You know Facebook has an image problem when major nonprofits start turning down donations over political lies
- Reference: 1591859345
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/06/11/facebook_nonprofit_funds/
- Source link:
On Wednesday, Public Knowledge and the Open Technology Institute said they would no longer accept funding from Facebook because it refuses to moderate hate, misinformation, and abuse.
"I believe that different platforms can have different moderation policies," [1]said Chris Lewis, President and CEO of Public Knowledge, in a statement.
"However, platforms shouldn't hide behind the First Amendment as an excuse to allow hate, misinformation, and abuse to run rampant on their services, particularly when they hold such a dominant position in the marketplace. Doing so distorts what the First Amendment means, and ignores the influence that moderation has on our civic conversations and system of democracy."
Sarah Morris, director of New America's Open Technology Institute, pointed to Facebook's suspension of black people's accounts and its tolerance of white supremacist content, noting that the biz has long struggled with responsibility.
Despite calls by civil rights groups to reform the ad network's policies around online speech that incites violence, promotes voter suppression, and spreads misinformation to disenfranchise the black community, "last week Facebook's leadership doubled down in defense of the decision to allow posts from the President that included calls to violence and false information about primary elections," [2]said Morris in a statement.
Public Knowledge lists Facebook funding at [3]more than $25,000 in 2018/2019 while the New America's [4]2018 annual report lists Facebook funding at more than $100,000. The decision to forgo Facebook's largess may help mitigate [5]longstanding [6]concerns that donations double as hush money when tech policy groups confront issues in which their patrons have a business interest.
Facebook to save US users from ads bought by foreign state-controlled media [7]READ MORE
In recent weeks, Twitter for the first time flagged tweets made by Trump and retweeted by the White House that prompted misinformation or violence. Facebook, however, has not done so with similar content on its platform and its CEO has justified lack of intervention by declaring the company should not be an arbiter of truth.
Zuckerberg's intransigence prompted [8]employee resignations and internal protests. But pushback hasn't swayed Facebook's leader, who owns about 60 per cent of the voting shares of his company, making him more or less unaccountable to intervention from the company's board of directors.
Asked to comment about the criticism leveled by the two policy groups, a Facebook spokesperson said, "We've heard from some organizations about their disagreement with a number of the content decisions we've made and we appreciate their feedback. We look forward to continuing to work with them on these important topics and others."
To "appreciate" feedback without acting on it is indistinguishable from ignoring feedback. But it's not as if Facebook is doing nothing. It has enacted policies that may be meaningful in a limited context. For example, Facebook recently said it will hide [9]ads bought by state-controlled media operations from US users.
Burying propaganda sponsored by foreign states counts for something. But Facebook remains committed to distributing political lies. Zuckerberg justifies this stance as a defense of freedom of expression; it's also a defense of freedom from accountability. ®
Sponsored: [10]Free Hands-on Training: Anthos Service Mesh
[1] https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-stands-with-civil-rights-groups-by-refusing-facebook-funding/
[2] https://www.newamerica.org/oti/press-releases/statement-oti-director-sarah-morris-facebook-funding/
[3] https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/sources-of-funding-for-public-knowledge/
[4] https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/Digital_Annual_Report_2018.pdf
[5] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/facebook-google-donate-heavily-to-privacy-advocacy-groups
[6] https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/why-arent-privacy-groups-fighting-to-regulate-facebook.html
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/facebook_state_owned_media_block/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/facebook_summary/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/facebook_state_owned_media_block/
[10] https://go.theregister.com/tl/1956/-9050/free-hands-on-training-anthos-service-mesh?td=wptl1956
Re: Obvious Zuck is obvious
Of all the things Facebook does, not censoring Trump should be the least of our concerns.
stop using it
Only way to make him change.
Re: stop using it
That would mean I have to sign up first.
Re: stop using it
Not signing up doesn't stop you being used by it, unfortunately.
Re: stop using it
Not signing up doesn't stop you being abused by it, unfortunately.
That seems more accurate.
Not on Suckbook and never will be. Any information on there about me has been obtained without my consent and may well be a complete pack of porkies.
Re: stop using working for it
Was contacted by a Facebook Reality Labs (Oculus Research) person more than a year ago asking if I'd be interested in an opening they had. Said I didn't want to sully my reputation being associated with Facebook. If the employees really don't like the company's policies they should vote with their feet an go work for companies they are proud to be associated with.
Zuch in this instance is in an impossible situation.
What the president of the US says/writes is important - even if you dont agree with it, it is something a significant percentage of the population want to hear. At the end of the day, you dont have to listen to it.
To block or otherwise interfere with the presidents posts with 'factcheck' or other tags is, by action, interfering in the electoral process - irrespective of which side makes the statement. One cant put a flag on a rally speech- and we think it inappropriate if someone tries to disrupt that speech.
Like many of the things the president says, it can be seen by some as hate/, while others see it as a form of truth.
If Zuch was to interfere (as with Twitter) - then FB ends up labled as oligarchical or corporate interference.
In the words of Beatrice Hall (Miss attributed to Voltaire)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That applies to opinions and personal philosophy, lies are not protected speech.
There is no god given or amendment given right to lie, dissemble or mislead without repercussions.
So if the President says "Lynch all those Niggers", you'll be OK for that to be up there?
If not, please enlighten us where you draw the line?
As for freedom of speech, a private company. They can choose who they host. They can choose to host the KKK but decide not to host a Martin Luther King Jr. Tribute page.
So take that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And just tag on, "but I won't have you saying those things in my house"
If Trump were to say that, you could be pretty sure he'd be voted out in November.
That's why free speech is important.
calibration out of date
"If Trump were to say that, you could be pretty sure he'd be voted out in November." you'd like to think so, wouldn't you? But frankly it doesn't seem unlikely to me.
Render unto Caesar ....
Doesn't work - sorry, J.C.
Need not only to be squeaky clean but have the appearance of being squeaky clean.
To sort of mix metaphors, it is not just any old shilling when it is the King's Shilling.
So what's that little blue 'f' for then?
You know, the one at the bottom of most pages on The Reg?
Re: So what's that little blue 'f' for then?
Looks red to me - you sure you're not "f" blind?
I suppose he'll just look t it as more money in his pocket.
Obvious Zuck is obvious
Burying propaganda sponsored by foreign states counts for something. But Facebook remains committed to distributing political lies. Zuckerberg justifies this stance as a defense of freedom of expression; it's also a defense of freedom from accountability.
He so wants to join the Mafia^WTrump administration. He's not quite there yet, but maybe he'll be rewarded after the next election.