December 3, 2019

"It's really important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying, so they can make their own judgments. And, you know, I don't think that a private company should be censoring politicians or news."

Said Mark Zuckerberg, wisely, quoted in "Zuckerberg on allowing political ads: 'People should be able to judge for themselves'" (The Hill).

I'm only blogging this because I see it's controversial. He's getting a lot of pushback, but he stood his ground, even as the interviewer challenged him with the same 2 ideas that I always see: 1. When people pay to get their message out, it should be different, and 2. If messages are false, it should be different.

30 comments:

tim in vermont said...

Is that the same The Hill that forced out Jon Solomon for accurate reporting that didn’t advance the case for removing Trump?

The Bergall said...

He's right. However this nation is full of people who believe what they want to believe whether right, wrong or just plain disinformation.

Sebastian said...

"2. If messages are false, it should be different."

A good rule for the MSM. The NYT shouldn't publish and CNN shouldn't broadcast when they'd propagate false messages. In fact, over the last three years, as they promoted the Russia hoax with numerous false messages, there were many days neither the NYT nor CNN should have been operating at all.

Seeing Red said...

Bwaaaaaa.

LIAR.

Howard said...

The freedom that Zuckerberg is promoting is a huge opportunity for Democrats because way more liberal pinko slime balls are on Facebook then upstanding chicken hawk cuckservatives.

Dave Begley said...

And I don't think Amazon should be censoring book reviews and deleting that reviewer's entire body of work because the book review is skeptical that the planet is going to be destroyed by global warming.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Twitter is censoring all non-leftwing content. Twitter = Chinese Communist.

Darrell said...

When we have rail guns that can launch people into space, people will be more circumspect in their speech.

The Crack Emcee said...

I agree:

It's not Zuckerberg's fault if people are stupid and can't see their way clear of what they talked themselves into.

Nonapod said...

2. If messages are false, it should be different.

That's a laugh. If political ads were required to be true the overwhelming majority of current ads would need to be removed. And who is deciding what is "true" and what is "fake"? I certainly don't any faith that the current crop of potential truth determiners that are embeded in places like Facebook, Google, and Twitter are capable of objectivity and fair mindedness.

Jupiter said...

"If messages are false, it should be different."

As long as I get to determine which messages are false.

JCA1 said...

I think it was 60 Minutes this week where they were grilling the Youtube CEO over political ads and essentially arguing that Youtube had an obligation to vet each ad for "accuracy"
and that any ads that were not completely 100% accurate should not be aired. I presume this means I won't see political ads on CBS this next election cycle.

Mike Sylwester said...

The drive to suppress free speech is being developed in the universities. That is where the intellectual rationales are being formulated and tested.

The universities sends its graduates out into society, where the suppression of free speech gradually is being implemented.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Probably pure pragmatism, rather than principle, on Zuckerberg's part. Wait till the Republicans are out of power. Then we'll censor the shit out of them!

Char Char Binks said...

I agree with Zuckerberg on this, and I admired his stance. Although Facebook hasn't exactly been a bastion of freedom, and I don't use his service, he's pushing back against pressure from those who think it allows too much freedom, including some of the only people specifically forbidden by the Constitution from making any law abridging freedom of speech.

Mike Sylwester said...

When people pay to get their message out, it should be different

That argument is bogus.

University graduates who have been indoctrinated in the suppression of free speech intend to suppress unpaid speech too.

Until they succeed in that ultimate intention, however, they sometimes lie that they intend to suppress only paid speech.

Wince said...

The left now views corporations as easier to manipulate and at lower transaction cost, largely via pressure campaigns, than persuading people directly.

A strategy that is likely to weaken corporate influence over public opinion in the long run as long as it's not coupled with government power, which is the left's end game.

pacwest said...

Shorter Zuckerberg- 'Which way is the wind blowing?'

Jason said...

Zuckerberg had his agents ban me from Facebook for a day for writing the sentence “illegal immigration is a crime” in a comment on someone else’s post.

I think Zuck is doing his best. We could do a lot worse than him.

Like that @jack-ass at Twitter, for instance.

But I don’t trust the happy-face fascists in the Bay Area hiring pool to decide what is or isn’t accurate.

Or anything else.

The less power they have to quash expression, the better.

Yancey Ward said...

The left wants to silence their critics- it really is that simple, and they won't stop until they succeed. The left lost control of the gates to news and opinion when the internet arrived, and they are fighting to regain control. Zuckerberg, to his credit, does seem to be fighting against this, but I don't think his heart is really in it, and he will eventually knuckle under just like Twitter and Google. Google, as I write, is preparing to shut down vast swaths of the YouTube channels under the excuse that they aren't generating sufficient revenue, but this is happening because Google started shutting down the ads to certain politically incorrect channels, and then shut down the ability of those channel's subscribers to pay the channel owners directly.

MayBee said...

Good for him. This is old-fashioned liberal thinking.

MikeR said...

Leading Democratic candidates have talked about breaking up the big tech companies, as have some conservatives. Other leading Democrats have talked about requiring the big tech companies to be "responsible" in suppressing lies and hate speech, of course as defined by leading Democrats. Zuckerberg is pushing back, but I don't know if he can push back hard enough.
I don't where this is going to go.

Howard said...

Zuck is a Trumpet. Peter Thiel gave him his first real money for Facebook. Facebook worked in house with the Trump 2016 campaign. He's one of you people.

Michael K said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350_Duplex-Cyclone

I got banned for several days for commenting that "Muslims don't make good immigrants."

Also, I used the term "Tranny" another time and got banned.

MayBee said...

Facebook did not work in house with the Trump 2016 campaign any more than they worked in house with the Obama 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

But Google literally did work on the Hillary campaign. How amazing they seem to get in no trouble whatsoever. And they can read all your emails.

MayBee said...

With Google, I got locked out of my account a few years ago when Althouse was being punished by them and Patterico was defending her. I commented in support of Althouse and wham! My google account was locked.

Gospace said...

MayBee said...
Facebook did not work in house with the Trump 2016 campaign any more than they worked in house with the Obama 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

But Google literally did work on the Hillary campaign. How amazing they seem to get in no trouble whatsoever. And they can read all your emails.


Can? Substitute do.

I have mt electricity bill emailed to me. Google started to remind remind me that my bill was due soon. I didn't put the due date on my google calendar.

Apparently someone realized advertising in that way that they were reading your emails was really creepy. The monthly reminders stopped shortly after they started.

But I know - if they were reading them then, they'r reading them now.

wendybar said...

Zuckerberg and Company have no problem censoring Conservatives though. I have been banned for a total of 37 consecutive days because I DARED to say Kristin Gillibrand was white trash....when she started lecturing white women that they needed to learn about their white privilege. People call Trump and his supporters a LOT worse than white trash every second of every day.

narciso said...

saverin and the vinklevoss brothers, along with sean parker would be surprised by that, this is a much stranger world than they depicted in max headroom,

Phidippus said...

Zuckerdoodle speech != Zuckerdoodle behavior. (The guy at the top sets the tone for the business, don't let anyone tell you different.)

His PR flacks have coached him and he's finally hip to the fact that he's in bad odor with the party that's going to be in power in DC for the next 5 years, at least.

No serious person is fooled, but at the margin, it may be somewhat helpful from his point of view. This is not time for him to go all Ayn Rand in public.