-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WSJ: Facebook Employees Pushed to Remove Trump's Muslim ban post, Zuckerberg said no
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
I thought his defense of Peter Thiel was bad enough. This just makes things worse. What a joker.
There are plenty of news outlets to spew his garbage through, correct? I don't see why anyone in a higher office has more of a right to hate speech when compared to an average joe. Pay to play?
There are plenty of news outlets to spew his garbage through, correct? I don't see why anyone in a higher office has more of a right to hate speech when compared to an average joe. Pay to play?
chillybright
Banned
Right call by Zach
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Yeah, exposure is important.
I'm saying that according to what Zuckerberg is reported as saying in the article, they should clearly state that their own hate speech policy does not apply to candidates for high offices.
perfectchaos007
Member
Bingo. Removing the post would have fired up Trump supporters even more. Although Facebook is a private company that can censor whatever they want, Trump supporters would have claimed the establishment is suppressing free speech to keep Trump from getting elected or something.
It's in the terms of service though, correct? I'm not sure how they could have a leg to stand on when there is a legal document you agree to when utilizing the service...
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's not a legal document (as in there are no legal repercussions for violation it) and in this case the company itself has decided that the poster's relevancy is more important than their terms of service.
entremet
Member
Are we comparing an Average Joe to someone a few million votes away from one of the powerful political office in the world?
Your dogmatism toward fairness is blinding you of the importance of spreading Trump's dangerous rhetoric.
IrishNinja
Member
oh man, can you imagine the stones it would've taken to do this & stand by it? yeah, mark ain't built for that
still waiting for a block alt-right/deplorable twitter plugin
yeah, see everyone thought that after milo got banned...alas
you know they're just trying to keep dude on the low until it all "blows over", their entire response has been trash
regardless of spin, that's following a TOS
still waiting for a block alt-right/deplorable twitter plugin
yeah, see everyone thought that after milo got banned...alas
you know they're just trying to keep dude on the low until it all "blows over", their entire response has been trash
regardless of spin, that's following a TOS
Extra Sauce
Member
People have not been paying attention if they think censoring Trump would have positive results.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I agree that it's in the interests of everybody to make it more difficult to figure out the views of people running for president.
Ah, I guess I should have thought that through. The TOS is there for the company's protection should they censure someone, and that person tries to take legal action. Is that a more accurate depiction? If so, it would still serve the same purpose.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I'm not really versed in the exact purposes of TOS agreements to be honest, but I don't think Facebook could be taken to task for not enforcing their own TOS consistently.
BronsonLee
Member
Man he was totally fucked no matter what they did
I don't believe a TOS is ever actively enforced by providers. However, in an effort to do so, most service providers offer an option to flag things that may violate the TOS. For example, reporting a post with offensive content on Facebook, or your Muslim employees saying, "This shit ain't right."
Baki
Member
It is hate speech lol.
But yeah, zucks likes dat advertising dollarrrrs
But don't care too much about this. Banning him would've given him more attention...maybe...?
What's more concerning is that FB enable bigots to hold the highest positions in their organisation (Thiel on FB Board and Luckey at Oculus).
OnionPowder
Member
Do you really see his supporters listening to reason?
VendettaRed07
Member
He's running for President and it's legitimately a policy of his. Removing it would be stupid.
It's the same reason why I was happy a lot of the news networks didn't censor the word "Pussy" on TV in the Trump tapes.
People have to hear just what this guy is.
It's the same reason why I was happy a lot of the news networks didn't censor the word "Pussy" on TV in the Trump tapes.
People have to hear just what this guy is.
It's probably better to have it out there than closing eyes and ears about what one of the candidates is saying
Probably fuel their idea that they're fighting the evil establishment.
Bounceounce
Member
Good, it's not his place to interfere.
Just because it's a policy of his doesn't mean it's not harmful hate speech. There are plenty of other outlets that covered this stance, so removing a post on Facebook isn't going to hide it.
Also, the "Pussy" part was never the issue with the Trump tape. I still don't understand why people are fixated on his use of that word. It would have been just as bad if he said, "Grab them by the crotch", as the issue was the sexual assault, not the use of the word pussy.
wut
It isn't interference to do something that is within your rights to do.
Rules his company decided on were broken but he let business implications dictate Trump getting this special privilege.
Pretty much.
VendettaRed07
Member
I am aware that it is hate speech in this scenario. But he isn't some tin foil alt right weirdo randomly posting on a page that nobody cares about. His position matters because he is running for a position where he can actually make the things that people consider to be hate speech into law. We can't walk on egg shells around it and pretend like it isn't happening. And sure, "other sources would have covered it", but then why criticize Facebook for just leaving what other sources have reported as well. As many people should see it as possible. Removing it from certain sources so less people are aware is counter intuitive.
