The President Versus the Mods
May 29, 2020 11:27 AM Subscribe
Trump’s executive order against Twitter, targeting Section 230, is reminiscent the message boards and aggrieved trolls of the early 2000s. As Matt Haughey says: “Every bad thing at MetaFilter happened with someone who had been testing the rules for a year or two.”
'Early 2000s forums'?
posted by box at 11:56 AM on May 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by box at 11:56 AM on May 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
I have to assume that's just a reference to still being in the early part of the MetaFilter Century.
posted by stopgap at 12:01 PM on May 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by stopgap at 12:01 PM on May 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
So I was reading the actual executive order, and I think it basically says that the US government is now banned from advertising on any website that moderates comments. The rest of it is nonsense that redefines law to mean what it already meant, or orders to groups he has no actual authority over. I suspect the practical effect of this will be a hastening of the trend to eliminate comment sections entirely from anything that isn't one of the big social networks
posted by JZig at 12:03 PM on May 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by JZig at 12:03 PM on May 29, 2020 [15 favorites]
The The Verge's analysis of the executive order by Adi Robertson:
posted by mmascolino at 12:13 PM on May 29, 2020 [28 favorites]
The order follows a feud with Twitter after it fact-checked one of Trump’s tweets, but it’s been brewing since at least 2019 when a social media “bias” rule was rumored but never revealed. An unfinished draft of the order leaked on Wednesday, full of nonsensical demands and pointless blustering, with many dismissing the rule as simply illegal.Emphasis mine.
But the final order released yesterday is significantly different from that draft — and a good deal more troubling. It’s still a tangle of vaguely coherent bad rules, legally baffling demands, and pure posturing. But it’s easier to see the shape of Trump’s goal: a censorship bill that potentially covers almost any part of the web.
posted by mmascolino at 12:13 PM on May 29, 2020 [28 favorites]
I'm hopeful that Twitter now flagging this clown's posts means he'll feck off to Gab along with his besties.
posted by meehawl at 12:16 PM on May 29, 2020 [29 favorites]
posted by meehawl at 12:16 PM on May 29, 2020 [29 favorites]
Ironically, just last year an executive order was drafted to censor the internet.
posted by ardgedee at 12:35 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by ardgedee at 12:35 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
From that bonkers Executive Order:
posted by filthy light thief at 12:49 PM on May 29, 2020 [25 favorites]
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.Reminder: the number of newspaper publishers and radio station owners, not to mention television broadcasters.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.Reminder: this view of "freedom of speech above [almost] all else" is unique to the United States. Germany outlaws "use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations" outside the contexts of "art or science, research or teaching," and a New Zealand man who shared Christchurch massacre video sentenced to 21 months in jail.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.Harmful content, like suggesting people drink bleach, or take hydroxychloroquine (possibly at a financial gain to himself, and possibly killing those who use it without medical direction to do so)?
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.In other words," let us decide when what we're saying is harassing or when it isn't."
In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).I am looking forward to those records being published, or reported in summary to anonymize reporting parties. I feel like complaints are to silence opponents or unwanted views, rather than flag actually offensive content, or that the offensive content is primarily from racist Republicans. But I'm just guessing there. (Also, the records might just disappear in a few months, who knows?)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:49 PM on May 29, 2020 [25 favorites]
Why President Trump's Order on Social Media Could Harm One Person in Particular: Donald Trump (NYT), in which someone says 'Ironically, Donald Trump is a big beneficiary of Section 230. If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trump’s lies, defamation and threats.'
Trump's Twitter Problem is Just Beginning (New York magazine), in which someone says 'If you're gonna shoot at tech, you better not miss.'
posted by box at 1:05 PM on May 29, 2020 [32 favorites]
Trump's Twitter Problem is Just Beginning (New York magazine), in which someone says 'If you're gonna shoot at tech, you better not miss.'
posted by box at 1:05 PM on May 29, 2020 [32 favorites]
FTFA: The question of what kinds of online speech a world leader should be allowed to post on social media is a mind-bendingly complex one, with tons of conflicting priorities and few easy answers.
No. It isn't.
posted by glonous keming at 1:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [30 favorites]
No. It isn't.
posted by glonous keming at 1:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [30 favorites]
So, I guess this executive order won't also apply to Fox news websites for not being "fair and balanced?" I'm all for legislating the fuck out of that.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:08 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:08 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
I've been testing the rules here for 14 years, and I think this is my year to finally begin the revolution.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:18 PM on May 29, 2020 [48 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 1:18 PM on May 29, 2020 [48 favorites]
Trump and Twitter are trapped in a symbiotic relationship. Trump needs Twitter because it's the perfect tool for nonstop, zero-effort zone-flooding: every political journalist in the country is addicted to Twitter and will massively amplify everything he posts. Twitter needs Trump because when the president of the United States is firing cabinet officials and causing diplomatic crises on your platform five times a week, you are the most important website in the world. Of course they hate each other.
posted by theodolite at 1:20 PM on May 29, 2020 [35 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 1:20 PM on May 29, 2020 [35 favorites]
I've been testing the rules here for 14 years, and I think this is my year to finally begin the revolution.
