Jump to content
Stefani Tee
Sign in to follow this  
politics

The Hill: “Zuckerberg defends allowing misinformation in campaign ads…”

Featured Posts

bxr

 

Zuckerberg defends allowing misinformation in campaign ads (The Hill)

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended his company’s controversial decision of allowing politicians to post political ads with misleading or false claims on its platform, saying it’s “something we have to live with.”

“People worry, and I worry deeply, too, about an erosion of truth,” Zuckerberg told The Washington Post ahead of a speech at Georgetown University. “At the same time, I don’t think people want to live in a world where you can only say things that tech companies decide are 100 percent true. And I think that those tensions are something we have to live with.

“In general, in a democracy, I think that people should be able to hear for themselves what politicians are saying," Zuckerberg continued. "Often, the people who call the most for us to remove content are often the first to complain when its their content that falls on the wrong side of a policy.”

In his 35-minute speech at Georgetown Thursday afternoon, Zuckerberg elaborated on that defense, saying that having tech company's moderate content could be dangerous.

“Political ads on Facebook are more transparent than anywhere else,” Zuckerberg said. “We don’t factcheck political ads… because we believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying.

“I know many people disagree, but in general I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy. And we are not an outlier here.”

Zuckerberg said that the company had considered banning political ads all together but rejected that approach. [ Full Story ]


 

Spoiler

 

Defiant Zuckerberg Says Facebook Won’t Police Political Speech (NY Times)

In an address at Georgetown University, the Facebook chief executive called for more free speech — not less — as his company has been assailed for allowing lies and falsehoods to appear.

WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren recently accused Facebook of being a “disinformation-for-profit machine.” Marc Benioff, chief executive of the online software maker Salesforce, said the social network “needs to be held accountable for propaganda on its platform.” And regulators around the world are examining whether to break the company up or clip its power… [ Source ]

 

 

Edited by bxr

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATCAT

He's just a crook and a coward. If he had any balls, he'd regulate the BS on his platform. We need to regulate tech companies asap.

█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓ This püssy grabs back. █▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓
  • Like 13
  • YAAAS 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
weed

I really don’t like him anymore... you’re gonna remain a billionaire sis, don’t b so dumb

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Temptation

Unfortunately, freedom of speech means accepting opinions, ideas and beliefs that disagree or contradict with your own. It’s what the United States was founded upon, and it must be protected. Once we let the state censor information, we move ever closer to totalitarianism, like Stalinist Russia (extreme left) or Nazi Germany (extreme right). 

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

Edited by Lord Temptation
  • Like 7
  • LMAO 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
MurderLipstick
7 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

Unfortunately, freedom of speech means accepting opinions, ideas and beliefs that disagree or contradict with your own. It’s what the United States was founded upon, and it must be protected. Once we let the state censor information, we move ever closer to totalitarianism, like Stalinist Russia (extreme left) or Nazi Germany (extreme right). 

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

Well said! We must look past the erroneous headlines and do our research. Being dedicated to a specific issue or cause means to take the necessary time to research the facts. That’s what’s wrong with so many major news corporations, both left and right. It seems so many of them are content with capitalizing off sensationalism. 

  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
gabrielflorin01

I kind of get his point, but it doesn't mean he's right though :what:

baby, yoü and I

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
imnotyourbabe10

Hearing this and me every time I log-on to Facebook (or other social networks -- other than this cult site, of course)

judge judy do not want GIF
 

Edited by imnotyourbabe10
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
gabeoz
25 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

Unfortunately, freedom of speech means accepting opinions, ideas and beliefs that disagree or contradict with your own. It’s what the United States was founded upon, and it must be protected. Once we let the state censor information, we move ever closer to totalitarianism, like Stalinist Russia (extreme left) or Nazi Germany (extreme right). 

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

It's not the state, no one is proposing that the state arrest people for their beliefs. It's a social media platform and the responsibility should fall on them to regulate the content on their platform to help stop the spread of misinformation. And sorry, but no, freedom of speech does not apply here so don't even try to twist it's meaning into something it's not. Of course anyone can say what they want, but that doesn't mean you have to give them a platform for their speech.

  • Like 8

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Temptation
50 minutes ago, MurderLipstick said:

Well said! We must look past the erroneous headlines and do our research. Being dedicated to a specific issue or cause means to take the necessary time to research the facts. That’s what’s wrong with so many major news corporations, both left and right. It seems so many of them are content with capitalizing off sensationalism. 

Yes, it’s been happening for the last few years now, with the big media entities basically profiteering from polarising audiences with the same predictable bias that feeds their advertising slots. Anyone who cares enough will eventually discover the truth- but it’s usually a shock to their system.

25 minutes ago, gabeoz said:

It's not the state, no one is proposing that the state arrest people for their beliefs. It's a social media platform and the responsibility should fall on them to regulate the content on their platform to help stop the spread of misinformation. And sorry, but no, freedom of speech does not apply here so don't even try to twist it's meaning into something it's not. Of course anyone can say what they want, but that doesn't mean you have to give them a platform for their speech.

Gurl, 99.9% of the internet is misinformation. I mean, that’s what drives the marketing, cosmetics, tabloid and entertainment industries. But I think people, all people, should be given the benefit of the doubt. That they should be treated as intelligent enough to know how to distinguish fact from fiction, truth vs opinion. 

Edited by Lord Temptation

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATCAT
10 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

That they should be treated as intelligent enough to know how to distinguish fact from fiction, truth vs opinion. 

Russian disinformation campaigns are meant to fool average everyday people. This isn't about whether people should know fact from fiction, it's that foreign adversaries are pushing fiction as fact & then creating divides among the American people. 

