• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antiochus

Member
but then Mark Zuckerberg shot those proposals down

http://www.wsj.com/articles/faceboo...-remove-trump-posts-as-hate-speech-1477075392

Issues around Mr. Trump’s posts emerged when he posted on Facebook a link to a Dec. 7 campaign statement “on preventing Muslim immigration.” The statement called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Mr. Trump has since backed away from an outright ban based on religion, saying his policies would target immigrants from countries with a record of terrorism.

Users flagged the December content as hate speech, a move that triggered a review by Facebook’s community-operations team, with hundreds of employees in several offices world-wide. Some Facebook employees said in internal chat rooms that the post broke Facebook’s rules on hate speech as detailed in its internal guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

Content reviewers were asked by their managers not to remove the post, according to some of the people familiar. Facebook’s head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, later explained in an internal post that the company wouldn’t take down any of Mr. Trump’s posts because it strives to be impartial in the election season, according to people who saw the post.

During one of Mr. Zuckerberg’s weekly town hall meetings in late January at the company’s Menlo Park, Calif., headquarters, a Muslim employee asked how the executive could condone Mr. Trump’s comments. Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s call for a ban did qualify as hate speech, but said the implications of removing them were too drastic, according to two people who attended the meeting. Mr. Zuckerberg said he backed Ms. Bickert’s call, they said.

Many employees supported the decision. “Banning a U.S. presidential candidate is not something you do lightly,” said one person familiar with the decision.

But others, including some Muslim employees at Facebook, were upset that the platform would make an exception. In Dublin, where many of Facebook’s content reviewers work, more than a dozen Muslim employees met with their managers to discuss the policy, according to another person familiar with the matter. Some created internal Facebook groups protesting the decision, while others threatened to leave.

Employees continued to submit questions for Mr. Zuckerberg’s weekly town hall about Mr. Trump’s posts for months after, the person familiar said. But the internal-communications team responded that the question had been answered and the matter was decided, the person said.
 
Zuckerberg is a business man above all. It should not be surprising. It's good at least to see not all of his employees fall in lockstep with that view of his.
 

kmax

Member
Oh boy, we sure do dislike sexism, racism and misogyny, as long as it's not popular figures who are saying them.

For diversity!
 

Hycran

Banned
It's not like it would accomplish anything. It might be even better so you can identify people who agree with these policies and mute/block them.

Considering all the Repubs claiming media conspiracy, it was probably the right call.
 

pa22word

Member
They can leave then. At the end of the day facebook is a social media platform, and just because some members want the ability to filter out parts of reality they feel is abhorrent doesn't mean that those aspects of society aren't real, and someone who's the republican party nom for POTUS holding those views are about as fucking real as you can get. Let it get exposure. Let people damn him. Let people make fools of themselves for supporting him. Don't throw a newspaper over the problem and hope it goes away.
 

kmfdmpig

Member
If it's a post from the actual presidential candidate then there is some news value to the post that goes beyond a random racist making a post.

With Trump, isn't there also a benefit of giving him the platform to show how ignorant and awful he really is?
 

Slayven

Member
I love how white rich tech dudes love Free Speech. cause they know they will never get any of that "Free Speech" thrown at them
 
This is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

Personally, I think they made the right call. Let the world see Trump for the racist bigot he is
 

El Topo

Member
I love how white rich tech dudes love Free Speech. cause they know they will never get any of that "Free Speech" thrown at them

They love free speech because it means less control over them, because their money is tied to it (in case of Facebook) and because they have the means to influence public opinion.
 

faisal233

Member
I love how white rich tech dudes love Free Speech. cause they know they will never get any of that "Free Speech" thrown at them
I would be more pissed off at Facebook if they censored Trump. That's not hate speech, that's a scary vision for our country and everyone deserves to hear it.
 
Facebook is pretty influential so if you ban one candidate you have to ban the other because these platforms do influence the election.
 

Slayven

Member
No different then when the Reddit dude said "Coontown" had value.

Then again a lot of Trump's supporters probably posted there
 
I mean, imagine the backlash that would have taken place if Trump had been banned from Facebook. And for what? I'm not sure what Facebook would have accomplished.
 

KHarvey16

Member
I think there's enough nuance and gray area in regards to the idea of censoring the words of a presidential candidate to not have to rely on assigning ulterior or nefarious motives to the decision either way.
 

