Zuckerberg: No Deal With Trump (axios.com) 206
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, under fire for allowing President Trump to post inflammatory statements on his platform, tells Axios there's no truth to whispers that the two have a secret understanding. From a report: Zuckerberg, facing a growing ad boycott from brands that say Facebook hasn't done enough to curtail hate speech, has become increasingly public in criticizing Trump. "I've heard this speculation, too, so let me be clear: There's no deal of any kind," Zuckerberg told Axios. "Actually, the whole idea of a deal is pretty ridiculous. I do speak with the president from time to time, just like I spoke with our last president and political leaders around the world," he added.
He's in the right on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's just it.. its not censorship.. its abiding by the VERY TERMS that others are being held to.. the only reason he's NOT doing that is because of those the abuser is..
The second you have a rule that you apply differently (or not apply) to two or more groups of people.. then you have bias. And bias in this context IS censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
The second you have a rule that you apply differently (or not apply) to two or more groups of people.. then you have bias. And bias in this context IS censorship.
That's literally every law, and it's why censorship either exists or doesn't. There's no "good" way to censor anything, all censorship is evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:He's in the right on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
The only two moderation tools a site needs.
1: "Illegal content, removed."
2: "Block user.
How do you block users that are bot created? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like you can't invade or destroy property you don't own, even if you claim it's a protest? Those sort of rules?
Re: He's in the right on this one (Score:2)
A world where you deal with bad words that make you feel bad is the realist world, the opposite of a utopia.
Re: (Score:2)
Do laws always decrease liberty?
If no, why would censorship be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
Do laws always decrease liberty?
Obvious yes, that's the definition of a law.
So we should allow all the Hot Grits & Yoda Tr (Score:3)
And crap floods. Those are Ok, right?
Now that we've got a line most won't cross, it's just a matter of where to draw the line.
I will remind everyone of this: The Nazis used free speech protections to build their power base and then took free speech away from everyone as soon as they were in power.
Moreover, we need to stop pretending all ideas have value. They do not. Nazism is the most obvious example. Anti-Maskers & Anti-Vaxxers are another pretty obvious idea. Homeopathy too
Re: (Score:3)
Not to agree or disagree with either two commenters above but simply because I had to look it up for myself [un.org]:
Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's take the case of two organizations known to not be forthcoming as regards actual truth.
Add to this credibility problem, highly trained methodologies, fueled by billions of cash, poised directly at disinformation campaigns, where both sides profit from the ensuing chaos thus created.
My take: I don't believe either of them, and I have no basis for trust for either of them, lofty UN Declarations aside. These are two camps that weaponize information, which is not discourse-- it is war.
Yet you post on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is censorship on /. it seems to be rare.
Surf at -1 and you can find all sorts of rants and vitriol, along various tl;dr bits of brilliance from the edges of humanity. We seem to survive it quite well. ... and I do believe that you are confusing "censorship" which hides opinions, statements, and generally suppresses information, with criminal law which publicly punishes people whose behaviour crosses lines that we have legislated openly and without censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
just imagine a bunch of "uncensored" people screaming you don't deserve to live, that you're not allowed to have children,
Actions are different than words. And should have difference consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has been in a fight and physically beaten by a much larger man, I can tell you there is a psychological aspect to violence that should not be underestimated.
Re: (Score:2)
never heard of psychological bullying? to some degrees its worse than physical
The big difference is that physical bullying can't be stopped by closing your browser tab.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: He's in the right on this one (Score:2)
LMAO a bunch of people want destroy their own larynx on my front lawn? I'd live stream it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THere's "No True Scotsman", right?
Not even remotely. The person I responded to cited illegal things which are illegal for reasons entirely outside the realm of censorship vs free speech. You're literally comparing victimless crimes vs the worst of crimes with victims and pretending they're the same to disingenuously try to make a point which doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly disagree with your disagreement. Your classic example of saying "fire" in a crowded theater is not comparable to writings on the internet: there is no physical presence, nor immanent danger. The analog would be for someone inside one of the recent protests to yell "that cop just hit me" (when the cop didn't). I would argue that even outright lies should be protected speech, not because we ought to love lies (I abhor them), it's that we cannot trust any censoring authority not to abuse its role
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is when someone of sufficient power speaks (like the president of the united states) their weight has a lot of weight, so passing lies, exaggerations, and conspiracy theories is extremely dangerous.
