SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too-OR-let-them-eat-cake? dept.
Zuckerberg Accused of Setting Dangerous Precedent
Zuckerberg accused of setting dangerous precedent:
Mark Zuckerberg is setting a "dangerous precedent" by allowing a post by Donald Trump to remain on Facebook, a group of civil rights leaders has warned.
[...] In the post, the president wrote he would "send in the National Guard", and warned that "when the looting starts, the shooting starts".
Mr Trump shared the same message on Twitter, where it was hidden behind a warning label, prompting an escalating row between Twitter and the White House.
Mr Zuckerberg had previously defended his decision to leave the same post up on Facebook, saying he disagreed with Mr Trump's words but that people "should be able to see this for themselves".
After meeting Mr Zuckerberg, three civil rights leaders responded that he was wrong.
[...] The joint statement, released on Monday night, was signed by Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Sherrilyn Ifill, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change. It has been published online by Axios.
A Facebook spokesman said: "We're grateful that leaders in the civil rights community took the time to share candid, honest feedback with Mark and Sheryl [Sandberg, Facebook's COO].
Mark Zuckerberg on Leaked Audio: Trump's Looting and Shooting Reference "Has no History of Dogwhistling
In an internal video call with Facebook employees on Tuesday obtained by Recode, CEO Mark Zuckerberg doubled down on his controversial decision to take no action on a post last week from President Donald Trump. In the post, Trump referred to the ongoing protests in the US against racism and police brutality and said, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
Facebook's handling of Trump's post — which included language similar to what segregationists used when referring to black protesters in the civil rights era — has divided employees at Facebook and prompted them to openly criticize Zuckerberg in a way they never have before. Around 400 employees staged a virtual walkout of work on Monday, at least two employees have resigned in protest, others have threatened to resign, and several senior-level managers have publicly disagreed with Zuckerberg's stance — calling for him to take down or otherwise moderate Trump's post, as Facebook's competitor Twitter already has.
[...] "I knew that the stakes were very high on this, and knew a lot of people would be upset if we made the decision to leave it up," Zuckerberg said on the call. He went on to say that after reviewing the implications of Trump's statement, he decided that "the right action for where we are right now is to leave this up."
[...] "We basically concluded after the research and after everything I've read and all the different folks that I've talked to that the reference is clearly to aggressive policing — maybe excessive policing — but it has no history of being read as a dog whistle for vigilante supporters to take justice into their own hands," Zuckerberg said on the call. He also said that, overall, Facebook still reserves the right to moderate Trump.
Civil Rights Leaders Slam Zuckerberg Over Response to Trump Posts, Says Report
Civil rights leaders slam Zuckerberg over response to Trump posts, says report:
A group of civil rights leaders issued a scathing statement on Monday about Facebook in the wake of a meeting with the social networking company's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg and other top executives, according to a report by Axios. The meeting was set-up to discuss Facebook's decision to leave up a post by US President Donald Trump that the civil rights leaders say incites violence.
"He [Zuckerberg] did not demonstrate understanding of historic or modern-day voter suppression and he refuses to acknowledge how Facebook is facilitating Trump's call for violence against protesters," the heads of the The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Color of Change said in a joint statement. "Mark is setting a very dangerous precedent for other voices who would say similar harmful things on Facebook."
The meeting, which was held on Monday night over video call, came after Facebook employees staged a rare protest in the form of a virtual walkout to express their anger against Zuckerberg's response to Trump. It also followed Twitter's move to hide the same post by Trump behind a warning that says the tweet violated the site's rules against "glorifying violence."
"We're grateful that leaders in the civil rights community took the time to share candid, honest feedback with Mark and Sheryl [Sandberg]," a Facebook company spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Tuesday. "It is an important moment to listen, and we look forward to continuing these conversations."
[...] "We believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician."
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 04 2020, @04:35PM (4 children)
Right, censorship is never the answer. It's a symbol of the weak mind.
Is there any BETTER way to shame him?
Everyone knows you can't shame a psychopath.
People have to learn to turn their backs on him and his followers. Attention is their fuel. They will die without it, and they'll put up a fight to stay on the front page. It is safer and better to ignore them until they throw the first punch. Then you have to stomach the brutality it will take to put them in their place and keep the peace.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2020, @04:52PM (3 children)
Hmm, looks like education is the real answer here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions [wikipedia.org]
"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration."
So no, Trump is actually not protected by the 1st amendment and taking down his post would actually be in accordance with the law. Inciting violence is specifically prohibited.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 04 2020, @05:33PM (2 children)
The courts issuing such restrictions are corrupt.
In real life, "no law" means no law, regardless what crooked lawyers will tell you
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2020, @07:21PM (1 child)
How old are you if you don't mind me asking?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2020, @12:03AM
No response, I'm guessing Fusty is stil a teen. Edge lord to the max, which explains why he never has any answers to his generic "politicians are al corrupt" uhh, ahem, "wisdom."
Would also explain how he vaccilates between positions and can't help when his conscience pops its head up. He hasn't had decades of practice towing the party line and dismissing inconvenient truths so he still gets caught up in genuine righteousness.
There is hope for you yet buddy.