenda of pushing more and more mandatory vaccines on all of us, all in the name of protecting us from “misinformation.” Really? Can’t people read the evidence and decide for themselves if it’s all false and misleading? Could it be the big bucks flowing from this industry, both to politicians and for advertising, has something to do with this censorship?
5
I wonder if Mr. Putin writes any checks to Mr. Zuckerberg.
3
I admire the sentiment but the current facebook policy is too lenient and allows abusive and patently false information to remain.
Mr. Zuckerberg absolutely needs to tweak his policy.
3
I'm reminded of the great line from Paolo Nutini's Iron Sky...."Confusion, spoon fed to the blind" and suggest this confusion endangers the very freedom Mark claims to champion.
1
Only money counts.
Translation follows
Dear Free Press and Civil Society,
I admit: I broke it. Sorry, I mean I disrupted it.
But I absolutely refuse to fix it, because that would be immoral, or something. Plus, I’d have to hire philosophy and literature students, and everyone knows they are worthless, and that’s just too much dental.
With barely concealed contempt,
Your frenemy,
Mark Z
7
I'm glad to see so many of my friends dropping this horrid invention the past six months - mostly in the last month. Such an amoral disgusting human being this Zuckerberg. No wonder he and Trump are such buddies.
4
"The cure to a politician's misstatement is more free speech..." this is like saying any politician is free to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater as long as people are free to try to convince the stampede of people that there is no fire. To quote Terry Pratchett "a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on". Some people are shameless brazen liars. Facebook needs a shorter leash and a shock collar.
4
I bet if the speech starts criticizing Republicans, he'll start policing it
3
What is really amazing is the NYT, Elizabeth Warren and the like complain, incessantly, about Facebook, but they haven't taken down or disabled their Home Pages on Facebook.
What is up with that?
I guess Zuckerberg isn't the only one interested in the mighty lucre.
5
I strongly disagree with the view of Mark Zuckerberg's talk as a commitment of FaceBook to free expression. He spent a substantial part of the talk defending its suppression of views he doesn't want expressed.
He doesn't consistently stand for free expression.
Growing up where speech is quite restricted, I can't approve of Zuckerberg's support of suppression of any views. For me, freedom of expression isn't only an abstraction, it's palpable.
Like the NBA, FaceBook is facing public criticism, as well as antagonism from within the political class. In the NBA case, for suppressing views in support of Hong Kong protesters; while in FaceBook's case for not suppressing enough.
This suggests that many are advocating suppression based on whether they like the content suppressed or not. This means that these are inconsistent defenders of letting everyone have their say.
I say, everyone is entitled to say what they want.
5
@An Arab
I think a lot of Americans operate from a position of complete naivete when it comes to the good and pure intentions of government.
You and I come from places where we have seen what giving too much power to government can do.
Maybe, Americans need to learn that lesson themselves.
"He added that political ads were a negligible amount of Facebook’s $55.8 billion in annual revenue."
Well then just ban political ads on the platform. Pretending o be a publisher to claim Constitutional free speech protections and then a platform whenever its convenient to ban people---pick a lane. Enjoy the coming regulation.
9
If he can’t or won’t police aka manage political ads he should not accept them. Problem solved.
7
Shorter version: Zuck defends Facebook’s for-profit right to amplify lies. Quotes historical figures. Public rationalization and circular logic dissembling continues.
6
Until Trump comes after him. Zuck is only interested his side of free speech—the free speech that generates income. Like Twitter, if a buck is to be made then any curb or standard is tossed. The little people, though, will be sanctioned if they and their free speech rights were to get in the way of profit.
9
@Simon Li
It's funny how Twitter won't take down a politicians tweets, but let the average person step out of line, and BAM, Twitter locks your account, seems a tad hypocritical.
3
There's one thing and one thing only Zuckerberg is interested in: money. That's all. This is a man who would happily have collaborated with the Nazis, if it made him rich.
25
Sadly, I agree. No morals or ethics. After all, he stole Facebook to begin with. Who spawned and raised him?!
6
Zuckerberg: You are defending the right for anyone to publicly spew. I'd like to see discourse that has checks and consequences.
By the way, do you own a collared shirt?
10
@David Yes, but it's only for when he testifies before Congress. Otherwise, his attire follows the sameness pattern of Steve Jobs.
3
That man is the "trump" of silicon valley.
12
Is money addictive? Is greed a disease? If so, perhaps Dr. Chan, a pediatrician, can help to cure her childish husband. Also, if political ads are considered "free speech" why does FB charge for them? Free = free, right?
20
If Mr. Zuckerberg truely does not understand the damage Facebook is causing, he is either pure evil or an idiot.
21
Is the problem Facebook, or is it that users need to adapt to a global living room and have not done so successfully yet?
https://medium.com/@teresadlonghawkes/is-the-problem-facebook-854c130b7f5a
5
What nonsense! MZ isn’t protecting free speech. He owns a website. 60 plus billion isn’t enough for him. So he sells space to anyone. He makes money off the discord. White nationalists, racists, people who deny climate change, etc. Can you imagine if half of the NYT was open to racist lies just to be fair? He is what his product is. I got off Fb right before Trumps election because I saw it as trash that was making me anxious. I haven’t missed it one bit. It’s become bizarre. QUIT FACEBOOK NOW!
17
Happily.. the current younger generation of kids growing up right now... largely do not see value in FaceBook and don't really use it.
AND.. that is precisely why Zuckerberg continues to buy up internet competitors (to try to capture the younger generation by acquiring whatever social channels they are using).
Make no mistake.. Zuckerberg knows FaceBooks core properties are a house of cards that can and will collapse. So he is desperately trying to maintain the status quo while he figures out how to pivot away from the FaceBook model to something more persistent and needed. Hence.. his move to try to stand up a brand new digital currency.. as just one example.
You have to give Zuckerberg one piece of credit.. he is a talent for naked greedy oportunism.. which is classic to all oligarchs and robber barons through out history.
8
If Facebook is a “disinformation-for-profit machine” turn it off if you don't like it.
Maybe the Democrats can show people how to disable Facebook if they are having trouble disabling Facebook from their electronic devices (phones, computers...)
6
Coward.
7
Yes, he is an simply an advocate for free speech. And I am Mahatma Ghandi.
Zuckerberg is amoral megalomaniac who wants to dominate his sphere - consequences to democracy be damned.
16
That tech wasteland is not interesting enough to be a part of. None of them are.
2
There is only one way to deal with this - stop using Facebook. Just stop using it. See what Mr Zucherberg has to say after millions of people delete his company’s lie mongering program. I suspect he’ll start singing a different tune. Money is the only language that he understands.
14
Facebook’s betrayal to every pre 2018 promise of confidentiality should had him resign months ago.
I trust him almost as much as a corrupt politician.
7
So let me get this straight, people want Facebook to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, or who might have a hidden agenda?
Here’s a simple solution.
If it’s from a politician, and especially from a Republican or Republican affiliated organization, Facebook can just add this simple notification:
* WARNING: THIS MAY BE A LIE *
6
Why we continue to reward a man who stole his idea from his roommate in order to meet girls and profited from it is beyond me. He is a pitiful clown then and now. This is just the latest attempt from Legal to reduce damage from a number of missteps. You can thank Facebook for Trump and deaths across the planet. He should be help accountable. We can all start by getting off Facebook !!It is simple.
7
A politician can post an ad or comment that amounts to libel, and that's OK. post a picture of a woman nursing a baby and have your account suspended. So much for " free speech."
10
For the skinny on how every shred of your humanity, down to the most personal details, has been captured, monetized, and sold to eager business buyers, read:
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
The Fight for A Human Future at the New Frontier of Power
by Zuboff, Shoshana
3
I am going to continue to boycott Facebook, in perpetuity.
9
Boycott Facebook or use Facebook to promote boycotting Facebook!
6
Amazing idea! Let’s see if they censor people urging others to get off Facebook! What will they do if they don’t have our data to sell?
3
Zuckerberg is wrong.
9
Maybe we should formally tally the lies that appear in Face Book adds, the way we tally them by the liar in chief.
3
Will someone PLEASE POST HOW TO DELETE a FB account? Thank you
8
The ever so savvy and "enlightened" arbiter of free speech started Facebook as a rating system for women at his alma mater, and we are supposed to listen to him for guidance on the internet? How stupid are we and how crass is he?
7
Ms. King's comment was apt. As far as Zuckerberg is concerned, he's grandiose, rich and annoying. I wish our government would actually do something and get this social media situation in focus.
3
Facebook has established their system to intentionally encourage filter bubbles and (on a practical level) extremist views through the algorithms they run (for profit) on their platform.
They have implemented a systematic mechanism to encourage and propagate extremist communications that are essentially devoid of exposure to diverging points of view. This is NOT "free speech". It is not "bringing people together" as he frequently claims was his goal. It is instead a highly channeled RESTRICTION of free dialog MASQUERADING as "free speech" (for a profit).
His motivations may at one point have been idealistic and benign. But the impact of his products is obviously deviant from those goals. Thousands of persons around the globe have died as a result of his platform's malign influence. If we believe he is highly intelligent, then the "oversight" seems most likely to be intentional misrepresentation motivated by self-interest. More benign representation seem unbelievable.
Zuckerberg's effort to whitewash his product and his personal motivations as a facilitation of democracy and "free speech" are self-serving, profit-seeking hogwash. Any effort on his part to claim the moral high ground is preposterous.
11
Free expression does not include malicious false narratives churned out by bot farms and anonymous hate-mongers. Those forms of expression are only allowed to proliferate on billion dollar social media business platforms.
9
Shorter Zuckerberg: Profit is all that matters, and freedom of speech is just a mirage. Let them cry "fire" in a crowded theater, for all I care-----we simply want to generate maximum profits from everybody who signs up for our scam.
11
“the long journey towards greater progress requires confronting ideas that challenge us.”
Lies do not challenge anyone: they deliberately spread a false message, knowing that most people will have neither the time or the ability to fact-check everything in a political ad. This is craven capitalism and cowardice by Zuckerberg. He never graduated from Harvard, so he was a slacker who couldn't do the work because he wasn't smart enough. And he still hasn't grown up.
Zuck's only goal is making more money at the expense of users, all the while trying to spin this monstrosity as an enabler of communication. It clearly is not, which is why I encourage both our government and any foreign government where they operate to break them up or shut them down, permanently.
The fact that journalists weren't allowed to ask him any questions is just more evidence that he's afraid of being exposed as a man-child.
Everyone should get off Facebook right away and never go back. There are other, better ways to communicate: email, telephone, even face-to-face, and they don't violate your privacy and then sell that data to others.
9
There is no logic or rational he can present that actually is defensible for his support of this so called "political speech". This is not him protecting political speech. This is his complicit and active participation in the manipulation of hundredss of millions of people by providing his very powerful platform for the promotion and amplification of lies, propoganda and Orwellian speech, by a politition. Who happens to have his hands on the controls of the most powerful nation in the history of this planet.
We are in trouble... and so is evreyone else on the planet. VOTE Delete your facebook page. By a book.
6
Zuckerberg abused the public’s trust by selling our personal data. Now he’s concerned with free speech? I shut down my Facebook account a month ago and will never go back. My real friends know how to find me.
9
CNN rejected two Trump ads because they were full of lies. Facebook accepted them. I believe in free speech but not lies and false statements. This should be against the law.
7
Zuckerberg is absolutely right. Curtailing free speech is infinitely more dangerous than allowing free speech, no matter how hateful it is. Always amazing to see liberals championing censorship.
4
@Alex
"Curtailing free speech is infinitely more dangerous than allowing free speech .." Your comments are laughable. As others have pointed out, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre can be construed as "free speech" yet it is immensely harmful and it is illegal for good reason. To declare and to proclaim without any concern for the relevance to the reality … without any consideration to consequence … without taking possession of said declaration, said proclamation … is irresponsible and cowardly. Let's see how bold and "free speech" oriented all internetlings would be if the internet itself had a unique identifier for each and every individual that posts. If such a scenario makes you cringe then that proves the point. Cowards and abusers always hide behind a strict interpretation of "free speech" and behind simple slogans because there is no depth and no culpability.