So Facebook should be culling posts from the likes of Jim Acosta that just recently lied about what the President's spokeswoman said regarding sending kids back to school? Should the Russia conspiracy theories be pulled down? Should the constant ridiculous descriptions of anything conservative as "Hitler" be curtailed?
Re: (Score:2)
Equally aggressive posts encouraging violence by the far right? Facebook don't act.
And how quick have they been to restrict the coordination of leftist violence that we've had to deal with over the past month.
Censor our opponents peeze (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, no matter how inflamatory his posts are, he is the president, and we cannot allow censorship based on rationalizations, of politicians. We need to know exactly what they say.
Democracy and freedom depend on it.
Counter-speech is NOT censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And who was arguing about counter-speech? The real issue is that liberals want Trump off the digital media platforms, point. They won't be satisfied any other way. Any talk about "inflammatory speech" is just a code word, please censor our political opponents.
Re: (Score:3)
Censoring because of arm twisting by a full slate of Democratic candidates threatening to hurt these companies if they don't, capped by Kamala Harris threatening direct legislative criminal punishment
Citation needed
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, no matter how inflamatory his posts are, he is the president, and we cannot allow censorship based on rationalizations, of politicians. We need to know exactly what they say.
Democracy and freedom depend on it.
But is lack of propagation the same as censorship? That is, if you tell me something, and I refuse to repeat that statement to a third person, am I guilty of censorship? If Facebook/slashdot/etc receives a post, is a refusal to pass that post onto a wider audience the same as censorship? I don't think the answer is totally obvious. On the one hand, stopping the flow of information has elements of censorship. However, forcing an individual or entity to always pass along information with no ability to de
Re: (Score:3)
And websites should not have to endure the threat of people opting out of their messaging. It's unfair to corporations to have consumers turn on them and vote with their dollars. How dare the proles try and exercise any bit of autonomy in the 21st century!
Re: (Score:2)
For an information service or social network, lack of propagation IS censorship. It's legally protected censorship because it's privately owned, but nonetheless limits the diversity of thought and discussion. And these huge platforms seem to claim universality. I want to know if someone will build a true universal, open platform, that is committed to freedom of speech, however ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, no matter how inflamatory his posts are, he is the president, and we cannot allow censorship based on rationalizations, of politicians. We need to know exactly what they say.
Democracy and freedom depend on it.
Yes, everyone absolutely should read everything Trump says and writes, oh my god yes, and I think we should make a very large solemn monument out of Trump quotes and put it someplace very public in fact. A plaque at the foot should read "A Warning". It should be built wide and squat so it can't be toppled over easy, like a pyramid maybe, but with little perches for birds to sit around the top, a reference to Twitter.
Now, Facebook is free to add whatever context they feel like just like a TV or radio stati
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, no matter how inflamatory his posts are, he is the president, and we cannot allow censorship based on rationalizations, of politicians.
No censorship. But a website has the right to perform fact-checking, and inform the reader, with a bottom note, that the information presented in the post might not be correct. As long as they do it for everyone, or at least every public figure, that's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the GOVERNMENT can be guilty of censorship.
If Wal-Mart, Kroger, Facebook or whoever doesn't want it's employees openly referring to it's customers with racist terms, that is their policy, not censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a stupid argument and shows a gross ignorance of how the constitution works and the underlying philosophy of liberalism. The constitution only says what the government can and cannot do. It does not impose upon the people. Rather it is people imposing restrictions on the government. However that does not mean that the core principles of liberalism only apply to the government. It applies to everyone, and it must for democracy to function. But it is beyond the scope of the constitution to prescribe h
The president is not a king. (Score:2, Informative)
If the Prez incites violence ("When the looting starts the shooting starts") he gets censored, just like anybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
While I appreciate that you distinguish gov't and private censorship, and agree that private companies have a legal right to set their own terms, I believe that any "place" offering itself as a kind of universal place of discussion (like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube) should pretty much have no censorship, otherwise their claims to universality or openness are utter bunk. Clearly, it would be nice for customers like you to be provided convenient tools to filter out the stuff you (and I) consider bad. But I al
Re: (Score:2)
No one can force Fox News to broadcast AOC's speeches uncensored.
That's more or less the equal time rule [wikipedia.org], right?
The government can and does force certain types of speech (including the equal time rule and warnings on labels), and it's constitutional.
At least I can agree with Zucc... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Popcorn Time (Score:2, Insightful)
No matter which of these two sociopaths win, we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides threaten punishment if these companies by dropping section 230, because they aren't "voluntarily" censoring the way either party wants.
