"Mark Zuckerberg Brags: We Didn't Allow Pro-Life Groups to Advertise Before Ireland's Abortion Vote"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is just evil at work. Plain and simple.
I bet he thinks he is so clever.
 
I would say ā€œexplainedā€ rather than ā€œbraggedā€. The speech doesnā€™t come across as gloating.

With that said, I find his explanation of not wanting private groups making the decision weird because:
  1. Why focus on the pro-life ads from Americans, not just the ads in general?
  2. Arguing for why someone should make a decision is not the same as making that decision. Conflating the two is bizarre.
  3. Facebook, as a private company, exerted its relatively massive influence itself have an influence on the election by not airing the ads. Withholding information is itself a method of influencing people.
In the end, I think he just comes across as, at best, having really flawed reasoning, but I think thereā€™s at least a touch of hypocrisy there.
 
The only people that really care about Mark Zuckerberg are the advertisers who pay to post on Facebook. He is not significant to the rest of the world and comes off more as a pest.
 
Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and Google may possibly be reigned in based on laws concerning public utilities. Yes, I know about the ownership, but they have become so pervasive in the arena of public speech and have set up such a track record of censorship that I suspect they may find that they have moved so far into the public arena re: speech that they may be reigned in.

We seem to have a young generation which is fixated on ā€œhateā€ speech, and which has little or no comprehension or knowledge of the history of the 1st Amendment. They seem to have no knowledge that the ACLU, not exactly an ā€œalt-rightā€ group (and not one of my favorites) has gone to Court to protect the right of the Ku Klux Klan to march (and at least one of those marches was in Skokie, Illinois).

When a company with as much power over speech decides to favor one party and censor the other - particularly over ads, we have a significant problem.
 
Well, a lot of good his meeting with the Pope did a few years ago.
 
Not the first time that facebook use his power to blog conservative political causes.

And this mandate political correctness - or blocking of dissenting views that should not be accepted - is not only from facebook, but also, Amazon, Mozilla and so much more virtual compagnies.

Lila Rose, on the article links mentionned the ban of her Live Action ads on twitter too.

We should avoid them, stop to feed them or created alternatives if possible.
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ asked us to proclaim to our very best the Kingdom of God;
the Gospel of Life; by helping conscience to be oriented toward life;
it helps save souls; because participation in Christ helps families.
In our local areas, where are neighbors are, compassionately engages as best one is able, in the climate we live;
on a moral imperative; raises awareness in dire need of this; to change the laws & practices; that would diminish the ā€˜air of acceptabilityā€™ against a Christ Who is Life.
So much reticence, and moving for free-speech on public venues like this certainly helps; but face to face as best we can more and more. Peace.
 
His response actually sounds measured and responsible. This isnā€™t about pro-life/pro-choice; itā€™s about whether groups based in one country should be allowed to influence the outcome of a referendum held in another. Itā€™s the same principle as, for example, Russian interference in the UKā€™s referendum on membership of the EU.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
Why would you post something that made you mad?
Click to expand...
Misery loves company.
otjm said:
When a company with as much power over speech decides to favor one party and censor the other - particularly over ads, we have a significant problem.
Click to expand...
YouTube has often been criticized by LGBT creators and feminists. Even in the recent Steven Crowder case, they initially backed off despite numerous proven uses of homophobic slurs against a man who is gay.

Facebook likewise has been criticized by LGBT advertisements, feminists (even if not made maliciously), and black people.

Ultimately, it doesnā€™t take a lot of searching to realize that both Google and Facebook have come under fire from both sides. This isnā€™t exclusive to the right.

But consider something. Thereā€™s 300+ hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute. Iā€™m sure Facebook gets 1+ million updates a minute. They also historically have rules on what content is/isnā€™t allowed, and people continue to hold them to that. But consider the numbers! How do you expect to economically let humans deal with that scale? And government regulation wonā€™t help unless you require scaling back, but that itself will be beyond fraught with issues.

This isnā€™t to say that there arenā€™t ways to improve. I know Google, and Iā€™m pretty sure Facebook, would be among the first to tell you that there is. But societally, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram offer a challenge that has never been seen before, and thinking we can just slap old solutions onto them is foolish. At best, we call out their faults, use given tools to help (e.g. flagging), and encourage alternatives if they do better. Personally, we should also come out of our echo chambers, lest we think weā€™re the sole victims of these problems.
Londoner said:
itā€™s about whether groups based in one country should be allowed to influence the outcome of a referendum held in another
Click to expand...
I was considering this to after my comment. Replace ā€œprivateā€ with ā€œAmericanā€ and ā€œdecideā€ with ā€œinfluenceā€, and his comment makes a lot more sense.

Granted, thatā€™s not what he said, though the context could indicate thatā€™s what he meant. We donā€™t get much from the video (and Iā€™m too tired to search for the full one), but if this (as it seems) came at an unscripted moment (e.g. Q&A), then that would also lend credence to the idea that he chose his words poorly.
 
@mysti:

With as immense as a platform as Facebook it goes without saying there will be some level of criticism on all fronts, but Facebook moderators are generally on the left or strongly on the left and the censorship would appear to disproportionately affect certain groups. Reigning in from the government wonā€™t be a silver bullet as the issue is ultimately about the nuances of free speech and this is something that has been and will continue to be contested pretty much indefinitely, but there is strong reason to believe it will reduce the current oversights.
 
Last edited:
I was about say exactly this but far less eloquently. Fundamentally it was a question for the Irish people to answer, its somewhat unfair if foreign groups are allowed to exert influence.
 
Russian interference in Brexit through cyber hacking and bribes is analogous to entities running pro-life ads?
 
Last edited:
Londoner said:
His response actually sounds measured and responsible. This isnā€™t about pro-life/pro-choice; itā€™s about whether groups based in one country should be allowed to influence the outcome of a referendum held in another. Itā€™s the same principle as, for example, Russian interference in the UKā€™s referendum on membership of the EU.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Thereā€™s a significant word missing from the headline, ie. ā€œForeignā€.

And he didnā€™t ā€œbragā€, he described it as a case where heā€™s asking governments to make laws (which are then public and impartial) about foreign social media advertising, rather than facebook itself. He doesnā€™t like being an arbiter of foreign intervention. Thatā€™s all.
 
Last edited:
And Jesus said to his disciples, how am I going to reach these people without facebook and twitter.
 
The funny thing is, his little strategy didnā€™t even work LOL.

Trump is president anyway .
Nyah
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top