Facebook boycott leaders ‘disappointed’ after meeting with Zuckerberg, Sandberg | Hacker News Reader

Facebook boycott leaders ‘disappointed’ after meeting with Zuckerberg, Sandberg

techcrunch.com

30 points0xedb15 comments

"(...) made some decisions that were “significant setbacks for civil rights"

Which civil rights? Whose? Is the claim that you have to shut people up in order to protect people's feelings, or is it that you have to protect the dim witted from dangerous ideas? Is it that people are herd animals who will inevitable follow whoever signals the most followers, so we need to prevent bad people from signalling? This particular case isn't one of bot spam, its a real person making real(ly dumb) statements.

Facebook's obsession with free speech is one of the only good things about the company. I said it in another thread: they should be boycotted, but not for this.

edit: sorry for the formatting, its just cutting my words in half if they are at the end of a line for some reason

>Which civil rights? Whose?

Maybe the Rohingya? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

This is SJW right-speak: vague words that can mean anything to anyone interpreting them at the time.

There are no hard and fast rules because the language doesn't allow for it. It's always shifting and getting hard to comply with as more and more radical people gain a foothold in culture. Each new person decides the previous one didn't have enough control and _therefore_ more control is needed because _obviously_ the previous generation was evil.

It's so lame (and dangerous to all people too).

Social Media decided to exercise editorial power over content. Now every person, organization and group with power in society will redouble attempts to use their own power to influence the way social media uses theirs.

They're all fighting to direct the mindshare of the hoi polloi beneath them. Let them be stuck fighting it out, good riddance, IDGAF anymore.

A publicly funded social network wouldn't have this problem. If it's run by the US government, free speech protections apply. It creates a mechanism for voters to determine how things are run instead of appealing to some corporation. It also removes insideous tracking and privacy practices ultimately motivated by thirst for revenue. Engagement metrics could also be thrown out. Im surprised this possibility isn't discussed more. We take physical public spaces for granted, surely the cost would be a drop in the bucket?

How many people do you think are going to switch from Facebook to a new government platform with no content moderation and no incentive to increase engagement?

What will the US government's content policies be if the politics turn in favour of silencing people? Remember the sedition laws when everyone was worried about Communism? What about satanic groups (usually aetheist groups, see The Satanic Temple) during the satanic panic in the 90s? Gay people only a few decades ago might not be welcome either due to 'family values' arguments.

If the government decides to attack your rights, facebook won't save you. Your examples are all valid things to be concerned about, and i would argue that being reminded of the government's existing power over our lives would increase civic engagement.

Levi’s just laid off 700 corporate employees. They can’t even afford a Facebook ad campaign right now.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/levis-stock-wobbles-as-rev...

I’m sure their survival plan involves marketing.

I wouldn't be sure. I've seen failing companies get restricted to just organic marketing as often as not.

The thing you have to keep in mind about corporations is that, unlike human beings, they lack consciences, at least most of them. They may say they have them, but for various reasons this is usually not at all true.

As a consequence, corporations do whatever will maximize their size and profitability, and are entirely indifferent as to whether what they do is good or bad for the society as a whole.

Now in the case of Facebook that means following policies that at least in some very important ways are quite bad for the world. That is the very nature of its business model. Furthermore I can't think of any way external pressure or governmental laws could seriously change that, so we need to be looking for alternatives.

Well they even failed their own commissioned independent audit of 2 years around their policies.

"Facebook has not done enough to fight discrimination on its platform and has made some decisions that were “significant setbacks for civil rights,” according to a new independent audit of the company’s policies and practices.

Then Sheryl even posted this ... yeah right

"We are making changes – not for financial reasons or advertiser pressure, but because it is the right thing to do."

Here's the same article via MSN / Microsoft News for those unable to opt out of Techcrunch's dark pattern cookie tracking accept policies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/facebook-boycott-l...

5 years ago the internet couldn't decide if they wanted to censor child porn and now here we are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com