Anybody know the numbers re US FB users vs those outside the country? My sense is that even if America gets wise to the FB koolaid, the rest of the world will be enough to compromise humanity in the name of Zuck’s “free speech.”
1
He and Bezos and Brin and Ellison and the rest are just latter-day robber barons.
6
Greedy! Nothing more. Zuckerburg likes Trump's $1.6 million/day for running political disinformation. How convienent. What next. Elizabeth Warren is right - Facebook needs to be broken up.
6
Mr z is totally wrong! In the 1950's school children were taught about DISINFORMATION! This was necessary because the communist party was spreading it like wildfire. Bush 1 introduced it into our political system with Willie Horton ad when he first ran for president.(no surprise since he did work with the CIA) . Since that time we have had many examples in politics mostly from republicans. The point is DISINFORMATION will destroy the american way of life and Facebook if Mr. z continues letting it be spread to prop up his BOTTOM LINE! Money ain't everything dude!
5
No one person like Mark Zuckerberg should be capable of determining our social, and political discourse and the truths that lie with each. Social media is the scourge of our society and it has engendered the present political situation, it is anti-truth. And it will not help us going forward either politically or with our efforts to deal with the approaching environmental nightmare. It is not free speech, no, it is just everybody speaking at once!
3
While I could spend my valuable time all day posting my "free speech" FB or countering the false information or ill-informed, and fact-less opinions posted on FB the truth is, I could not be bothered.
I have work to do, artistic and community contributions to make, and neighbors and co-workers with whom I interact.
Wasting time on FB just puts money in FB and its advertisers. I'd rather contribute in person to my community and friends.
FB is not real social interaction. It is a business offering design to make its shareholders and advertisers money. As such, it is a platform for users sadly seeking an audience; a propaganda machine masquerading as a social good. It's defenders claim It's "convenient" to use to "keep in touch" with friends, but in truth, using FB means you don't have time for conversation or a letter. It's users really don't want real interaction, just a stage. It's why FB is a "platform."
2
Zuckerberg is a man/boy with little understanding of his responsibilities to society and even less understanding of his debt to his platform's users. Money rules the day. Democracy perishes.
6
"Facebook’s position on political speech is part of a growing divide between social media companies and traditional media companies. Twitter, too, has said it will not remove accounts of politicians who appear to violate its policies against violent speech because the posts add to discourse."
From the website "Popular Information"
..."In the last several months, Popular Information has identified several "false and misleading" ads by the Trump campaign that might not be prohibited under the new definition because they weren't evaluated by one of Facebook's fact-checking partners. The ads include:
A false ad targeting seniors that claimed Trump was still considering closing the southern border "next week" when he had already publicly announced he would not close the border for at least a year.
An ad scamming its supporters by claiming there was a midnight deadline to enter a contest to win the "1,000,000th red MAGA hat signed by President Trump." The ad was run every day for weeks.
An ad that falsely claimed Democrats are trying to repeal the Second Amendment."...
Ya, these posts are adding to the political discourse in such a positive way... Especially the scams....
3
Facebook is more Orwel and Info Wars than Douglass and King. The huge trove of data on individuals insures that ads can be microtargeted to affect them specifically. Geofencing political events quickly lets campaigns know whom to target. Bots can rapidly amplify the message targeted voters get. Zuckerberg, there is a difference between free speech and coercion, and your platform enables the latter.
3
If Facebook / Zuckerberg was being sued for libel for all the misinformation he is publishing Zuckerberg would be singing a different tune. And that is what should be done.
4
Passing propaganda to the bottom of the bell curve is not free speech.
2
One more thing edging me towards deleting my account. I hate that I'm drawn to it for the connection with far off friends. Most times I check Facebook lately though, I just end up feeling tainted with cynicism and despair. Yuck, Mr. Zuckerberg. You've created a monster and are claiming it's really a friendly giant.
1
This beedy-eyed menace doesn’t know the difference between political speech and the intentional dissemination of lies and propaganda. If his platform doesn’t act as a reasonable guardrail for the legitimacy of our democracy. Then who will. Zuckerberg’s “use by date” has expired. He needs to be gone.
3
So Zuckerberg “contribution” to free speech is to pimp garbage information for money. Zuckerberg has no interest in promoting honesty, fairness, and the American way on Facebook because he likes the money of those of the same mind. Elections have consequences. Zuckerberg should give it a heads up. An election is coming. There are so many monopolies that engage in dishonest, unfair, and unAmerican activities that need to be investigated for antitrust concerns. I sure hope that someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wins the election.
4
From Politico:
"“The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company,” said one cybersecurity researcher and former government official based in Silicon Valley. “So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda.” "
Bottom line?
Orwellian speech, lies, propoganda and anything you want to do with my platform is now allowed. Now you keep your end of the bargain and don't break me up or mess with me.
All good.
3
"He will continue his public offensive on Friday, when an interview with Dana Perino of Fox News is scheduled to air."
"a senior research fellow at...an organization within the Koch network, a conservative policy group, said Facebook’s free speech position was 'a very reasonable policy choice.'”
Media matters: "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been meeting in secret with right-wing politicians and media figures over the past several months."
That's all I need to know abut this young man's credibility and intent. :(
7
Anyone interested in the damage done by Facebook in the 2016 election needs to listen to the "Fresh Air" interview with Cambridge Analytica whistle blower Christopher Wiley by Terry Gross, or read his recently released book.
The facts are frightening. And the ease with which this kind of voter manipulation can be achieved leaves no doubt that it is happening...while you read this post.
If you think I am being dramatic, listen to the broadcast; you may walk away thinking I wasn't being dramatic enough.
Zuckerberg says government should handle this; Zuckerberg knows it will take government years to create passable legislation, if ever...and all the while he has free reign over his Frankenstein social media machine.
I think we should flood Facebook with calls for all political ads to be pulled from Facebook now through the 2020 election.
Facebook says it cares. Facebook says political ads do not account for a large portion of their profits. Facebook says it wants to help move this issue forward and to protect our democracy.
Well then, Mark Zuckerberg...
...pull all the political ads now and put your money and your power where your respect-for-this-nation-that-made-you- who-you-are-today...should be.
6
So I guess he is fine if political ads are paid for in Rubles or Yuan.
America is a wasteland of corruption.
Regulate the internet as a public utility!
4
It’s time to remove the outsized power of monopolies and the plutocracy in this country.
3
There are very fine lines between "free" speech, "hate" speech, "incendiary" speech and criminal misuse of social platforms and public media.
Facebook is very much a for profit and public corporation and one which has not yet shown itself up to the responsibility to preserve free speech without harm to individuals and our democracy.
As such, they like any and all corporations which operate in this America and our democracy subject themselves to both reasonable laws and public regulation, criminal and civil prosecution and public opinion.
Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Sandberg and cohorts have not exactly excelled at any of this and therefore subject themselves to the harsh examinations they are encountering.
To wrap themselves in the cloak of "free" speech is perhaps a diversion and self-defense of their failing to serve the public while profiting handsomely from it.
Sounds just like some other people we all know...
11
If Zuckerberg's performance is the product of a Harvard education, then Harvard University needs to reexamine its undergraduate curriculum. What Zuckerberg's Facebook has produced is the social equivalent of a nuclear reactor with nothing to modulate or control its output. It is to 'free speech' what unfettered free market capitalism has been to economic theory. Zuckerberg and the people around him ought to know better, it's just that acting responsibly and anticipating the consequences of their acts cannot always be monetized to increase profits. It is not just the power to influence; rather it is power to drown out all sense of proportion and the difference between proven facts and confabulation, whether out of malice or for profit. Shame on Harvard for letting Zuckerberg go out into the world without knowing the difference, and for allowing his ad sales and revenue stream to be the arbiter between what is useful and appropriate and what is malicious and dangerous. I would turn off Facebook's electrical supply until Zuckerberg gains a soul and enough maturity to act responsibly in using the power he's acquired for himself and his company.
7
@Arthur Silen Two points are pertinent. First: he dropped out after his sophomore year. Second: It's not reasonable to expect that a university is responsible for the moral/ethical behaviors of those who study there. The fact the Harvard is hugely wealthy and influential and deemed to be one of the requisite schools for the elite who want to rule the world does not even mean that students there get superior educations. I suggest that we hold Zuckerberg totally responsible for his behavior. Recall that the wonderful humanitarian Henry Kissinger was a professor at Harvard.
1
I have to disagree with you on that, and I call upon the moral tradition of Harvard College that goes back to 1636 to refute the idea that the purpose of a Harvard education is to monetize that education. The fact that Zuckerberg quit after two years suggests that Zuckerberg, unschooled in ethical conduct before he arrived at Harvard, showed himself to be unteachable in that regard. There is a residuum of the starchy Puritanism that characterized the Bay State long into the Nineteenth Century, and some of that undoubtedly transfers to the tens of thousands of students who complete their formal education at the numerous universities, colleges, and professional schools there. I can personally attest to that, raising my children there, pointing them in the direction that a high standard of behavior demands. Mark Zuckerberg failed that essential test of character, and he will pay a steep price for that failure.
1
Since when is Zuckerberg an expert on free speech? A smart CEO would have commissioned a group of people who are and have them draft policies for the company.
9
This is not some equivalent of some 17th century New England town square. Mr. Zuckerberg conveniently avoids the subject of governments (foreign and ours) and other powerful organizations (including Facebook) with vast knowledge and expertise in statistics, AI, psychology, human cognition, etc., to tweak their message just right to get the Pavlovian response from their audience. This so reminds of the logic used to justify Citizens United.
9
How about Facebook running political ads at no cost? Let Zuckerberg put his wallet where his putative free speech principles are, making political speech free in every sense of the word.
9
They don't want to do any work. They just want to sit back and cash the checks.
13
That is where you can see the level of education of these American billionaires and their sense of ethics.
Facebook like all the other US tech firms ( Apple, Amazon, yahoo, Google, Starbucks, Netflix , and others... ) are not fiscally registered in the USA . They are in Europe, in Ireland, cheating to pay no taxes while invading the European markets, stealing advertising , stealing private data of European citizens without respecting the European laws, using the European infrastructures, and leaving a 20 % tax fraud annually on the EU budget .
9
There are already laws against the broadcasting of false information. It's time to make Fakebook a media company and enforce the laws. The only connecting Zuckerberg cares about is connecting with money.
29
@Elle
What a laugh. And who decides what is false?
1
There are possible solutions. Let him, as a content provider, be sued for posts that amount to crying “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Allowing posts that create panic, spread distortions that threaten our republic, or similarly have a major detrimental effect should be grounds for liability. I would hope that legal scholars can come up with a neutral test.
If not, ensure transparency about posters. If no one steps forward as a responsible party for the content, don’t allow it to be posted.
10
@Nyca he is libel for all of those posts....all you have to do is sue him. (Or pick your preferred class action legal team)
Haven't posted on FB since the 2016 election. Deleted my account yesterday. No sense in giving this company any money to spread disinformation and negatively impact our democracy. Oh, yeah and its not "free speech." FB monetizes everything. Twitter, FB and the lesser known social media companies do far more harm in the long run than the benefits they provide. You can't have your funny cat videos without acknowledging the damage these companies do to our social fabric and democracy. Why provide a platform for hate in the name of "free speech"? No reason except greed. I'm in my 50's and certainly can survive without social media. I fear for my young children.
14
No, Mr. Zuckerberg, lies by politicians are not newsworthy. You provide a platform for them to spread lies that are detrimental to fair, free, open and honest debate. Debate that is critical to the foundation to our society.
In your view, anything goes. If anything goes, would you mind if I posted tomorrow that Facebook lies on its financial filings, receives financial support from China and Russia and that many of the most inflammatory posts were actually created by Facebook staff?