█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓ This püssy grabs back. █▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓
  • Like 7

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
PartySick
1 hour ago, Lord Temptation said:

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

Uhh no.

There's truth and there's lies, there is no grey area and no room for interpretation :laughga:

We're not talking about opinions here, we're talking about not allowing misinformation campaigns on social media. Meaning, our leaders should not be allowed to use a platform like Facebook to peddle lies to their constituents.

There's no good arguments against this but I'm not surprised Zuckerburg isn't behind the idea that "lies are bad" :smh:

🔪🐚🏹💋💎💅💃🔵🐷👠👗🚬💊💕👏
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
PartySick
10 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Russian disinformation campaigns are meant to fool average everyday people. This isn't about whether people should know fact from fiction, it's that foreign adversaries are pushing fiction as fact & then creating divides among the American people. 

"Democrats want a post-birth abortion option! Barry Hussein pushed for it saying fully formed children could be wrapped in soiled linens and left to die in a dark room!"

No joke, I saw an ad claiming that exact thing and the average Trump supporter is dumb enough to believe it. Called Obama "Hussein" and everything :smh:

Edited by PartySick
🔪🐚🏹💋💎💅💃🔵🐷👠👗🚬💊💕👏
  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
1 hour ago, Lord Temptation said:

Unfortunately, freedom of speech means accepting opinions, ideas and beliefs that disagree or contradict with your own. It’s what the United States was founded upon, and it must be protected. Once we let the state censor information, we move ever closer to totalitarianism, like Stalinist Russia (extreme left) or Nazi Germany (extreme right). 

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

Also when it comes to politics and whats “misleading” is largely arbitrary because it doesnt just emcompass straight out lies... it starts to get into half-truths and exagerations and if ppl havent noticed thats the entire esseance of politics :air:

 

if a tech company could decide what can and cant be posted politically that only gives them power to sway things they shouldnt have

 

ppl should think more before criticizing them so much

Edited by Economy
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
1 hour ago, Lord Temptation said:

Unfortunately, freedom of speech means accepting opinions, ideas and beliefs that disagree or contradict with your own. It’s what the United States was founded upon, and it must be protected. Once we let the state censor information, we move ever closer to totalitarianism, like Stalinist Russia (extreme left) or Nazi Germany (extreme right). 

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

That's a disingenuous argument. The position of people on the left about facebook and social media's role in shaping political opinions is NOT censor "ideas and beliefs you disagree with" its "FILTER conspiracy theories, blatant untruths, and misinformation that is MEANT to mislead people for political agendas before allowing them to run rampant because they are dangerous"

"Did Hillary kill people in 2016?" is not an "opinion, belief, or idea" to disagree with. It's a slanderous lie that is meant to drum up hatred for people while simultaneously furthering the political agendas of people who don't care at ALL about the people they are trying to convince to support them. And THAT runs contradictory to the purpose of Democracy itself. 

Far right and alt-right politics works by trying to posit Blatant lies and misinformation as "differences of opinion! look at the left, they don't believe in freedom of speech" and its a trap because they appeal to guys like Mark Zuckerberg on disingenuous principles. Obviously people believe in freedom of speech and are against censorship, so they approach it from that angle, but its not the truth. Mark Zuckerberg knows that the things these people posit on their ads and on their websites are not "differences of opinion being censored" but dangerous rhetoric that gets people KILLED and ruins lives and threatens democracy - but he is going to hide under the umbrella of "i believe we should accept all opinions, its a slippery slope" because he wants MONEY and he is afraid of losing even SOME of his wealth under a Warren or Sanders administration. He would rather throw the election and let millions of people cast their votes under the influence of white supremacists, misogynists, Russian influences, etc. if it means keeping his money. We know that he knows because he apologized for facebook's role in spreading misinformation after the 2016 election. If he didn't know the things being posted were false, he wouldn't have apologized.

Allowing misinformation in campaign ads is INDEFENSIBLE without being blatantly anti-democracy, which is why he has to hide under this ruse. Thankfully progressives and many liberals (not all) know better.

~~~

Also, for the record, I'm not responding to you expecting to change your mind, so you don't have to respond :fan: 

 I'm posting this for onlookers who may not understand the problem in his statement and who may have also fallen into the trap of their methods: "Censoring information is wrong, websites shouldnt just remove the ideas, opinions and beliefs of people they disagree with" IS an agreeable statement and many fall for it - its not their faults though, the idea is meant to cater to their democratic sensibilities.. It's just not whats happening. 

私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
MurderLipstick

I think that is a very polarizing question/statement for use as an ad/headline, which, grabs the audiences attention, and more than likely, they open the link to continue reading. One would hope that if they chose to open the link and further read, they analyze the article, they question it, and they do further research to become more informative on certain topics at hand.....rather than rely on ONE article, or worse yet, don’t continue further analysis other than simply reading a headline and believe it’s true.

If I recall, during the 2016 election the 2012 attack on Benghazi was brought up, and criticism followed once again as some felt it was grossly mishandled and could have been avoided....alluding to the fact that Hilary Clinton and other key figures had blood on their hands. This is somewhat similar to what we see now with Trump and the Turkey and Kurds situation. Some are for it, some against it, and others who publish articles with headlines stating “Tump has blood on his hands”. All of them are opinions, beliefs, and ideas. Do you agree that a statement like that regarding Trumps decision is, what you described earlier:

not an "opinion,belief, or idea" to disagree with. It's a slanderous lie that is meant to drum up hatred for people while simultaneously furthering the political agendas of people who don't care at ALL about the people they are trying to convince to support them. And THAT runs contradictory to the purpose of Democracy itself.”

 

  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...