This is a sad time for America. People should not be threatened with harm, including financial harm, because you reprint the disfavored words of some politician.
The "hate speech of the common man" idea is a cover meme, exposed when pols go apoplectic over political speech of opponents.
To the people of the future, I hope we get out of this situation with freedoms
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"We will not silence posts no matter how outrageous, of politicians, by principle that The People deserve to hear what their leaders and wannabe leaders think."
This is a good philosophy. But it stands in the way of kicking Trump out, and therefore the party that outrageously, in the past, stood up for Nazis marching and government paying for art to turn a cross upside down in urine, chooses to abandon this principle.
No, companies "voluntarily" censoring politicians lest government alter or abolish section
Can social media evolve? (Score:2)
For starters, lawmakers need to hold Facebook and the like harmless for whatever is posted on their site. You can't have social network were posts are censored or, in the case of Facebook, determined-for-me what interests me. I would like a place where nothing is censored globally but I get to choose what I see as a consumer. Why not present everything and then allow me to easily make private algorithms smart enough to show me only what I want.
Re: (Score:2)
inflammatory (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point Trump could post "Please vote for me!" and the left would scream that it's inflammatory.
You know what they sound like: Trump is racist, misogynist, transphobic, bigoted, anti-semite. Voting for him is violence against women and asking people to vote for him is hate speech. We have to de-platform hate speech so the internet can be a safe space for trans-people of color and other marginalized and radicalized communities.
No amount of pandering to these people will ever make them happy. So we better start learning to say no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump says famously inflammatory things, intentionally. It's defended as something he said just to trigger the left. You can't dispute this. All you can say is it's not really what it sounds like, like it's a big in-joke for everyone with a MAGA hat. But you cannot dispute what it sounds like.
He says something that sounds kind of racist, and one side says that's racist, the other side says he's not really a racist he just talks like that to rile them up. So you know it sounds kind of racist, that was t
Re: (Score:2)
What you can't dispute is that the media picks phrases or short snippets out of a long speech and consciously lie about it. Just recently, his spokeswoman answered a question about schools reopening, saying that science doesn't stand in they way, because the science backs reopening.
Jim Acosta reported that she said the Trump administration would not let science get in the way of opening schools.
That was a flat out lie.
The most infamous was the "good people on both sides" comment, that was also a flat out l
Re: inflammatory (Score:2)
Quoting on mobile sucks, sorry, but the first thing you said I'll give you. Quotes without context, short audio clips, etc. can be misleading, and unfair, but they are the everyday reality in the media. Like it's the reality on Slashdot, every day there are large threads spawned from a reader that stopped at the headline, and posts something refuted or answered by the first paragraph in the summary. We can't fix stupid, or impatience even, but we can write better headlines, and do more to be fair when qu
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, president troll, just a wonderful role to play. Glad it's all just a game to him. Have we hit 150,000 deaths with COVID-19 yet? Bet their families aren't laughing.
It's worsened by the fact he's made genuinely racist statements, so when he says something that can be construed as racist, it's not easy to dismiss since HE IS RACIST. Ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They feel like he is going to say something that will trigger him. And to them that's the same thing as actually saying something that will trigger them.
It reminds me of a few years ago when the fake rape accusations like Rolling Stone and mattress girl were coming out. And their justification was that even if the rapes never happened they were still living in real fear of "rape culture" and they weren't lying they were "just trying to start a conversation".
Pretty Simple (Score:2)
If the concern is censorship, simply hand the media the posts that the president made, and why they were removed. Everyone will still know about it.
As far as how CU has equated money with speech, perhaps the only way forward is to require that political speech (statements a
It's true (Score:2)
Then there's Twitter, which does have rules against being a shitweasel, and a special deal with Trump where he's the only one allowed to break them.
Newspaper or not? (Score:2)
A guy walks into a bar (Score:2)
Another guy sitting there asks the bartender, "Why'd you kick him out, he just wanted a drink".
Bartender says "You see all those crosses and patches on his jacked? Nazis stuff. You tend bars long enough you get to know it".
Other guy says "Yeah, but he just wanted a drink. He was polite, didn't cause any trouble. Why not just serve him?".
So Bartender says: "Sure, he was polite. Troubl
It's not about "inflammatory speech" (Score:2)
It's about Trump. The Dems, liberals, and various lefties, for their own political benefits, are campaigning against platforms that seem to work well for Trump. "Inflammatory speech" is just a liberal code-word for saying that they want Donald Trump's campaign off all digital platforms. Free speech be damned.
Neutrality (Score:3)
Zuck is doing his best to remain very neutral in what the platform can carry, especially at a time when there are street riots and a president likely to declare a rebellion. He certainly doesn't want to be caught up in that at all.
Not the deal we should be looking for (Score:2)
Ok, so there's no deal with Trump or his campaign. An incredibly obvious thing to ask about, and dismiss.
And remain technically true if bot-boy has instead made deals with the RNC, state GOP parties, conservative super PACs, and the various think thanks that write republican policy.
Of course... (Score:2)
...that's exactly what we'd EXPECT a witchalock to say.
Double standards are the problem... (Score:2)
The problem is that there are things that, if posted by a normal person, would get deleted (or get that person banned) but when the same things are posted by someone Facebook deems "important" (including politicians or political parties) or by a "legitimate media outlet" (which in the eyes of Facebook includes far-right or far-left outlets posting racist and other bad content)
Its BS that Facebook (and Twitter and other social media platforms) allow stuff to stay on the site just because the entity or organi
Not ever going to believe zuckbot (Score:2)
Meanwhile, closer to home... (Score:2)
The paid ad on my Slashdot mobile home page immediately preceding this article was a Trump fundraiser with a picture of Obama, and "Vote no on the past".
Re:Prove by having ZERO tolerance for hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not calling you racist because taxes (Score:2, Insightful)
Not every Trump supporter is racist, but every Trump supporter is OK with racism. Low taxes matter more to you than racism. You've made your calculus, don't be shocked when we call you out on it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is Trump racist?
"There are fine people on both sides."
Re: (Score:2)
"They're not sending their best, they're sending murders and rapist".
And then there's the full history [vox.com].
All this in seconds of googling. Dig in and you can find so very much more. Nobody who supports Trump can be unaware of this. It's just not possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, that is a logical fallacy, a strawman argument.
There is room in the civil political discourse to discuss the right amount of taxation, and what those services pay for, or do not, and where we as a society want to draw the line. There is room to discuss the level of immigration a country finds useful and sustainable, anywhere from open borders to nobody gets in. There is room to discuss the level of legal consequences for any illegal action, including illegal immigration, or others.
These are all vali
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on illegal immigration, but what is the solution? It's not a wall, that's a band-aid (expensive and impractical).
What are the root causes of illegal immigration? I can think of three. #1 - demand for low wage labor in agriculture and construction. #2 - lack of opportunities in the native country. #3 - timely and costly immigration process.
How do you solve #1? You go after the farmers and business owners who emp
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that it's easier for the GOP to blame Democrats for illegal immigration than for them to seriously try to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal immigration is a boogeyman. Yeah, there are some issues caused by illegal immigration but at the same time it also provides some benefits to the economy. Immigrants are easy to point the finger at because they really can't fight back since they cannot vote and since there is the treat of being deported. I'm not sure about where you live but in my area, locally grown fresh produce
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prove by having ZERO tolerance for hate speech (Score:4, Informative)
Trump may be paranoid and full of himself, but the racism charges are usually vague and called "dog whistles": show me the clear bigotry! I think he has disdain for pretty much everyone!
Also, flooding the US with illegal laborers puts downward pressure on wages and opportunities for those in the hardest situations. In effect, the Democratic party supports policies that make it more difficult for unemployed African Americans to get good work. That sounds pretty close to "structural racism" to me!
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason you write this is because you have blinded yourself to the evidence. Why is this?
But let's start with this:
https://www.nytimes.com/times-... [nytimes.com]
Right from the beginning of his career, he was racist.
There is a good summary here:
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard that earlier story, but there's a real lack of smoking guns in the Vox piece (which I think I may have seen a while back), which BTW seems to make me believe that he's more accurately elitist and opportunist than anything else. He doesn't like crap results, and if he sees a crap result repeatedly, he doesn't hold back in reporting the obvious things he sees. If you're telling me that he shouldn't report the things he sees, then should you not either about the things you think you see in him
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is that you use that hateful slur for every person that has ever ran for an office as a Republican. Racist is just an ugly libel that the left uses against anyone and everyone they disagree with. I notice that you did not identify any of those running against Trump that you didn't consider a racist.
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is that you use that hateful slur for every person that has ever ran for an office as a Republican. Racist is just an ugly libel that the left uses against anyone and everyone they disagree with. I notice that you did not identify any of those running against Trump that you didn't consider a racist.