If you would, how would that be any different if a politician posted the same about his/her opponent?
12
Is he blind to what happened with the Rohingya people partly due to the hate campaign against them spread via Facebook? I’m done with this guy. So disgusted and disappointed.
52
The internet has enabled disinformation on a massive scale, and Facebook is the primary beneficiary. It's bad enough that we have state-sponsored bad actors like Russia, Iran and North Korea with which to contend.
However, disinformation of an entirely different magnitude is now commonplace among American politicos, especially President Trump.
The public has a right to trust the reliability of the information it receives, and for the most part news outlets make every effort to be accurate -- notwithstanding the GOP’s distaste for the truth and the Forth Estate.
But Zuckerberg doesn't have to trouble himself with reporting the truth because Facebook is a social media company, not an actual news outlet. And while it may sound reasonable to claim that his company is committed to the First Amendment, the public also has a right to know what is true, and what is not true.
Imagine how Goebbels and the Nazi’s could have benefitted from such an approach had Facebook been around during WW II. The last thing Americans need at this point is to lose any sense of what the truth is, and if that means refining what deserves First Amendment protection, so be it.
No one should be able to profit from lies, and democracies deserve better.
20
@David, Goeggels and the Nazis were doing what Facebook is doing. Using the radio as an incarnation of the internet, the 5th Column was spreading lies and misinformation to demoralize the democraties before invading them. After the war ended, the 5th Column leaders faced justice; time to do that to Facebook bosses.
Wonder what he was promised to make that announcement,
13
Good news. It's always shocking how people don't realize what "banning lies" really means. Whoever decides "what's true" controls what is said.
Examples:
If the truth is determined to be gender and biological sex are the same thing.
Result: Ban all speech related to transgender issues
If the truth is determined that Hong Kong protesters are terrorists.
Result: Ban all speech about allowing rule of law in Hong Kong.
Soon as you start censoring speech based on certain criteria, people who evaluate the criteria determine what can be said.
4
@nick
There are federal laws that prohibit deliberately false statements an advertisements for politicians and candidates. It exists for a reason.
Facebook skirts these laws currently by pretending not to be a media company... yet literally everything they do for users IS media.
Facebook needs to be held to the same standards as other media organizations. Nothing more, nothing less.
2
@nick yesterday a judge ruled that an author who wrote a book that posited that the Sandy Hook slaughter was fake owed $400,000 to a couple who lost their child for libel. That was a victory for reasonable limits to speech. Glory Hallelujah. Thanks judge.
4
If Zuckerberg won’t police political speech, then he shouldn’t accept political ads. Ads for , say, Kraft Foods are fine, or for Chevvies . People can read those ads and look elsewhere for their “truthiness “. That’s not true for political ads. People tend to think that political ads are “true “. People tend to think that the ads of their own political party are “facts writ in stone “. They view those ads as real news. Mark Z is either too young or too gullible to realize this.
9
Facebook bans conservatives 30 days at a time, now stopping to using 4-year-old comments made on private posts only friends can see to do it.
They do not do this to liberals, socialists, communists. Only to conservatives.
Zuckerberg not only knows this, he pays people to do the dirty work of silencing political speech with which he disagrees.
3
@Scott Wilson
"They do not do this to liberals, socialists, communists. Only to conservatives."
This is bunk. Why do you think this?
1
Facebook could solve most of its "censorship" problems by opening its architecture to allow competitive curation services on its magnificent worldwide platform (over 2 billion users).
Microsoft has flourished because it encourages 3rd parties to write applications on its platform. Likewise, FB could encourage 3rd parties to do the curation for a user fee or for advertising revenue. Users could choose the curation service they like -- FB would be only one of them.
This would be a win-win for everybody, including FB shareholders.
FB could make this move on its own or wait for Federal Antitrust to force it on them.
In short, Feds should not break Facebook *up* -- they should break it *open*. http://bit.ly/300nuZu
Zuckerberg is a champion of free speech. That's why he had the moderator collect student questions and filter them before they were asked...
13
@Dave
Yep.. the boy is a hypocrite.
1
It’s hard to get my head around the cynicism of Zuckerberg. He is nothing more than an amoral capitalist whose values are directly tied to profits. The very notion of Facebook bringing people together in any meaningful way is laughable.
16
No one is asking him to police political speech. They are asking him to police conspiracies and false news.
He should step down. He is in over his head. Take your $70 billion and go do something good, Mark.
16
Twice Facebook suspended me, once for 30 days, saying my posting went against their policy of hate. In both instances I never swore or directed my comments to any specific person but in both instances I intimated that some white people, by their actions, were evil. Facebook silencing me as a black woman railing against the hate I’ve lived with my entire life won’t change my mind.
6
I avoid FB because anybody, anywhere, can post anything at anytime, and do.
It is far too tedious and time consuming to attempt to detect any signal in the white noise.
4
Facebook is much the same as Backpage was. Just like Backpage found their ads for prostitution hugely profitable so to does Facebook with its hate speech and fake propaganda. Zuckerberg has no morals, he stole Facebook from its founders while writing code for them. He is bad news and is only out for himself.
9
'When Mr. Trump speaks, reporters then fact-check what he says, showing “that the cure to a politician’s misstatement is more speech, not to shut it down,” Mr. Chilson said.'
And who checks the fact-checkers?
The news media should not be assumed to be unbiased when interpreting Trump's statements.
So-called fact-checking by the media really amounts to rebuttals of Trump's statements.
2
@WPM Yeah. Not really. If Trump said the earth is actually flat, the fact-checking could not possibly be accused of bias. The reality is that so much of what Trump says is easily, and clearly, proven to be lies. To claim it's just "rebuttals" reveals a disturbing inability to distinguish lies from truths
MMcKaibab: "If Trump said the earth is actually flat, the fact-checking could not possibly be accused of bias."
Don't so sure about that. Trump could say that "I've heard that some people believe that the Earth is flat."
And the self-styled "fact-checkers" would try to "prove" Trump is wrong.
MMcKaibab: "The reality is that ..."
Nope. You missed an important word in my comment: "interpreting".
1
There’s zero chance I’ll ever be returning to facebook.
More people need to value their personal info that they are freely turning over to a tyrannical company that sells every last part of your Buffalo souls.
The only thing they understand is numbers.
More people need to close their accounts for good. There is still a real world out there, I promise.
4
@Christopher Diggs I could not agree more. Unfortunately, I have to maintain a FB account because my child's educational program often posts information to FB that is not posted elsewhere. Parents must start to challenge their school districts to forbid them from requiring parents to maintain a FB account.
2
@MMcKaibab
My daughters high school district maintains their own communications websites for each high school in the district.
They DO NOT use Facebook, and never have.
Why any High School in the 21st century would not control their own digital communications infrastructure is beyond me. It's malfeasance of a public system.. and it should be illegal.
1
I agree with many commenters here that pillory Zuckerberg as a greedy, unfettered and dishonest capitalist touting “free speech”.
That said, the irony is that Facebook is only as popular and powerful as WE decide it is.
I deleted my account after the Cambridge Analytica mess. Haven’t given it a second thought. I also don’t use Twitter and have never signed up for Instagram. My life is still very full and busy and fulfilling.
People and things only have the power you give them.
6
@SM I wish. But when your childrens' school programs post essential info on FB and not any other platform, we are forced to maintain our FB accounts.
@SM
Reality: a majority of people are simply sheep. They do not think for themselves, they do not think critically, and they follow whatever tribal drum beat is in sync with their own little tribal bias and clickish nature.
Not including wars or natural disasters that have claimed human lives, the two worst things to have happened in the past 15 years were Trump's election and the founding of Facebook.
21
Political speech is one thing. Outright lies is another thing. If Facebook won't do what is right, Congress should pass a law requiring it to do so.
20
"If Facebook won't do what is right, Congress should pass a law requiring it to do so."
Congress can't do that. The First Amendment is very clear about what Congress cannot do:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."
1
@WPM
You do not understand the first amendment. Go read it.. and actually understand it.
It only protects US citizens from censorship of free speech by your government. The reason it exists is becasue back when it was written.. it was common practice for monarchies to stipulate what it's citizens could and could not say. See.. monarchs.. they did not want the peopl speaking to each other negatively about the monarch. Simple as that.. and the US founders did not want that to carrry over into the new republic.
Now... people and corporations are actually bound by a codified set of laws that can and do restrict some forms of speech. That is what libel laws exsist for... to prevent unfettered libel speech that damages another party. That is why there are laws the prohibit hoaxes that can endanger the well being of fellow citizens (such as yelling fire in a movie theater when there is no fire).
In addition, corporations for example, are free to restict dialog and speech of any kind within their sphere of influence. For example... the NYT here is free to moderate every single comment made here at this site.. to insure it is civil and not inflammatory. Companies with customer discussion forums.. same thing.
If you cannot be bothered to know what the first amendment exists for and what it's limits are... then you don't deserve to benefit from it.
Chuck: "It [the 1st Amendment] only protects US citizens from censorship of free speech by your government."
Exactly. And that's why Congress cannot control speech on Facebook.
Chuck: "In addition, corporations for example, are free to restict dialog and speech of any kind within their sphere of influence."
The original comment proposes having CONGRESS regulate speech on Facebook, so your observation is beside the point.
1
If Facebook allowed readers of each item to vote on its truthfulness, perhaps questionable items could be exposed in a new marketplace of ideas.
1
@Anonymous former parishioner
Nope. users can and will weaponize up/down vote mechanisms. Evidence: Reddit... where it is routinely weaponized to try to intimidate and censor any poster that the voter disagrees wtih.
I quit facebook in 2016. I have no regrets and dont even notice not having facebook. This was surprising considering how facebook is integrated into everything. They use your data against you. Theres no privacy with social media companies like facebook. Despite all their corrupt practices people still continue to use facebook and that is mind boggling. How addicted are people to social media. Zuckerburg was always a tool, his company is built on deceitful practices. He really should be imprisoned. Its a long time coming
17
Is it only "political speech" so that people can't post the truth or lies and misinformation about Zuckerberg?
I'd say that sauce for goose is sauce for the gander.
2
@Marie It is indeed only for political figures that they are protected from libel, defamation of character, and false advertising. I checked with a very wise attorney-friend about being able to post fraudulent information about Zuckerberg (and Sandberg), and private citizens aren’t protected from being sued. I’d love all of America to smear him but sadly, he and FB have enough money to bankrupt us all in court. The best we as citizens can do now is call Zuckerberg for what he is - greedy, unethical, and lacking any sense of moral compass - and dump FB as a social media platform we are using.
7
@OaklandMama
So, Zuckerberg would be a coward then? Afraid of and protected from what he unleashes on others?
It seems to me the social media space is ripe for a Facebook replacement which would...you know...behave ethically, and be an organization most people would feel comfortable using.
Next up..to delete my Facebook account. I've had enough of this nonsense.
13
"Fakebook" - History will place him and the company he created where they deserve to be placed. In Dante's Inferno you could probably find them in the eight circle, fraud. Most of what's there is falsehood, not only the political ads and the various conspiracy theories, but also most of its users' behaviors. Everybody is there sharing the good day they are having, projecting a false and misleading sense of happiness while often omitting the personal daily struggles which complete their human experience (but those don't look good, so they rarely get shared). What does this create in all of us? In my opinion, at a minimum an increased sense of insecurity and resentment. The effects of this platform on our lives and society reach further than we want to admit. If you still have an account on Fakebook, do yourself a favor and delete it.
5
Zuckerberg is a liar in charge of a lie distribution platform. It comes as no shock that he finds facts threatening.
14
@Atlanta Maybe he should start calling them "alternative facts"
Even if there blatant conspiracy theories and proven lies? This is irresponsible. He needs to recognize this is a in essence a media company now and not just a social platform to connect friends. He and his company need to act responsibly
9
Publishing demonstrably false information is venal, destructive to democracy and antithetical to the special role our founders gave to a free press. Asking what happened to Zuckerberg between his early tech bro days and today is pointless. Facebook is a media organization and must be regulated like one.