Also People have an issue with the word Pussy because that is how television handles this sort of thing. They often don't care about context as long as you bleep words that are considered explicit. But most networks made an exception in this case because of the gravity of the situation. Which was the right call
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
At first look I was going to get all conflicted but when I thought it over, it is a good move.
Precisely.
Precisely.
What? I think the premise here is that the post should be removed from Facebook. Last time I checked removing a post on Facebook didn't impact the numerous news outlets that were reporting on the same story. Therefore, no one is sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "LALALALALA". The employees simply asked their employer to stand by the normal hate-speech stance, and remove the post, which Zuckerberg declined to do citing the source of the post - a rich white guy that is running for the office of President of the US (which also happens to have at least one active supporter/monetary contributor on the Facebook board - Peter Thiel).
Why even have a policy for hate speech then? Double standards that tolerates hateful views against a minority, what's alarming is that Zuck agreed it was hate speech and overruled it! I know its his platform but he shouldn't prance around speaking about this objective social platform when objectivity is based on his whims. Undermines the entire thing, there is no real policy to follow, just Zucks opinion.
Just because 40% of the country are literal white supremacist and proto facist losers doesnt actually mean we need to entertain or tolerate white supremacy or fascism nor does it make them valid points of view.
Zuck just dont give a fuck, hes a wealthy white guy and empathy doesn't make money. He'll take the financial path of least resistance even if that path leads him to trample minorities.
Zuck just dont give a fuck, hes a wealthy white guy and empathy doesn't make money. He'll take the financial path of least resistance even if that path leads him to trample minorities.
VendettaRed07
Member
Because normally you wouldn't assume 1 of the only 2 people who could become President would have something that so obviously slots into that category as a major policy proposal
SiegfriedFM
Member
I kind of agree that the post should remain, as it's a valid part of the rhetoric of a presidential candidate. Thus it has historical and political value.
I would be thrilled and happy if they simply banned him after the election though.
I would be thrilled and happy if they simply banned him after the election though.
So? It clearly comes under hate speech, just because it's a political proposal doesn't mean it should receive special status. Shouldn't matter what type of candidate you are, hate speech is hate speech no matter where it comes from and there are rules in place to deal with it*
*Based on how Zuck feels on the day.
parrotbeak
Member
Would they remove the post if he put up a dick pic?
VendettaRed07
Member
There is value in seeing him for what he is and people being aware of what he is saying. If people are offended by the post he made than they should vote against him rather than asking it to be removed.
If people can't handle the posts now then imagine what they would be in for if he wins. How would facebook go about censoring that.
Chezzymann
Member
If they went ahead and did do this it would start a huge controversy in the news about freedom of speech and "liberal America trying to silence Republicans" or whatever so I could see why he thought it was a bad idea even if it was actually hate speech
Hes trying to run a company and angering half the country is probably not a good thing for business, even if in this scenario it's the ethical option
Hes trying to run a company and angering half the country is probably not a good thing for business, even if in this scenario it's the ethical option
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Not as long as he attaches a tirade against a minority group
MrMephistoX
Gold Member
Honestly it should be preserved not for monetary reasons but to keep it online for the electorate to see what a scumbag he is.
Trump gets where he is and benefits because eof people treating him like any other joe shmo candidate. But does everything he can to break expectations and traditions of running for the candidacy(to put it lightly). I guess I can't blame people for trying to be bigger than him and not compromising their morals, but look at what ignoring this shit leads to.
Well, any reasonably informed individual can see him for what he is by day to day consumption of media/news and a Facebook ban wouldn't stop his message but it would be symbolic of his rhetoric being dangerous, hateful and unacceptable. But, the atmosphere in FB is such, that they're happy to tolerate hate speech as long as it's groups of people Zuck isn't concerned about.
VendettaRed07
Member
If he posted it along with saying "If I am President, I am calling for a complete and total shutdown for women to give blowjobs on all dicks that are not this dick. Any blowjob that does not service this dick will be punished by full force of the law" and then legitimately actually stated this would be something he planned on doing if he won
then leave it up. Might sound like a joke but we literally are about as close to Trump saying and doing that as we possibly could be. And considering his positions, and the power he would have. You have to take it seriously.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
There's really no point in removing it now: it's nearly a year old, his position on Muslim Americans is well known, and his supporters are shored up. Not allowing him to post further hate speech would have more meaning, but they won't do that either.
cheezcake
Member
Honest to god banning Trump from Facebook would have been the god damn dumbest decision possible. How much fuel does that shit give his supporters, imagine the conservative media rhetoric about censorship and liberal conspiracies over the next few days. And then you have to consider that you are removing the chance of people seeing this at all, because like it or not, Facebook is the primary information source for a sizable chunk of people these days.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked