Zuckerberg Walks Back Defense of Holocaust Deniers' Rights, Highlights Facebook's Big Problem
Let's just bring back Friendster.
Intrepid tech journalist Kara Swisher, Editor at Large of Recode, landed a major interview this week with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Swisher was very vocal on social media during the Congressional hearings on Cambridge Analytica earlier this year. She felt that Zuckerberg had gotten off easy as many Senators lobbed softball questions at the billionaire CEO of the world's largest social network. Facebook finally invited Swisher down to their headquarters in Menlo Park, California to discuss a range of issues mainly focusing on the company's management of user data, fake news, and hate speech.
One of the most baffling moments of the nearly 90 minute interview on the Recode Decode podcast was a moment when Facebook's CEO defended the rights of holocaust deniers on his platform. "I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened," said Zuckerberg. "I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong..."
For a company that is at the center of the fake news epidemic, it is simply baffling to hear the CEO defend users' rights to post false information. "What we will do is we’ll say, 'Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.' But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed."
Zuckerberg continually dodged Swisher's direct question about InfoWars, breaking down the company's core philosophy. "There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice, so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important."
Facebook's desire to give people a voice comes with the trade-offs of free speech, but this highlights the biggest problem with the platform. People have the right to share false information, which can go viral. To manually moderate the two billion monthly active users is impossible, and the company is leaning heavily on AI to help prevent potential harm to the community.
Shacknews was affected by these changes earlier this year when Facebook labeled our site as spam, deleting 90 percent of our posts without warning. An even dumber example of the flaw in trusting AI for moderation of posts occurred during E3 2018, when Shacknews attempted to run two video advertisements on Facebook for our Chairpet of the Board election. My dog Lola's satirical campaign video was approved for a boost on Facebook while our Video Editor Greg Burke's cat Nessie was rejected by Facebook's artificial intelligence.
Facebook has created a platform where hate speech, and fake news continues to fester. They are a publicly traded company with a profit motive, and the sentiments shared today by Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't leave anyone more confident in Facebook's ability to properly protect their community from false information. Much of what the CEO said in the interview with Kara Swisher was recycled PR mumbo jumbo, but when he attempted to speak from the heart he created another outrage online as he defended the rights of deniers of the holocaust. After the piece ran on Recode.net, Zuckerberg provided an update. “I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive, and I absolutely didn’t intend to defend the intent of people who deny that.”
It isn't about Zuckerberg's personal feelings about Holocaust deniers. It is the fact that he is willingly defending his users rights to post false information. Facebook boosted plenty of fake news leading up to the 2016 election, and we can only hope that they will be as strict leading up to this Fall's midterm elections as they were denying our Chairpet of the Board advertisement for Nessie the cat.
Zuckerberg was also pushed by Swisher regarding the Cambridge Analytica debacle to hold someone at the company accountable to which he replied, "But look, I designed the platform, so if someone’s going to get fired for this, it should be me." If only, Zuck. If only.
-
Shacknews
replyAsif Khan posted a new article, Zuckerberg Walks Back Defense of Holocaust Deniers' Rights, Highlights Facebook's Big Problem
-
[deleted]
-
Darkest Timeline.
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
What a fucking idiot. Like, how dumb do you have to be to think that's something that is ok to say?
-
I don’t understand the article, and I admit, I’m somewhat ignorant on the subject, but the article seems to provide a lot of complaining and not a great deal of solutions.
The article even states that manually fixing the problem is impossible, so they’re using AI. I get that it’s not perfect, but they’re trying. I see no other proposals.
Zuckerberg’s point about holocaust deniers seems fair to me. How do you differentiate between someone who is looney toons vs someone intentionally spreading false information. Most holocaust deniers, to my knowledge, generally believe it didn’t happen, because they’re crazy.
Are we not allowed to share any conspiracy theories on Facebook? If I share a story that implies Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone, am I spreading false information? I mean is the slippery slope not really obvious to see?
At what point are people held personally responsible for believing every headline they see on Facebook? If people are that dumb, maybe they deserve what happens to them. Maybe things like a better education system should be more of a priority and less what the great Zuckerberg can personally do to save all of our society.-
If people are that dumb, maybe they deserve what happens to them.
People are being murdered because of people on FB/WhatsApp/etc believing fake news. They don't deserve to die because some other idiots are on the platform.-
Point to me the people who are dieing because crazy old ladies believe that cats talk and that soap operas are real.
-
-
None of those people were manipulated by crazy old cat ladies. And I'd guess that there might be a law that covers inciting violence (IANALFI)
-
I was refuting the idea that somehow the fake news is OK because the victims are the idiots who believed it. That simply isn't the case at a small scale (these murders) or a large scale (the US election).
-
There's a fine line between hostile manipulation and eccentric. I'm strongly against suppressing free speech in an attempt to eliminate unprotected speech. I can strongly disagree with flat earthers and holocaust deniers based on simple facts and logic, while supporting their rights. Again, suppressing free, protected, speech is a very, very bad idea.
-
beliefs that Jews are subhuman filth to be exterminated is not free, protected speech on facebook.com, shacknews.com or at any other private business. Facebook clearly disagrees with you as well, since they are suppressing various forms of speech they deem too dangerous. Holocaust denial apparently doesn't meet the bar. People familiar with holocaust denial will most likely tell you how important it is to stop the spread of those ideas.
-
Beliefs are not speech. Period. Expression of beliefs on the other hand, can be unlawful and / or unprotected. And while holocaust denial can be hateful or crazy, and people are free to express it, it's hard to legally suppress until a clearer threshold is crossed. And to be clear, we're talking about state censored speech: the government, state and local police, and such. And sure, some a-hole spouting off about the holocaust might get punched in the face, and that might fall under fighting words (IANAL). But still, under no circumstance, do I want the authorities rounding people up for personal beliefs. Until they cross the line, while regrettable, they are still free citizens. And also, last I checked, posting stupid shit on Facebook wasn't a right, it's a priveledge.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
I am not trying to provide any solutions. In fact, the balance of free speech and curation of fake news is the problem at Facebook. I was highlighting a great interview done by another outlet. Should probably listen to the whole podcast that is embedded in the article. Or click the multiple links to the transcription of the entire interview.
I also provided two anecdotes about AI screwing over our site while allowing hate speech and fake news to continue to be posted on FB.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
we sold all your personal information in order to make a shitload of money" immediately afterwards, proving the rest of the statement as disingenuous bullshit.
Speaking of disingenuous bullshit-
-
there's ample reading you could do on why it's clearly untrue to say 'we sold all your personal information' that doesn't require my time explaining it to someone who was content to form an extremely strong position based on spending little time reading about facts
-
-
exactly why I don't waste time on you
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Funny, they actually talked about that at the beginning of the interview. Kara said she wasn’t sure if he was an asshole yet.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Ding.
-
-
-