4
Good grief. Has the world actually forgotten that this thing was started by a couple of nerds in college who made a web site for the express purpose of rating the "hotness" of their female classmates?
Why is anyone even on this thing?
And: Who. Believes. What. Farcebook. Calls. "News"
I am so close to giving up on humanity.
11
@Nadia And Zuckerberg stole it from the founders he was writing code for. He's a snake.
5
Why is Zuckerberg the whipping boy for lying politicians? For decades, politicians have been running ads with half-truths and misleading statements on NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, the NYT and the rest. No one ever criticized the outlets or demanded they police what's being said. Instead, as it should be, it was the politicians themselves who were called out. I'm glad Mark is standing up to tyrants like Elizabeth Warren (speaking of dishonest). She is a threat to free speech and our republic itself.
3
@Paul The point is "half-truths and misleading statements." That's such an incredible difference from the outright lies Trump and his Republican enablers are spouting incessantly. Mark is most definitely NOT "standing up to tyrants." Instead, he is profiting handsomely from tyrants who are working overtime to destroy American democracy.
And I cannot disagree more that Warren is a "threat to free speech and our republic itself." The reality is that she's calling out those in power who are actually the threats. It's about time that someone spoke out for those who have no power and who challenges the existing structures that disempower so many.
I was a Girl Scout for a few years when I was a kid. We used to play a game called Whisper Down the Alley. We sat cross-legged on the floor in a line. The leader whispered a sentence to the first girl. That girl then repeated what she had heard to the next girl and so on. By the last girl the sentence bore little resemblance (if any) to the original statement.
The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate the perniciousness of gossip. I've seen it here in various NYT's comment sections. As much as I enjoy participating in discussions of events of the day, I've come to recognize several commenters who promote gossip often enough that it eventually morphs into 'fact.' I believe this is their goal.
Platforms such as Facebook are glorified blogs. They advance no more truth than gossip whispered down the alley. Actual journalism requires standards and vetting for factuality. There can be different viewpoints, such as those between The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal; however caveat emptor to the imbiber of 'news' from sources with no journalistic integrity.
7
I'd like for everyone over the age of 40 to refrain from commenting on this; your views on this issue are simply counterfactual and too dangerous to society... /s
Speaking as a lifelong liberal - and also as a young person - the anti-Facebook panic of people, especially older people, is terrifying for its anti-speech implications. It is true that many Americans do not yet understand how to discern fake or questionable news online. As with all new technologies, this will change over time. Remember when people fell for email scams much more regularly? It is less commonplace, as older people have collectively wised up and as young people increasingly become the majority user base.
I'm a political activist and have staffed several political campaigns, ranging from city council to presidential elections, for the last 12 years. I see fake news all of the time. The number one place I hear it? Coming out of the mouths of both strangers and loved ones, talking to each other and to me. Sometimes factual push back works; sometimes it doesn't - even when speaking with family.
Although Republicans peddle far-and-away the majority of modern fake news, the fake news problem is alive and real among Democrats, too. We like to forget that the second-most shared fake news in 2016 was a pro-Clinton anti-Wikileaks/anti-Trump piece.
Fake news will always exist; free speech may not. The NYTimes generation has already ruined the planet, for young people like me. Don't ruin the internet, too.
3
@Peter Lewis This hot mess of an essay is replete with self=pity and poorly thought-out "logic". We hardly need more false equivalencies like your allegation from 2016. Since then, we have counted 13,000 lies from our president. Please. "Don't ruin the internet, too"? Talk to Zuckerburg.
3
"... To make his case, Mr. Zuckerberg invoked Frederick Douglass, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Vietnam War and the First Amendment. …"
Wow, a very impressive list!
I never had much respect for the guy who got his start by writing an app to rate the chicks at Harvard.
I'm more inclined to believe it is the expense of maintaining a large cohort of content monitors, censors, and possibly including lawyers, et cetera that drives this impressive claim to be a stalwart supporter of the freedom of expression.
4
I have one simple question. Who decides whether something is true or false? The vast area of speech is opinion. It can very very disparaging and hurtful. Who decides if something has gone too far or if it should be permissible?
For example, one person puts out a political ad proclaiming that Trump never engaged in an impeachable quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president, and harshly condemns those who say otherwise. Another person puts out a political ad proclaiming that Trump did engage in an impeachable quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president, and harshly condemns those who say otherwise.
One of these statements is true, the other is false. Both may be very offensive to some. Should one of the statements be banned? Which one ? Why? Maybe both of them because each of them offends someone.
If the person deciding what gets banned is a registered Republican or Democrat, does that change your opinion?
I'll bet anything that there are some reading this comment who are absolutely convinced that one of the statements should be banned. That terrifies me.
5
@Gene Gambale Your example is not good, because the truth has not been established over the quid-pro-quo issue yet. So it IS a matter of opinion.
HOWEVER, the ad the GOP put out accuses Hunter Biden of crimes there's no evidence he ever committed, and Hunter Biden was cleared of wrongdoing in an investigation of his activities. Those are real, proven fact which are undeniably true.
I recently replied to a person on FB who said the Bidens were human traffickers. There's no evidence the Bidens have ever been involved in human trafficking. It is NOT a matter of opinion.
It is a lie to say that they were.
Facebook needs to step up and remove proven lies from its platform, the same way that NYT, CNN or CBS do not allow their journalists to publish easily provable falsehoods.
The Constitution of the US does not exempt Zuckerberg from that responsibility.
Some things are simply not true, and publicly lying when the purpose is to slander someone, is not protected under the first amendment.
On a side note, I also find it highly suspect that the person in charge of monitoring political ads at facebook is a former GOP campaign worker who is openly pro-Trump.
Facebook just smells really bad nowadays.
2
@Gene Gambale
We all have our own truth, defined by our life experiences...nothing is right or wrong...it our perceptions that mold and define our truths. Besides, we are all born to die...get over yourselves!
@yogi-one
Generally I agree with your reply. Appreciate it. Maybe I erred with my example. I am still very very disturbed if Facebook becomes the arbiter of truth. Many people, me included, sometimes conflate truth with their opinion. Sometimes, people believe in something so intensely, that they are convinced it is absolute fact, even though it might be their fervently held opinion. There is a reason why 12 people must come up with a unanimous verdict in a trial. Such deliberation minimizes the danger that a subjective opinion might prevail over objective fact.
I just have very deep concerns if Facebook holds the profound power of determining what is true. I think that is a far greater danger than the possibility That false information might be circulated. I trust me to figure out if something is true, not Facebook. Or are we all so gullible that we accept as fact something that appears on Facebook ? If we need to be protected against our own ignorance, god help us.
By the way, slanderous speech is protected by the first amendment. That’s why books can be published with totally false or misleading information. Happens all the time. Now, you can be sued for falsely defaming something, but you can’t be prevented from saying it.
As a private entity, Facebook had no reason to guarantee free speech, and in fact does not. So what's wrong with a no lies from politicians policy, Mark? Why not make the world a better place? Facebook should be broken up and gutted!
6
I'm not on facebook, haven't been for many years. I left after a brief trial because it felt like being in junior high school all over again—not an experience I wished to repeat.
But to be fair: do we really want a large media corporation censoring political content? By what standard will they determine what is true and what is false? What about statements that are technically true but highly misleading—or conversely, technical falsehoods that speak some larger truth? How will the boundaries of irony, sarcasm, obscenity and art be determined? Who will parse the difference between principled civil disobedience and criminal law-breaking, between calls to action and incitements to violence?
5
People run fake stories and news because they work. Reporters calling out false statements doesn’t clear the market of misinformation. People most likely will believe what their own biases lead them to. Facebook is completely abandoning the ideal of an informed population.
8
Zuckerberg does not have a conscience and does not care for truth. The lies and untruths posted on FB get more sophisticated everyday. Mark is not much different from Trump who has spouted over 13K documented lies since day 1, and fattened his businesses and friends with no concern for the consequences to the country.
9
@robert He is busy running people off their land in Maui and buying up whatever trophies he can.
1
Let's put Facebook out of business. The world will be a better place not having to listen to Zuckerberg and his excuses anymore.
10
The buck stops with 'we the people'. Politicians running vile, hateful ads and Facebook allowing them to do so because of the monies involved, are only able to do so because 'we the people' listen to them. Stop logging onto facebook and stop listening to cable television and watch how fast Facebook crumbles.
You can say all you want about Zuckerberg or any of the politicians including Donny, but the buck stops with you. So either make it count or shush.
3
Opinions have a right to be expressed, but falsehoods, and dangerous conspiracy mongering does not. Nor does false stories of disinformation from foreign actors belong where it can confuse the ability to discern truth. Distinguish between right and wrong, rather than throwing your hands in the air...it's your platform Zuckerberg.
If this angers you delete your Facebook account, as well as accounts on other social media controlled by Facebook. I did that over a year ago. Trust me, you’ll survive.
5
@CS : what else besides facebook should we delete?
@ Claire Green
Instagram and Whatsapp are probably the other most common platforms they operate. You can get a complete list of their acquisitions on Wikipedia.
Hmmm... But my Facebook account was suspended for 48 hours on two occasions because I posted the fact that white men are usually the perpetrators of mass shootings. This is statistically true in every measure, but I was suspended because it was considered racially inflammatory. Yet Zuck fully allows Trump to spread absolute lies and to promote political violence.
2
@MauiGreg And I would be suspended, too, if I posted about a specific racial group being more likely to perpetrate inner city shootings or political terrorism (including attempts that have been stopped or made virtually impossible thanks to homeland security).
2
Constitutional "free speech" is logically and legally restricted.
One cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. One cannot incite a riot or advocate an assassination.
Why should one be empowered to distort our votes by presenting false information as truth?
First of all, show some respect for your audience by dressing up a little. Second, the only reason you want political voices to have "freedom" is so they can lie, and of course the ones who will be doing almost all of the lying are right wingers supporting Trump. We all know that, like Putin (your soulmate), you want Trump to win, at this time because you are afraid that a Democrat in the White House will break up Facebook. I use Facebook to keep in touch with relatives, but if Trump wins I will be canceling my membership and urging all my friends to do the same.
@William Murdick : i don’t use facebook, and it is an amazing relief not to have to look at the unbelievable narcissistic flow of photos from the facebook generation. we use the phone, for three minutes max.
Mr. Zuckerberg is either ignorant of the constitutional principles involved, lying about them, or both.
The Supreme Court ruled fifty years ago, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that First Amendment protections do not extend to
"[Speech that] is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
It is AGAINST THE LAW for foreign entities (people, governments, or organizations) to interfere in US elections. It is against the law to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.
Facebook, as it now stands, is not a person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is instead a worldwide network of loudspeakers telling people that nuclear missiles are on the way.
If Mr. Zuckerberg is unable or unwilling to have his company (which is MUCH larger than just Facebook!) learn and conform to long-established constitutional law, then he should be replaced with a CEO who will.
His speech is self-serving and inflammatory rubbish.
1
Again, best decision I ever made was to never sign up for Facebook
4
I finally pulled the plug and deleted my Facebook account. The young people I know all told me it is for old people, anyway, unless you have a business. Zuckerberg is foul.
1
Facebook is no defender of free expression but a defender of its obscene profits. It is time we defended ourselves against Facebook. Let's start by breaking them up and putting in place regulations that protect us against their faulty products of unsubstantiated lies, slander and innuendos.
2
Zuckerberg still hasn't matured beyond his college years has he.
In the name of free speech, give me more money. That's all he cares about.
2
Zuckerberg needs to understand the difference between censoring opinions about politics and policy, and allowing provable lies about factual events to spread.
I can't wait to see what happens when he gets sued by some of the Sandy Hook parents for allowing conspiracy theorists to say their children never died. Or how much money other people get in civil lawsuits for slander or libel. Oddly enough there is no Political Free Speech defense against libel. Private companies don't get to say Pizza restaurants are hosting pedophile rings (even ones supposedly run by politicians) without paying a LOT of money out. And civil suits have no limits.
Alternatively, instead of quitting Facebook, people who hate Zuck should buy FB shares, and eventually, activist shareholders can make his life truly deeply painful. It doesn't take many shares for the owners, aka shareholders, to point out that his policy is putting FB at risk of lawsuits, corporate prosecution for interfering in foreign elections, and now his policy may be responsible for (god forbid) getting a politician assassinated.
This is what he is doing in Canada one week before our election. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/federal-election-2019/2019/10/16/1_4641910.html
None of these ideas I mentioned are political policy positions. Or even opinions about someone's personality, character, suitability to run for office. And none are defensible in court.
Oh please... "defiant Zuckerberg"?
You mean a lying, sleazy, self-serving Zuckerberg?
Arrogant, uncaring, inherently untruthful Zuckerberg?
A Zuckerberg, for the first time in his corporate life not feeling like the strongest, smartest, bestest guy in the room?
Zuckerberg in awe that he can be made to feel fear and, what is that...responsibility?
A Zuckerberg so out of touch he's defending his decision to let money rule, and let the lying roll on without end. And he wants us to believe he's doing it because he's committed to integrity and the survival of our Democracy?
That's the Zuckerberg you refer to here?
Because I could live with that. You should have said so in the first place.
Defiant? Nope..doesn't fit. Sneaky, weaselly, ingratiating arch-deceiver; walking ego in an almost human body? That's the ticket.
4
Account deleted.
It’s far past time to hold Facebook and other social media companies (I’m looking at you Twitter) to account for the grave damage they are doing to our Democracy in pursuit of unfettered profits.
21
Couldn't we solve the problem of companies who knowingly facilitate the dissemination of false and defamatory content by allowing people to sue those companies directly? Facebook has deep pockets, and right now it also has very little incentive to take down defamatory content, even when it is notified. Those incentives could be changed by the legislature.
7
@MB Defamation and Slander is much harder to prove and litigate here in the States than it is in other places, such as the EU.
But if juries have begun to show sympathy to such cases, then you can definitely sue them. The first case will be difficult and will most likely go all the way to the supreme court, which will deter others from taking legal action.
Facebook along with other social media avenues censor free speech here in the US. Just look at the pressure by Pharma and the threat of Congress towards vaccine discussions.
1
The freedom of speech is a right that protects citizens from the government. When facebook claims to be the protector of 'free speech' it simply is arguing to be a commercial purveyor of commercial gossip and even lies. It's surprising that the audience didn't boo him off stage. One shouldn't be surprised if Georgetown University gets a hefty donation from this guy in the near future.
9
The current situation is untenable but Zuckerberg has a point. A censoring Facebook already exists in China and it is bad for democracy. There has to be another answer and the legal takedown of Alex Jones and other Sandyhook deniers points in one possible direction. Campaign finance reform is another obvious direction. Going after false accounts and illuminating dark money sponsoring ads is where Facebook can do better.
3
Break it up or do like me - never join Facebook. Facebook has a lot of people fooled. I remember seeing a cartoon where there wee two people at a wake, one said to the other, he said he had 2,000 Facebook friends and there are only two of us here to wish him goodbye.
14
There are two options that make sense to me: 1. Facebook charges a monthly fee and gets rid of the advertising; 2. It remains free, but comes under the regulations of the FCC, and has to observe the same rules as a TV station that pours content out to millions.
21
@Scott It'd be nice if the FCC tamped down on the propaganda that comes from Fox News.
4
Facebook's "Community Standards" state, "In an effort to prevent and disrupt harmful or fraudulent activity, we remove content aimed at deliberately deceiving people to gain an unfair advantage or deprive another of money, property, or legal right."
Maybe they should change the title of their "Community Standards" to "Community Double Standards."
8
Nice sentiments from the man who stands to gain the most from the "a-lie's-as-good-as-the-truth-if-you-can-get-someone-to-believe-it" school of thought. Except, of course, it isn't bringing people together. And a lie isn't as good as the truth and the world cannot function on alternate facts and everyone's personal right to their own "truths." Wrapping this into some sort of "freedom of expression" claptrap is the worst kind of irresponsibility.
12
What’s the difference between Mick Mulvaney’s cynical statements today at the White House and Matt Zuckerberg’s chutzpah? Zero. Chutzpah is what runs this country: looters, crooks, criminals, pedophiles, rapists say, “yeah I did it, so what?” “What about my pain?” they say. So, racializing refugee children is fine. Forcing the US into an invasion of Iraq is fine. Having Putin pay Facebook millions to throw the presidency to Trump is fine. Since the looting is not yet completed, Matt Zuckerberg will gladly, along with Sheldon Adelson, Steven Ross, Ronald Lauder, work to re-elect Trump.
8
Anyone think this will hurt the left more than the right?
@obee
This should not be viewed as a left/right issue
This is a right/wrong issue
2
@obee This hurts everyone. except Putin, Xi and the other autocrats who have weaponized our Freedom of Speech to their advantage.
@obee It just hurts everyone, period.
1
Mark's logic no longer rings true for me. This is a communication platform that enables paid and unpaid propaganda that is not verified for accuracy to be communicated to people that in many cases do not have the time or resources to verify themselves. It enables individuals and governments to manipulate people all over the world, while making profit from its members and denying any responsibility for the affects enabled by the communication platform. It was once a tool that had great promise for positively affecting all of us. Instead, it has enabled individuals and entities that have the intent to harm individuals and now takes no responsibility for the results. I see no difference from FB's denial of responsibility today and the long history of other companies not initially taking responsibility for historical wrongs. And like those other companies, we and governments will be forced to take actions which a company's leader chooses not to take.
12
I'm dumbfounded by how people can lie so casually.
Yes, Facebook already curtails speech by banning accounts and censoring content. Why would Zuckerberg say the polar opposite?
12
If you, as a user of this example of corporate greed and bombast defending their right to do as they please whenever and however, are dissatisfied with Facebook and Zuckerberg’s attitude, do not complain. Just quit the platform outright. That is your vote against what you disagree with and that has value. Do not be afraid to take a stand.
5
@DENOTE REDMOND Exactly, vote with your feet. i dropped mine years ago. Don't do any social media whatsoever. I made up my mind to actually talk to people. I will confess that I have an anonymous FB account for doing things like log on to NYT comment section though.
If Facebook were a publisher it would be considered as publishing junk that wasn't fact checked and totally outside the standards of journalism. Somehow putting out junk on social media gives it status that it wouldn't have as a supermarket tabloid. Readers need to be able to identify what is quality and what is junk and they can't do that very easily on Facebook as every news article looks the same. Readers can't even distinguish news from opinion which is easy in a newspaper. Facebook is like mixing up articles from the NY Times and National Enquirer with no way to easily determine which publication they come from. Free speech was never thought of as taking place in an environment such as Facebook. From what we now know Facebook undermines democracies since it so full of falsehoods and is widely disseminated. It is poison to democracy. I am not sure what should be done about this but certainly this problem needs be addressed in some way besides simply defending free speech.
3
In my opinion, because he is putting profits over country no matter how much damage that will do, this means that Zuckerberg should be considered an enemy of the people.
3
Disinformation, lies, falsehoods: all protected political speech. Nothing new here except those who want to regulate everyone else's behavior.
2
Zuckerberg has been exposed over the past three years as a sociopath, offering just the latest clever rationalization that simply protects his empire and his prerogatives - clothed in "freedom of speech". But the Emperor has no clothes. He's hoping that nobody listens to what Abraham Lincoln once said – "you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time."
When he was warned about Russian trolls co-opting Facebook during the 2016 election, he dismissed it, took no meaningful measures to limit hate speech and disinformation, Now we get more of the same. Why anybody would believe him at this point is beyond me. Then again some people believe Trump . . .
8
I think facebook is a total waste of time but I have to agree with Zuck that the government has no business telling people what they can say. What s next, telling the phone company to police what its customers say?
6
@MIKEinNYC Lying, false advertising, publishing of falsehoods, libel etc. did use to be against the law in media....what ever happened to that.
1
@Mary
It depends on who's doing it. If facebook was doing it, it would be actionable. What's going on here is that the offensive conduct is being done by facebook's users. If someone gives a false interview to The Times is The Times liable? No. If someone advertises falsely in The Times is The Times liable? Not really. Prosecute the facebook users who are promulgating the wrongdoing.
1
Ah Facebook, where asking a billionaire to stop the torrent of vitriol and hate speech is worse than the torrent of vitriol and hate speech.
3
It’s oh so satisfying to pretend to hate Mr. Zuckerberg. He started out with a puerile and chauvinistic effort: to catalog the ‘hot’ girls on campus. In that he was not much different than his contemporaries. Facebook is something else. It became something else. Zuckerberg is riding a tiger partly of his own making but which has developed, as with the Golem, Godzilla, and the genie in the lamp, a life of its own.
1
There used to be Truth in Advertising and Reagan destroyed the Fairness Doctrine ...
Truth, or in today's speak, Alternate Truth is now a commodity where Newspapers, Television and Social Media Platforms make Big Money while they destroy our Democracy piece by piece, ad by ad ...
1
As usual, it's all about the money. Zuckerberg is happy to take advertising dollars promulgating lies, and then ask for more advertising dollars to contradict the lies. Despicable.
8
It’s time to exercise our ‘free speech’ and start a mass boycott of Facebook.
9
What a dilemma for the Democrats! How do the counter it?
Zuckerberg has learned nothing from 2016. When a supposed intelligent man quotes MLK and Frederick Douglass, men who actually stood for truth and justice in order to somehow justify his cowardice to avoid establishing a modicum of truth to his own creation is beyond delusional - It is just incredibly sad.
4
This man is not smart enough to parse the nuance or see his part in the unraveling of our society.
Just more proof that you don’t have to be smart to be lucky.
Break up his business.
4
Not at all convincing or appealing. It will be a benefit to our society when this arrogant young man is taken down.
3
Key here is a lack of media literacy in this country. If you are relying on Facebook (and Fox) as your main sources of “news,” you have a problem. Read widely, from sources across the political spectrum. Doing so will help you discern what is junk and what is legitimate.
2
It may well be too complicated for Zuckerberg to fairly police his platform. In that case, he should simply opt to stop those aspects of the platform that he cannot police. The wealth he accumulates from it do not justify the destructive effect. When you think of how great a role the medium has had in promoting climate skepticism, and vaxxing, it becomes clear that Zukerberg will have (already has) blood on his hands -all for the sake of capitalistic gain.
1
I think the question is whether Facebook has to follow federal and state laws governing advertising? This is not a free speech case. That is, the government is not abridging Facebook's rights. But candidates for public office have a reasonable expectation that media companies (such as Facebook) publish facts or opinions about them. What if a company publishes a false fact? What if the company publishes an advertisement that falsely claims a candidate killed another person? At a minimum, that company is vulnerable to a liable action. And Facebook is choosing to risk the libel lawsuit vs. trying to make sure it publishes facts or opinions.
1
I got on and then off FB soon after it became widely available. It is a banal evil site on which you exchange your privacy to communicate with friends and enemies alike. I dont miss it at all. And I dont buy from companies with whom I must use FB in order to communicate.
5
Does he not realize that the law that protects him from libel for publishing lies can be repealed? Right now he is insulated from the speech that people put on his platform. That can be repealed. And it would destroy his entire business model.
2
@Jen Its clear that the only acceptable 'free' speech is that which is aligned with the democrat/progressive/socialist/communist agenda and what they decide is truth. There is no such law that protects him from libel. Unlike a newspaper, Facebook is not publishing the words of its employees. But, like a newspaper editorial, Facebook is free to be a conduit for the words (opinions) of others.