Stopdoor

Member
Yeah, I can kind of understand leaving it up because it has value in judging the candidate - why scrub good evidence of how terrible he is? If there's a such thing as special case, this is definitely one of them.
 

rpmurphy

Member
I don't mind them not deleting them outright since that may be counter-productive, but if Facebook would visibly mark and tag such posts as hate speech or such kinds of categorization (by some combination of programmatic and human-based analysis), that would be a good step to take.
 

Sendero

Member
Hiding/removing the reference would have triggered a Streisand effect, which would have both given it more exposure to more people, and validation to his base, as being "ideologically persecuted".


Who knows, perhaps it would have opened the debate on if these companies should/not have the power to censor and under which premise. Plus it might have deviated the attention from the racist comments itself. It might have even united the Republicans against a common cause.


Either way, this election proved that evidence from your past, can be used against you as a PR weapon later on. So, censorship is really a double edged sword.
 

johnsmith

remember me
Zuck was right.

Inviting Trump to SNL or Jimmy Fallon is one thing. But Facebook is an more or less an open platform and this would be some disturbing censorship.
 
Since he acknowledged it as hate speech, it should now be ok for others to post hate speech as well as long as they are sufficiently influential and currently relevant.
 

KiN0

Member
It's hate speech, but Trump is the republican candidate in this debate. Removing his ads would absolutely count as political censorship.
 

Kaiterra

Banned
Trump was not THE candidate at that time, he was one of like 14 or however many primary candidates. Just clearing that part up.
 

Mr. X

Member
As much as I hate to admit it, politicians shouldn't have their stuff deleted. They shouldn't be allowed to delete or edit it either though. Pin it to the top instead.
 
I don't care enough one way or another. Facebook can delete (or not delete) what it wants. Probably good they let people see how prejudice Trump is anyway. Hopefully turns more people off to him, or is that wishful thinking?

Edit: To clarify 'I don't care' in that Facebook can choose what it does and I'm not going to say otherwise to them. I personally wouldn't use a platform that allowed hate speech, but I never used Facebook to begin with.
 
Business is business. It sucks that shit like that is allowed to spread, but at least it's there to remind people of how shitty Trump is and his policies.

I don't care enough one way or another. Facebook can delete (or not delete) what it wants. Probably good they let people see how prejudice Trump is anyway.

Edit: To clarify 'I don't care' in that Facebook can choose what it does and I'm not going to say otherwise to them. I personally wouldn't use a platform that allowed hate speech, but I never used Facebook to begin with.

Facebook is supposed to tackle hate speech, hate groups, and any form of bigtroy or sexism...when it suits them. Otherwise fuck you pay me let's make those clicks boiz.

Now, what should happen is if enough people report it, the damn thing needs to be taken down. The tools are there for the community and yet they only work when FB doesn't profit from them.
 
I'm amazed so many people are against this, honestly.

Does anybody seriously think Trump's hate speech has helped him in this election more than it has hurt him?
 

Media

Member
I wouldn't want it removed for the simple reason that it proves what Trump is. Hell, I wouldn't allow him to delete it himself since he now walked back on those comments. He has to live with it.
 

Agnostic

but believes in Chael
They should censor all questionable positions of politicians to make them look better to the public. If I didn't know Trump was a demagogue I may have voted for him.
 

Cindro

Member
This is clearly a net (yay punz!) positive.

Instead of deleting the ugly garbage Trump has said, it remains immortal on his own personal account! With the amount of doofus clowns who think there's some huge conspiracy around the election being rigged against Trump, deleting a source straight from the horse's mouth containing heinous ideas does him a favor.

It's not like his deranged followers will magically stop being racist, rancid bedsores because one of the most publicized figures in human history was censored on social media.
 
I'm amazed so many people are against this, honestly.

Does anybody seriously think Trump's hate speech has helped him in this election more than it has hurt him?

Trump's hate speech has helped him get the following he has.

In regard to this however, as long as Facebook publicly states that politicians are exempt from their own hate speech rules, it's all good
 

entremet

Member
Trump's hate speech has helped him get the following he has.

In regard to this however, as long as Facebook publicly states that politicians are exempt from their own hate speech rules, it's all good

I think you're looking at the trees and missing the forest.

Shouldn't we want to know that a Presidential candidate is a bigot? FB is huge and it's the entire Internet for many.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom