It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the right side of this issue.
Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?
You're, for some reason, confusing the messenger with the message. The fact was that Zuckerberg met with civil rights leaders and, when faced with questions regarding the current racial justice problem, Zuckerberg's reaction was to do absolutely zero with regards to any possible solution or mitigation.
I am trying to think of an anology and it is hard to find something comparable. Imagine vegans going to a slaughter house asking the plant manager to turn off their most efficient lane and Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby.
Just because people give you a floor, does automatically not mean your petition will be acted upon.
The whole point of the newspiece is that Zuckerberg is adamant in doing absolutely nothing, even when repeatedly and directly promoted by civil rights leaders.
> Bloomberg reporting the plant not doing enough to satisfy vegan lobby.
There is no "lobby" that requests, say, that racism is bad and that citizens of a specific ratial background should be repeatedly subjected to violence, or that racism should grow rampant in mass media. This is no special favour that a niche interest group seeks special privileges. Once we recognize that all men are created equally, racial violence ceases to be a debatable subject where it's reasonable to support it in any way or form.
US absolutely has had overt lobbying efforts to ensure that slaves remain slaves. There are interest groups in US today that directly benefit from fanning the flames of racism.
I will stop here.
Except this assumes that's what both sides of the argument are actually about. Just checking but do you realise this is an artificial construct that exists entirely in your own head? Zuckerberg in this particular instance, and the free speech absolutist argument in general does not imply acceptance that it's reasonable to support racial violence. Equating the two shows either an intent to deceive or quite intense confusion on the subject.
Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity? Do you feel your opinion is widely shared?
<< Is it your opinion that the people who met with Zuckerberg were props
In a sense that he used them less subtly than Trump used the bible? Yes.
<< his intention was to positively influence the public's opinion of his actions with respect to the protests and civil unrest happening in the country today
No. The entire company is built on a more virulent version of old 'if it bleeds, it leads'. It is silly to think otherwise.
Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity?
Hell no. I shared an unpopular opinion on LinkedIn once. The mob immediately descended.
<<Do you feel your opinion is widely shared?
I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter?
I am glad your convictions are not strongly held. As you charge forward with this perspective, you may find more disagreements with those behind you than those in front. Bringing feelings to the surface is part of the healing and self discovery process.
> I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter?
I was curious about how you see your opinion reflected in the world. You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise. If not, I imagine you'd be in another forum right not having a much different conversation than can be had here.
"There are no strangers. There are only versions of ourselves, many of which we have not embraced, most of which we wish to protect ourselves from." - Toni Morrison
Define strongly. Am I willing to lose my job to be right on the internet? No. But I think it is a mistake to think that those voices lose strength when hidden. Quite the opposite.
<<You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise
I am looking for a reasonable rationale. Frankly, I do not understand some of the decisions people make.
That said, I am hesitating to play amateur psychologist online, but you may be projecting a little.
This means you'll rant on message boards and complain to friends but to no action, because you have something to lose which is good. Make bad decisions, say/do dumb stuff, pay the consequences - we are being more equally protected. This has not always been the case.
> I am looking for a reasonable rationale. Frankly, I do not understand some of the decisions people make.
In trying to understand the decisions others make, you should first listen. Otherwise, I think what some give themselves credit for as "understanding" is really just judgement.
Worst case scenario, you continue posting, your identify is discovered and your opinions become public and have real world consequences which you'll blame on the subjects of your opinion.
This, as the country continues to diversify in both public and private life (more women in government and business, minorities becoming the majority, etc.) is a dying perspective and new ones are being formed. You should try one on to see if you like it.
With respect to amateur psychologist it is not my intention. It is difficult for me to understand how you think and feel during the conversation without asking questions. The fact that you see this as me playing amateur psychologist could be projection on your part.
Interesting. You say it as if it was the most normal thing in the world. You don't think I would be justified in blaming 3rd party for pressuring others into firing me?
No and I think that this is the significant portion of the problem. Do better.
It is significant to me.
You preach understanding and whatnot, but the moment I question your approach you deem it insignificant without attempting to understand. No rationalization, no reasoning. Just do better.
Seems a little smug.
You have to at least show how your approach is not the status quo; that is simply no longer acceptable.
Honor, transparency and accountability are the tools of reconciliation and justice.
From Socrates to MLK, Moses to Mandela, the moral duty has always been to reject that which is unjust to others even if it benefits yourself.
You're asking us to "understand" an immoral position - the privilege to hold unpopular opinions and benefit from laws and systems that support those opinions.
It cannot abide.
My position may be immoral from your perspective, but your imposition on my right to be an asshole is immoral to me.
So you have a choice. Either work with me.. a person, who is somewhat sympathetic to your claims, or go the zealot route of 'it cannot abide'.
You're right, it's "their platform", but, a significant fraction of all human beings are "in" this platform. That's a staggering amount of power in the hands of very few people with virtually no accountability. This is without precedent.
It becomes offensive when the same machinery used for advertising and marketing can just as easily be used by third parties (FB's actual customers) who want to spread disinformation, propaganda or exercise control in some way.
Or are you more concerned about wrong propaganda and misinformation ( I apologize in advance about sounding like this, but it is actually relevant to the point here )?
If we want to move past this, we need some sort of working guidance we can all agree on. In its absence, I might as well default to full free speech defense.
There is not going to be any silver-bullet solution here. If we ever resolve it, it's going to involve a lot of different approaches. I don't think anyone has a complete answer.
For one thing, putting more power in the hands of users to control how their information get used is a step in the right direction. For example, it should be possible to easily identify and search-for any entity who's paying money to put something in front of our eyeballs or who is buying our data. Even better, it should be possible to strictly limit who or what gets our information.
"The disaster ruins everything, all the while leaving everything intact." - Maurice Blanchot
Is this not the point of the unrest?