1
@Euler cCan't remember the name, but there was a law passed in 1995-ish the exempted internet companies from libel laws and the like. Like the phone company, if their service was used to coordinate a murder they aren't liable. A newspaper publishing ads or editorials that did the same would be liable.
Their platform allows people to live stream murder, to millions. It is not the same as the telephone with a limited audience or the mail where you are paying to reach many. Their default is to make money off even the most horrific act, hoping that the clean up crew can catch it in time to prevent blow back.
It had nothing to do with political views, it is about the morals of being willing to make money off despicable acts until told otherwise, maybe. Lying is only party of the problem.
And you should really look at what you said. You are basically saying that if the speech isn't progressive, it is a bunch of lies. And that your lies need protecting.
Ok here is my question. How does breaking up Facebook make it any less of a danger to the public good? What would the pieces look like? And how would these pieces cease to be platforms for mis-information? As far as I can see, similar, smaller platforms, such as the chans, are actually worse. I have thought about killing my account - which I hardly use anyway - but then I think that will mean just one less person like me when, really, there ought to be more like me. Lots more.
I think the answer is multi faceted:
1) Much stricter privacy laws for anything on the internet plus a total ban on selling any kind of internet sourced data.
2) More users, not fewer, and more user scrutiny of content.
3) A total ban on targeted advertising or targeted news content.
If this wrecks Facebook’s business model, then so be it.
1
@Susan You'd basically destroy the internet's business model not just facebook with those multi-faceted answers.
Every website worth going to would have a paywall.
1
Not allowing political ads on your social media platform because they contain demonstrably false information is not anti-free speech. These are ads - by their very nature, they are paid speech.
26
Thank you. I literally came to the comments just now to say exactly that. Paid ads have nothing to do with freedom of speech. There are laws that govern truth in advertising (not well, perhaps, but they do exist!)
5
@Larry
Furthermore, would facebook allow ads that don't pay any revenue to it, because of how high it holds the free speech? I didn't think so either.
4
@Mindi Reich-Shapiro True, and when the FTC decides to move on false advertising they move against the producer not the conduit.
Freedom of speech and freedom to spread lies are entirely two different things. I don't believe our Constitution gave us the freedom to spread lies about another individual -- that may be interpreted as slander in the legal community. After reading this and following Zuckerberg for the last year or so, I am making my decision to delete Facebook to never return.
8
@Susan
Actually, the First Amendment does not make a distinction between statements which true and those that are false. Thus, even if I were lying to you right now (don't worry, I would not do that), the government would have no right to stop me.
3
Freedom of speech
Is different from
“Freedom of Reach”.
When the corporation controls the amplification of a persons message within their system, it’s propaganda.
16
Initially, when I heard that E Warren wanted to break up the big tech companies like Facebook, I thought she was a bit crazy. Now, I am not so sure. Being the social network monopoly it is, Facebook controls a lot of messaging. Yes, free speech is important. However, there are standards that responsible venues (traditional newspapers for example) operate under. One of those standards is telling the truth. Facebook needs a competitor. Anybody have a suggestion? Looks like I will be quitting Facebook and Instagram. Can't tolerate the dissemination of lies.
10
Funny, Zuckerberg and FB feel a moral responsibility to combat climate change but no moral responsibility to combat destructive, fraudulent information. Hmm, I wonder why?
11
How about everyone in the world agree to stop using facebook one day a week, ie. Monday for instance, for starters. Present a list of demands to facebook. Add another day (kind of like the 10 plagues) until Zuck does the right thing. Might just do the trick.
11
@Maxy
How about having everyone in the world stop using Facebook, period.
1
One type of lie is no better than another, if Facebook will not police political lies, it cannot be allowed to police other types of lies (such as scientific/social/personal).
Facebook is a platform for sharing and spreading lies - that can be the only takeaway from the CEO's speech.
13
I left Facebook. Facebook has a responsibility to protect or republic. We are in dangerous times and he is only helping to spread misinformation. The press and social media should be held accountable and should not be able to tell lies.
28
Zuckerberg does not deserve what he has in Facebook. He does not have to limit free speech. He has to eliminate the advertising that embodies the falsehoods/lies inherent in his model. He does not understand the differences apparently.
17
Zuckerberg engages in facile, specious reasoning that harks backs to different times and the dynamics of another world.
Frederick Douglass, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the Vietnam War protestors lived in an analog age where it took great personal energy and capital to publish and protest. Nothing ever went viral. Replication of a message required money and energy, not to mention time.
Now we live in an age where every Tom, Dick and Jenny can copy and republish calumny seeded to them by a tendentious PAC or a nefarious foreign actor at no cost.
Wake up, Mark Zuckerberg. The rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that personal rights may be truncated.
It is not lawful for an individual to drive a military tank down the street. There should be prohibitions against a digitally charged propaganda machine which can warp and decimate a democracy.
29
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth Wow Wadsworth, that was worthy word workmanship! Nice job! Best, most concise read all day. And that's saying a lot on a bizarre day like today. Thanks!
5
"Neil Chilson, a senior research fellow at Stand Together, an organization within the Koch Network, said Facebook’s free speech position was “a very reasonable policy choice.” When Mr. Trump speaks, reporters then fact-check what he says, showing “that the cure to a politician’s misstatement is more speech, not to shut it down,” Mr. Chilson said."
Yep - the answer is to spend more money on Facebook, not less.
4
Zuckerberg’s initial defense was that Facebook was a “utility” like a phone company. I remember making prank calls on the phone as a youngster thinking it was so funny. Funny it was. In actuality it was illegal even 60 years ago. I guess realizing the weakness of their initial argument they now will try to escape accountability with a free speech argument. The arguments ventured by the “ captains” of Silicon Valley are no different than the arguments used by the robber barons of the early 20th century to defend child labor and monopolies and their motives are no less corrupt.
32
I challenge Mr. Zuckerberg to work one week as a content moderator for Facebook, being exposed to hate speech and other disturbing thoughts of the human psyche.
psychiatrists who listen to their patients' intimate thoughts have the education and training still undergo therapy themselves. What does Facebook offer offre these poor contract workers to deal with the aftermath of exposure to vile and hateful ideas and words from deranged individuals?
Freedom of expression also carries a responsibility to ensure one's expression does not injure others. Disclosure - I have never had a Facebook account, do not use Whatsapp or Instahgram
5
As a librarian and as a citizen, I agree with strong, permissive stances on free speech - I will always stand against censorship, even in the face of hateful rhetoric or misinformation.
However, Zuckerberg (along with many of his critics) paints Facebook as a neutral platform enabling people and corporations to share their ideas and become more connected. This is the Big Lie of the situation. Facebook is not neutral in any sense. It is not neutral in that it is a massive company, motivated only by its bottom line. It is not neutral in that it is, in fact, a publisher serving curated, edited content to consumers. It does not matter one bit if the "editor" is an AI algorithm or a human, the fact remains. As platform and as publisher, Facebook's influence on the world might have some isolated good effects - but at the end of the day, the balance sheet shows that its influence has been destructive to democracy, to real-world social relationships, and to public discourse at large; all this to say nothing of its gross, insidious exploitation of individuals as data-producers.
Big tech must be broken up for democracy to survive. The merchant-princes and AI deities of Silicon Vatican should no longer be allowed to dictate the terms of their companies' social obligation to the governments of real nations, or to warp the moral order of real societies to match their cynical, libertarian, machine-oriented worldviews.
49
Hear, Hear Richard! Zuckerberg's oversized ego,excessive greed and unfettered hubris are his real his business plan. He exemplifies capitalism run amok. He is not alone, but stands out because he loes and misrepresents at every turn. Hey, he sounds just like that guy in the White House! Horrors!
3
1987 was the end of the media's Fairness Doctrine!
Guess what party was behind that?
1996 was the year that Fox News was founded!
Guess what party was behind that?
2004 was the year that Facebook was founded
"Just six days after the launch of the site, three Harvard University seniors, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra, accused Zuckerberg of intentionally misleading them into believing that he would help them build a social network called HarvardConnection.com, but instead using their idea to build a competing product.[19] The three complained to the Crimson, and the newspaper began an investigation. Zuckerberg knew about the investigation so he used TheFacebook.com to find members in the site who identified themselves as members of the Crimson. He examined a history of failed logins to see if any of the Crimson members have ever entered an incorrect password into TheFacebook.com. In the cases in which they had failed to log in, Zuckerberg tried to use them to access the Crimson members' Harvard email accounts, and he was successful in accessing two of them. In the end, three Crimson members filed a lawsuit against Zuckerberg which was later settled.[19][20]"
Zuckerberg is no Boy Scout, he's all about the money, never forget where his motivations lie, it's not with the health of America.
74
Close Facebook. Save Democracy.
76
It is important to note that Facebook is only allowing lies in paid advertising if the author of the ad is a political candidate. This is consistent with US law regulating political advertising on broadcast and print media.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/should-tv-stations-ban-false-political-ads-3956480
Otherwise, Facebook is taking a very active role in censoring misinformation on the Internet, whether it’s paid or ‘organic’
5
Mark Zuckerberg is a moral degenerate corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare king.
Mark Zuckerberg is a gilded age robber baron malefactors of great wealth.
Facebook needs to be busted up.
Facebook needs to be fined and regulated up.
Mark Zuckerberg needs to be locked up for criminal conspiracy unfair trade practices and unfair competition in pursuit of a monopoly.
9
A lie is a lie. Why would anyone support lying? Oh, right, they’ve found a way to make money off it.
19
So Zuckerberg's position is derided by nearly everyone except the Koch Brothers (in effect). What a topsy-turvy world we live in.
10
Facebook has done more damage to the US than Trump. But when money is your god this happens.
8
Zuckerberg bought into one of the most base areas of human nature - nosiness - the want to know every move others make is a base at it comes. He capitalized on it and became rich. Ain't no stopping him now, as the saying goes. The addicted will never pull the plug.
3
Free speech? As if. Facebook continues to hold queer content to different, inexplicable standard deleting posts by LGBTQ folk siting “community standards” while allowing hate speech directed at us. If tech companies won’t play fair it is only logical to break them up to protect democracy.
12
Maybe the answer is to let the fur fly - give Trump free rein to make up whatever he wants, which he inevitably will run with to the point the lies are so patently ridiculous that most people will finally realize that 90% of what they read on Facebook and Twitter is meritless garbage. I certainly wouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg to be the arbiter of what he does and doesn't allow on his for-profit site, even if he swore up and down he was going to do the right thing.
4
That is exactly the current situation. Trump makes up ridiculous lies and others spread them on FB. Who would rely on FB for their news, anyway? That is why we ended up w the current President. It is a serious indictment of our education system that Trump is our leader.
1
facebook doesn't even promote free speech. facebook targets users based on their habits and controls what they do and do not see.
additionally, many black people have had their posts hidden from view on facebook, specifically when they are bringing up race-related issues. facebook would much rather shove trump & putin-approved nonsense and hate speech down our throats.
free? no.
authoritarian? yes
9
This nasty little man posing as a champion of free speech is rather like Trump posing as a foreign policy specialist and a patriot
17
Zuckerberg is a scoundrel. I wish everyone would get off FB. I did and it has not lessened my freedom of speech nor my connections with others a whit. Those who want to contact me can knock on my door, phone, send a letter or email. One who won’t has made it clear by his actions that it’s too much trouble to use those means. I don’t much miss this person, either.
6
He’s a criminal. He belongs in jail.
7
Free speech you can purchase
10
Like Warren says, big tech & Amazon need to be broken up. And also we should receive a dividend like Yang advocates since they're capitalizing on our personal info. They shouldn't be allowed to publish blantant lies.
7
Facebook is the 8chan for white collar criminals.
4
Zuckerberg is now up there with Trump, McConnell, Pence and all the other lying hypocrites who gladly betray their country for money and power.
13
Another example of Zuckerberg moving fast and breaking things...only in this case it is our democracy. Zuckerberg conflates free expression with free speech. The notion that democracy is promoted by debating lies is idiotic. And throwing on the mantle of the civil rights era is reprehensible. Shame on you, Zuckerberg.
8
Anyone who uses Facebook is enabling this guy.
7
We are the ones who "feed" this Z.fancies, or whatever. We are the guilty ones to give power to such people by enrolling in his FB. That simple. We should get a dog, go to the park and remove ourselves from such etherized digital nothingness.
5
I would be more likely convinced of the sincerity of Zuckerberg's position if he wasn't profiting from it.
1
The key is to regulate Facebook's advertising as though it were a publisher.
Facebook operates as a publisher when it takes in money for advertising . All other media , from newspapers to TV, are considered Publishers and are regulated for truth in advertising. The regulations went even further than mere truth. Who remembers when TV and magazines were prohibited from advertising cigarettes and alcohol?!!!
Regulators CERTAINLY are capable of determining what is a political ad, and setting standards for truthfulness. They can probably even write an algorithm to assist in the review process. NOTHING is more important for our democracy than truthful discourse!
6
If Facebook is required to ensure the accuracy of political speech then why don’t we require the same from newspaper, radio and TV. They have ads that are factually incorrect. Then they should all also investigate the accuracy of all ads for business. As well.
2
So where does NYT stand on this. A long supporter of free speech I would hope they will concur with Zuckerberg's opinion.
Unlike a newspaper or television station or channel, Facebook publishes every offered site/opinion on an issue, posts with immediacy. Old media can not do so except online where their audience is much smallertan Facebook's.
Cheers for Zuckerberg.
4
Glad to see some pushback from him. There are literally more people writing and self-publishing now than at any time in human history. The principle, enshrined in Section 230, is a solid one: the poster is responsible for their content, not the platform, while the platform is allowed to moderate content, much as the Times does with these comments. If a commenter says something libelous, and it gets past the moderator, should the Times be liable, even if they take down the comment later? No. This rule protects small websites more than small. The Times can afford lawyers, a small website, not so much. The only problem with FB is that it's too big and censors too much as is. Otherwise, let freedom ring.
5
Freedom of speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. So sayeth Oliver Wendell Holmes. Harvard graduate Zuckerberg
3
The very premise of Zuckerberg’s speech is false. Citing Wikipedia (for expediency sake), In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are an exception from protection of free speech under the First Amendment. In United States law, a false statement of fact will not be exempt from some civil or criminal penalty, if a law has imposed one. This exception has evolved over time from a series of Supreme Court cases that dealt with issues such as libel, slander, and statutes which barred fraudulent solicitation of charitable donations
The man is a fraud. Lies, especially in advertising, should not be allowed. He already pays the FB police to block trivial things - for example nipples. FB has a complex set of rules to determine if a photo of a breastfeeding mother photo shows enough nipple to be blocked.. surely some basic fact checking is easily possible when it comes to political advertising.
2
@avigail milder
I am not Christian. If I read a magazine ad for a church that proclaims "He is risen!", am I right to insist that this false statement of fact reaches the level of a criminal act, considering how many murders have been carried out in the belief of Christ's divinity?
1
Why should anyone be surprised ?
Z's character has been manifest since he stole the idea for The Facebook back at Harvard. Like many other billionaires he rationalizes his low-grade sociopathy by engaging in ego-massaging philanthropy all the while ignoring the societal maelstrom his actions are responsible for . None are so blind etc.
7
Marc Benioff jumps on the bandwagon, saying that Facebook should be held liable for statements made on tis platform.
He is a hypocrite. He claims he wants repeal section 230 (which protects platforms such as Facebook) -- at the same time that his own company, Salesforce, is currently defending against a lawsuit in California state court seeking to hold it liable for misconduct allegedly committed by some of its users.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6486231-427271120-Reply-Memorandum-of-Defendant.html
1
I am so glad to hear that FB does not want to 'police free speech.' The only problem is that persons who can afford to PAY for those ads that blanket FB with falsehoods are not engaging in FREE speech. It is EXPENSIVE speech and that's what FB wants.
Even though Zuckerberg has said that FB would work more to eliminate harmful false speech, they really don't care. They are after the $$$$$$$$$
So glad I never joined.....
1
Yes, many politicians in DC would like Facebook to block statements on its network that the politician considers to be lies -- but just wait for the outrage from each of those politicians when his or her OWN statements are taken down because somebody else has claimed that THOSE statements are lies.
We really want Facebook to be in the position of saying whose political speech should be published. and whose should be taken down? Would that include speech about Facebook that Facebook deems illegitimate?
If Zuckerberg claims that some of the scathing remarks in these comments are lies-- should the Times be removing those comments while it investigated their veracity? Should it be liable if the comments ate wrong? (The Times is also protected by section 230 against liability for comments by third parties like me)
Should that rule be different if the comments are to an article on a Washington Post article (those comments are not moderated before posting).
4
Good to see the NRA defense being re-used.
Facebook doesn't lie to people, people lie to people.
1
@UH The government could--I guess--ban guns.
Does that mean they can ban lies?
How about just banning people instead.
It sounds like Zuckerberg is taking a page right out of Trump’s playbook . . . Flaunt your critics’ charges right back at them as a virtue.
3
Zuckerberg and his shady disputed origins of Facebook are a menace to a free society. That so many people ingest and believe the falsehoods pushed out through this vehicle is a sad testament to where we are as a nation. Delete Facebook and help save democracy. Most of it is trivial self-promotion garbage anyway.
5
This is not about free speech. This is about Zuckerberg's ego and his greed.
4
I can only hope that thousands in your company yell FIRE, in their expression of free speach...
Yes Facebook won’t police thoughts which means they’ll let you lie to the American public the same way they let the Russians do. The government needs to shut down Facebook permanently and then put Zuckerberg on trial
1
What did Trump either threaten you with or promise you Mr. Zuckerberg?
FB is NO 'champion of free speech and democracy.'
FB is a conduit for lies.
4
FB is NOT interested in free speech, only in making money. They have cynically opted to collect cash and disseminate blantantly untruthful content. Please delete your Facebook. Do not allow this despicable man to monetize the destruction of civility and honesty in political discourse.
1
The answer is simple
Stay off social media
Life goes on
3
Free speech and deliberate lying are not the same thing, Mr Fakebook.
1
The solution is for Facebook to be formally assigned the status as a publisher and to be held legally responsible for the information it publishes on its platform - just as the NYT, WP and even Fox News are.
1
It's fine for him to break things but no one can break any of his things. The man is entirely a fraud and these day I believe those twins who say he ripped them off to create FB
1
Facebook should be sued and held accountable for printing defamation the same as any newspaper would.
1
I quit Facebook on Wednesday because I do not want to support a company that collects my personal information and then sells it to campaigns that are allowed to create and run deliberately false ads micro targeting me and other voters. It is pathetic that Mark Zuckenberg is so consumed with greed that he does not recognize the damage untrue claims can have on the health of political discourse and our democracy--not just at the presidential level but all levels of government. There are good reasons media and Internet companies are not allowed to run false product ads. Truth-in-Advertising should apply to Facebook and other social media companies. Until then, I hope other Facebook users will suspend or terminate their accounts.
412
@Frank Walter A trend to end. No pun intended.
4
This is an assumption that first, people using Facebook to share photos and their activities even pay any attention to any ads, and second, that political ads have any impact how people will vote?
1
Facebook advertisements don't present as such. They're "sponsored posts" that appear in your news feed alongside photos and friends' and family's content, and look just like regular posts. Any business or organization can pay to push a sponsored post to the top of our Facebook feeds. Especially when those posts are crafted to look news articles, it can be hard to tell the difference between a paid ad and journalism.
12
Twitter is not going to dump Trump any more than Facebook is going to ferret out disinformation. It is for the government to decide whether, and how, free speech should be curtailed. Germany has done so.
What did our Finding Fathers have in mind when they protected "free speech?" I believe it was the right to disagree, to have opinions, to articulate those opinions without fear of being imprisoned and tortured. Does it give us all the right to purposefully spread disinformation, to disseminate hate speech, or make up ridiculous conspiracy theories, or attack people, or endanger them?
I think not.
4
Just what we need more of: Lies, hate and distortion, which is basically what the GOP's massive noise machine is all about. Facebook's disingenuous and self-serving cop-out is further eroding the foundations of our democracy. There will be reckoning for this.
6
Its now time for the US government to define Facebook and others as news platforms, no different than the NY Times.
They clearly are publishers who have a social media dimension - just as the comments sections o n other website.
Most publishers today are electronic media - no publishers survive by being paper only today!
2
Good for Facebook! His critics need to read our Constitution, particularly the part about free speech.
3
@Dolly Patterson It's worth considering what fosters a strong democracy. Misrepresentations hinder us making well informed decisions. We need to be able to rely on what the various candidates say.
2
I have Linked-In now, and regret it now given its sale in 2016 to Microsoft I am less enthralled with its value to me. Still it is a blessing it is not owned by Facebook, which I despise and never joined, ever, never ever to the point of dismissing forever swiping right, I chose to swipe Facebook left. Sorry my darling, your never to be trusted. I think it is true Facebook and others of that fashion are a threat to Democracy, no better demonstrated by the election of a completely unqualified bonafide heal named Donald Trump
2
Hate speech is easily recognizable and can be banned. I believe Facebook already has a policy on that. I'm sure it can stand improvement in its reach and execution.
But policing political speech? Rooting out "lies"? That's simply crazy. If Bernie Sanders says that medicare-for-all will cost $30T over the next whatever years, and some economist makes a credible case that it will be $31T: was that a lie? Do you want to trust FB to decide what's a lie, what's allowable?
Facebook is PART of the "commons", like it or not. It is not the only place political expression can take place (look! you're reading my political expression right here in the NYT) but it is definitely an important part of the commons. In the USA we do not police speech in the commons.
2
I deleted my Facebook page in July of 2010. I was on FB for only 18 months and saw how it could be weaponized. Life is much better
for me without Facebook.
1
If Elizabeth Warren submitted her deliberately false advertisement to CNN, or Fox, or CBS, would we expect those networks to refuse to run it?
Do they check political ads for "truth"? Should they?
3
In high school, we learned one of the roles of the FCC is content regulation and indecency over TV and radio stations. Facebook makes "indecency" and "lies" too easy (and too profitable.) Facebook is a flywheel for lies and deception in a social media-overwhelmed commonweal.
Claiming that it is for "free speech" is disingenuous at best, a perversion of what "free speech" stands for. Zuck, you can do better.
2
Zuck is so out of touch with reality he's putrid. I do not regret deleting Facebook or Instagram and going social media free. It's liberating. Try it. For all his bluster about free speech his company is doing everything to put honest media out of business. Social media and online advertising are not good for democracy. Time to break them up and heavily regulate them. This is a priority for me in the next election cycle. I want to hear from candidates that will push for tech reforms and do what they can to protect real journalism as a fundamental framework in democracy.
1
Lies are not free speech - they are intentionally false statements that deliberately mislead people.
Mr Zuckerberg, we went to the same school - and I'm sure you remember signing Harvard's honor code commitment to academic integrity. Let's be perfectly clear: standing up for lies and liars, because you're not working hard enough to find other sources of revenue, shows absolutely no integrity at all.
5
It sounds like Zuckerberg is begging for Congress to bring Federal regulatory apparatus to bear on his social media empire.
Good.
The sooner the better. Hiding irresponsible management, while shielding liars and groups who seek to sow chaos behind the mantra of “free speech” is cowardly. Accountability is needed. If FB won’t do it from within, let’s have it imposed from above.
6
Every political ad is about how great the person is and how rotten is their opponent.
FB has to fact-check that?
1
If people want to object to Zuckerberg, they should stop using Facebook. Why are millions of people brainwashed into believing they must be on Facebook, Instagram etc., to exist on earth? It is galling when news networks or other news oulets require one to be a Facebook subscriber in order to comment. No, some of us dont feel the need to interact with people we will never know or dont care to know. Stop it!