Did you even read my comment before you decided to reply?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I desperately hope Trump wins the election again in 2020. Not so much for Trump, but the everyone in the Democrat party from the rank-and-file to the top have not learned their lesson from 2016. If the Democrats would only listen to the valid concerns of a major part of the country, and start talking workable solutions instead of calling them stupid and demonizing them, 2016 as well as 2020 would be easily winnable elections!. You are the perfect example: rather than try and understand the concerns of your fellow citizens, you've doubled down on the belief you must be right here, everyone "over there" is a hateful racist, and straight back into the deep end of identity politics. As someone else said, as bad as Trump is, amazingly he is better than the hateful, divisive crap the Democrat party of today is.
So you desperately hope for 4 more years of racists and isolationist policies that damage our economy and make us look like fools in the international community because you have some grudge against the liberal elite? I am not doubling down on anything. In fact I specifically said that I was not liberal or a democrat. You know the world would be a lot better off if the best and brightest republicans (and democrats) started running for office instead of the clown convention that exists now. But you're righ
Re: (Score:2)
OK. So Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was actually in the KKK and everyone knew about it. And he was like a Manager in the KKK not just a member. He was in service for 17,327 days!!! No cancel culture for that? NO canceling Hillary for shaking his hand. Where is Spartacus's outrage? Hillary Clinton never said anything about it. They swept that under the rug. If voting for a party that actually had a KKK member isn't supporting racism then the world is lost. Yet you claim Trump is this huge racist, yet your Democrat buddies glad handed with an actual KKK asshole for over 50 years with out a freaking Peep.
My god you do not know how to read. Trump has said racist and hateful things on national television. And I would revile anyone for being a member of the KKK regardless of political party. I would certainly not willingly shake Senator Byrd's hand. And Hillary Clinton ought to be in jail anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
they shouldn't allow their site to devolve into a neo-Nazi / incel breeding ground like 4chan.
That's hate speech.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why should the Republican's obsenity, racism, and libel and other offences be restricted, when the Democrats are not restricted for it?
I think someone should name FB and Twitter in a lawsuit, so that this thing of whether they are a provider or publisher can finally be tested.
selective enforcement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If "little people" lie, it is just a lie.
If Trump lies, it is not just a lie, because "The president is lying" is itself newsworthy.
Democrats need to get a clue. Trump's lies are hurting him with swing voters. They should be happy he is given every opportunity to speak.
Re: (Score:3)
You do understand that Biden doesn't support "Defund the Police" in any way. He actually wants to give them more funding. So who's that actual Law & Order candidate given all the laws Trump has broken on live TV? Who was part of an administration that saw reduction in violence and civil unrest?
Trump shouting law & order is like me saying I'm going to the gym all the time.
Re:Zuck (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand that FB is a business, so I expect them to continue doing that as along as it pays
The point of TFA is exactly the opposite. FB is paying a financial price by standing up for freedom of expression.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim by Zuckerberg is the opposite, but it is based on the rationale that he would only do what pays the most
>>Zuckerberg, facing a growing ad boycott from brands that say Facebook hasn't done enough to curtail hate speech, has become increasingly public in criticizing Trump.
Since there is no means given to verify what he is saying, he is likely playing both sides of the street to make as much money as possible in the moment
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg ... criticizing Trump.
Criticizing Trump is fine.
Suppressing the opinions of his supporters is not.
There is no hypocrisy in both speaking and allowing others to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
What we are saying is that Facebook should not be allowed to promote known false, dangerous, malicious, and intentionally inflamatory comments _FOR_PROFIT_.
The problem with your idea is the same problem that comes with all censorship: "Who gets to choose what is false or inflammatory?"
It won't be you.
Re: (Score:2)
True but that is the whole point of platforms like Facebook, they are in the business of choosing what you should see and not see. You might not have noticed but you don't get uncensored, full streams in Facebook, ever. You can't even force the option if you want to, they curate what you see 100% of the time so by your definition they are in the business of censorship.
The fact that they will not curate obviously harmful product is bad enough. The fact that they promote it preferentially because it is more p
Re: (Score:2)
You might not have noticed but you don't get uncensored, full streams in Facebook, ever. You can't even force the option if you want to,
That's my biggest complaint about Facebook, and why everyone has switched to Instagram.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with angry, inflammatory, or false narratives. The liberals just want Trump off the digital platforms. They'll never be satisfied otherwise. It shouldn't be facebook's job to police what every politician says. If there is truly slanderous or hateful speech, let a real court decide if it should be taken off.