1
Free speech - sharing of ideas is good. Sharing known lies and debunked conspiracy theories is not "support of free speech".
Speech on Facebook is not free. It’s for sale to the highest bidder. The more money you spend the more free your speech can be, up to and including bold face lies, slander and libel. What Zuckerberg is championing as free speech is just pure reptilian capitalism. Facebook and Twitter are almost solely responsible for reducing social discourse in America to its lowest coarse denominator, and the election of Donald Trump, all for profit. Thanks.
349
@Skip Bonbright Bingo - unregulated capitalism is the problem, here. Social media companies are not the sole parties at fault, however; the roots of the fake news problem date back to at least the repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Nowadays, I can find fake news and misinformation anywhere, including renowned institutions like CNN and The New York Times. Tulsi Gabbard was right to call them out during Tuesday's debate.
Those who paid attention during the 2016 election also know, via Wikileaks, how Clinton's pied piper strategy encouraged mainstream media to promote Trump at the exclusion of more rationale contenders. Media played into both the ask and the monetary opportunity, delivering billions in free media coverage to Trump. This is to say nothing of the blatant (and now well-researched) media favoritism afforded to Clinton over Sanders, during the primary season.
More disturbing than the well-established failures of radio, television, and online media corporations, for me, has been the refusal of my liberal allies to acknowledge their own part in tolerating unethical journalistic practices when it better suits them. Particular parties, corporations, and individuals may bear the brunt of the present blame, but through our collective negligence we have all laid this bed, together.
6
@Skip Bonbright This is overkill. But though Zuckerberg presented things in a more nuanced way, it doesn't matter. Facebook wasn't the first social media company, and I suspect any other would be as craven - because humans are. The point is, it has to be regulated.
Buried in Zuckerberg's speech was a fascinating admission - Facebook considered a ban on all political advertising. It's not a big revenue source. He said his "free speech" ideals were more important. Just ignore that.
His admission is an invitation to regulate. If even Facebook considered banning political ads, it's clear they should be. That would be a major step forward.
2
@Skip Bonbright Of course more money gives more speech...that's the foundation of Citizens United. That you prefer that speech be limited to meet some equity concept is the true anit-Americanism.
Just don't use FB and all of the FB evil you think is there goes away. It's that easy. Agency works.
1
First define political speech. What is it? Zuckerberg and Facebook would be the fist ones in doing it.
1
Ah, so Zuck won't be charging for political ads, then?
8
Facebook has become nothing but a platform for propaganda and right-wing lies. If this is free speech, we have a serious problem, especially since Zuckerberg profits immensely from it every day. Time to break Facebook up.
11
All the calls for regulatory oversight and control, when the most straightforward solution seems elusive:
Close your FB accounts, stop using the platform, and adopt a competing platform that is committed to ethical conduct.
Are people really such undisciplined mindless sheep that they cannot exhibit the modicum of self-control and willpower needed to bring this juggernaut under control?
Stop using FB, if everyone does the same, it will go away and be replaced by a competing platform. The free market fails when individuals fail in their duty as citizens who must remain informed, diligent and ethical - and act accordingly.
12
@Erik
That's a pipe dream. If people didn't like what FB is providing them with, false ads and all, they would not be using it.
Plain and simple.
I never had a FB account, I am not missing anything, but I am also aware that my perspective and opinions are those of a minority. The only solution is to shutter FB.
3
@Erik
It doesn’t change the problem. The problem is that computers are very good at gathering data and targeting you for what sells to you. Conservatives have made a massive propaganda feedback monster that affirms their conspiracy and beliefs.
Liberals closing their Facebook won’t change anything because the computer won’t target us with those ads even if we are there.
Free speech also isn’t free. Lying and false information dispersal that causes harm should be held accountable on some level. Yes you gave the right for free speech but when that speech starts putting other people’s lives and liberty at risk we must face it and deal with it.
Possible actions are no more political ads for anyone on Facebook. Facebook right now though is an avenue for foreign actors to directly influence our elections. This goes directly back to the problem of citizens united though.
2
Ah, this from the man who helped bring you Donald Trump, not by promoting free speech but by Facebook's hosting thousands upon thousands of manipulative Russian political memes and ads. It is difficult, apparently, for Mr. Zuckerberg to countenance--really countenance--that he and his enormous social medium are wrong in believing that all connections, all the time, are ultimately good. They aren't.
21
God, this is so wrong. I don’t know if the power of running Facebook has gone to his head or if he’s always been this blindly ideological, but Facebook is literally being used as a tool to destroy our democracy. Doing nothing is NOT an option.
31
@Eli Beckman I think that it HAS gone to his head. A 35 year billionaire? You bet he's out of control.
2
There is a difference between free speech and spreading propaganda. If it is clear that the "free speech" contains lies, falsehoods, untrue statements, and/or false accusations, then at a minimum one should notify the reader of these facts. I do also agree that if one disagrees with and/or believes something to be false, then proof should be provided as well.
7
This is progress. Mr. Zuckerberg has thrown in the towel on commercial censorship of political speech. Anyone with a basic understanding of the problem knew it wasn't possible in the first place, so this means he's finally grappled with the reality of the situation. Now he can move forward.
Any psychotherapist will tell you that people believe some pretty weird stuff, but still manage to live happy and productive lives. In a free democracy, trying to police everybody else's worldview is a total waste of time, and a violation of their rights under the 1st amendment.
1
Good for him. And good for the twitter crowd. The moment anyone in the D camp thinks it's a good idea to censure free speech - just imagine Trump hiring the reviewers. If that doesn't give you 2nd thoughts as to how dangerous the idea is, nothing will.
8
@Flatsthick
Liberty only survives when people respect free speech. If republicans continue to allow our right lies without any solutions the first amendments purpose to hold authority and leadership accountable will have no teeth. As a Republican you should be concerned about propaganda from foreign nations designed to divide the country and incite violence.
Do you have solutions or just propose anarchy?
3
He could say that since the company has had a decidedly negative effect on American democracy, FB will refuse ALL political ads by everyone, candidates and non-candidates. But then he'd lose a few million dollars so he won't do that.
17
@Rick exactly.
1
The problem is not the messenger or even the message. It's the willful or intellectual inability of the consumer to receive the communication, apply rudimentary analytical skills and arrive at a reasonable understanding of meaning and intent.
Much of our problems stem from the willful disregard for truthful analysis based upon how it may affect our tribal cohesion. Who will be the arbiter of what is permissible or not based upon some arbitrary scale of truthfulness. Virtually every broadcast political ad contains spin that mischaracterizes the intent of the target. With an open platform, any party is free to call out the falsehoods presented by the opposition. It is up to the character of our society to penalize those who are consistently shown to peddle misinformation.
The First Amendment protects free speech, but it is political free speech that was foremost in the minds of the founders. I’m all for banning paid political ads in all of our mass media, but that would require a Constitutional amendment. Barring that, let’s continue to fact check, call out those who inundate us with false information and encourage our citizens to receive propaganda with, at least, a minimal amount of skepticism while being open to reasoned analyses of the message.
4
The banning paid political adverts idea is actually brilliant. I guess I’ve lived here so long and the idea of paid political advertising is so ingrained into my head that the idea of them not existing just didn’t register.
3
@Ray Harper
When I gaze into my crystal ball, I see a future where the world is divided into two parts: those with critical thinking skills, and the babbling idiots whose worldview has become so contaminated with trash as to prevent them from thinking clearly. Our future contains a large pool of people that will live in a constant state of chaos and confusion, because they are unable to make sense about the world in which they live. That is our future.
2
@W
I hear you, but if we believe that an Idiocracy is inevitable we a truly doomed. No time traveling rational thinker will arrive to save our species.
It's best we emphasize critical thinking and invest whatever necessary in education now (public K-16, anyone?) to stave off our descent to extinction.
2
Free speech shouldn’t mean “plutocrats decide what information you are allowed to see.”
Zuckerberg is defending his class, he’d personally pay billions from his stash if the election didn’t go his way. That might force him to cut back on his car elevator or Hawaiian island budget.
13
Zuckerberg's head's gotten so big it's a wonder he got through the door. Facebook was founded as a dating app for college kids. Its unlikely growth and reach has turned it into a menace. It's not free speech when it's the only place to speak and when only one man manages it.
37
Simple. Governments need to make laws.. and enforce the laws. If a company breaks a law it gets fined... and the CEO gets jail time. Teach them that bad acts have bad consequences.
18
This guy has too much power over speech. There needs to be more competition in this industry.
31
@John
Exactly this John. Where is the disruptor that will put FB out of business by providing a better UX and business ethic.
I think people like to be fed lies, to have their biases and beliefs reinforced, and their bigotry and immorality coddled as "natural".
2
@Erik I disagree in part, no one likes to be fed lies. The problem is they don’t most people (at least in the US) are not critical. And in that you are correct, anything that confirms their own bias feels ‘right’. They digest, half distracted and click Share without barely any thought. It’s depressing.
1
Free speech exists to protect the message (content), not the medium. Facebook is a medium (carrier of content), which has outcompeted other media. If Facebook is eliminated, other media will fill the gap to carry content. Free speech will survive.
In other words, Facebook is essential only to those making money from it.
(And, BTW, the idea that Facebook, with billions in annual profits and some of the best/brightest tech folk, cannot regulate itself is absurd. It has the capacity; it lacks the will ... which is where government regulation can help.)
53
@stephen beck except lies are not protected by free speech. Citing Wikipedia for expediency : “ In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are an exception from protection of free speech under the First Amendment. In United States law, a false statement of fact will not be exempt from some civil or criminal penalty, if a law has imposed one. This exception has evolved over time from a series of Supreme Court cases that dealt with issues such as libel, slander, and statutes which barred fraudulent solicitation of charitable donations.” And I agree they have the resources and indeed the systems in place to fact-check. They are just more interested in making money.
3
If Facebook cannot themselves oversee the accuracy of what they publish, then they should have their right to publish overseen. Regulate. Break them up. Whatever it takes to bring Truth back to Democracy.
41
@Margaret , this is what Warren wants to do, it is no doubt the reason Bill Barr paid Zuckerberg a visit just last week, i assume to let him know that Trump would not break them up......quid pro quo?
2
How about the public makes its determination of the unrestricted right to violent or blatantly inaccurate speech by closing their fb accounts?
12
By providing a platform for speech, Facebook also has a responsibility to speak out against what is wrong or untrue.
9
@William citing Z’s basic premise that any speech is free speech is false. Citing Wikipedia for expediency: In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are an exception from protection of free speech under the First Amendment. In United States law, a false statement of fact will not be exempt from some civil or criminal penalty, if a law has imposed one. This exception has evolved over time from a series of Supreme Court cases that dealt with issues such as libel, slander, and statutes which barred fraudulent solicitation of charitable donations
I previously had been opposed to breaking up a company like Facebook. In the early 2010s I was naive and thought Facebook and Twitter would lead to greater democracy and self-determination by citizens. Now I realize I was wrong. In today's world where people like Zuckerberg can make millions by publishing advertising spreading lies, the truth cannot catch up. People of good will should not have to spend all of their time debunking lies so Mark and his minions, Sheryl Sandberg can make billions. What is particularly alarming is his attempt to use the Constitution as a shield while he refuses to accept editorial responsibilities followed by legitimate news organizations. I doubt he realizes this as he is engaging in rationalizations to justify his self-worth but he is wrong and democracy is incompatible with a monopoly which billions of people use having a profit motive to convey lies.
46
Facebook sorely needs more regulatory oversight! Mr. Zuckerberg does not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to grasp what the stakes are for our democracy if FB continues to operate unchecked. Naked financial greed and power are the only things he's interested in. The sooner his monopoly's brought to heel, the better off all of us will be.
16
Facebook, and other social media companies, cannot have it all. It does not work that way. Just as the old technology communications-news organizations fall under federal communications rules and laws about political advertising, so must these newer technology companies. They want the revenue, but not the oversight. Free speech, free advertising?
9