The time has come for all things to Wendell.
posted by Riki tiki at 1:25 PM on May 29, 2020 [65 favorites]
The time has come for all things to Wendell.
posted by Riki tiki at 1:25 PM on May 29, 2020 [65 favorites]
I think Trump needs Twitter more than Twitter needs Trump.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:26 PM on May 29, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by vibrotronica at 1:26 PM on May 29, 2020 [31 favorites]
The time has come for all things to Wendell.
Surely this . . .
posted by The Bellman at 1:33 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
Surely this . . .
posted by The Bellman at 1:33 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
To me the most troubling part of this story is the way the Trump campaign and Trump himself singled out a Twitter employee by name. I honestly fear for his safety.
posted by Nelson at 1:34 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 1:34 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
The question of what kinds of online speech a world leader should be allowed to post on social media is a mind-bendingly complex one, with tons of conflicting priorities and few easy answers.
In a world more concerned with protecting people's lives, the public pronouncements of the people with the most power or the largest audiences would be subject to the most stringent restrictions. Like that Spider-man slogan, or something.
posted by trig at 1:46 PM on May 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
In a world more concerned with protecting people's lives, the public pronouncements of the people with the most power or the largest audiences would be subject to the most stringent restrictions. Like that Spider-man slogan, or something.
posted by trig at 1:46 PM on May 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
Twitter was a pretty niche thing, and was burning money at a prodigious rate before Trump ensured that their platform was constantly mentioned during every. single. news cycle. (Let's also not forget that Twitter's user-base is still pretty small, considering the cultural cachet that it enjoys)
Twitter needs Trump. They'd be bankrupt by now without him.
posted by schmod at 1:49 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
Twitter needs Trump. They'd be bankrupt by now without him.
posted by schmod at 1:49 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
#SilencedAllMyLife. Fail. Bigly.
posted by adamvasco at 2:04 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by adamvasco at 2:04 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
Twitter is still losing money. (link to earnings .pdf) They lost $7 million the first quarter of 2020.
If they're still propped up by fleecing the stock market, then what do they really have to lose by kicking Trump off? They'd get a huge earned media bump, they'd become the social media company who stood up to the tyrant.
posted by vibrotronica at 2:04 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
If they're still propped up by fleecing the stock market, then what do they really have to lose by kicking Trump off? They'd get a huge earned media bump, they'd become the social media company who stood up to the tyrant.
posted by vibrotronica at 2:04 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
So the folks that didn't think through running for president also didn't think through the consequences of an executive order. Color me surprised.
posted by nestor_makhno at 2:13 PM on May 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by nestor_makhno at 2:13 PM on May 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
Previously, on Metafilter, Forum Drama. Forum Drama Everywhere. (a discussion of the Buzzfeed article mentioned in the NYT article).
posted by mhum at 2:18 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by mhum at 2:18 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
Twitter needs a full-time CEO and not somebody whose idea of leadership is taking a silent retreat.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 2:24 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 2:24 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
> vibrotronica: "Twitter is still losing money. (link to earnings .pdf) They lost $7 million the first quarter of 2020."
For the record, prior to Q1 2020 Twitter had 9 consecutive quarters of positive earnings. Granted, 2020 could turn out to be a bloodbath for advertising-based businesses like Twitter, but their financials really did seem to turn a corner in late 2017.
posted by mhum at 2:25 PM on May 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
For the record, prior to Q1 2020 Twitter had 9 consecutive quarters of positive earnings. Granted, 2020 could turn out to be a bloodbath for advertising-based businesses like Twitter, but their financials really did seem to turn a corner in late 2017.
posted by mhum at 2:25 PM on May 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
I am entertained by this part of the Verge analysis:
Websites of any size should lose all Section 230 protections if they don’t follow their terms of service or provide sufficient notice when removing content
Setting aside that "dude, nobody REMOVED your content - throwing a notice next to it is not a removal or censorship" - requiring sites to enforce their TOS's would mean removing 90% of alt-right pro-fascist content from the internet. Treating comment-thread threats as real declarations of intent to harm, with sites held liable if they won't remove them, would be an incredible boon to the people who want the internet to foster useful communication instead of hatemongering.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:05 PM on May 29, 2020 [47 favorites]
Websites of any size should lose all Section 230 protections if they don’t follow their terms of service or provide sufficient notice when removing content
Setting aside that "dude, nobody REMOVED your content - throwing a notice next to it is not a removal or censorship" - requiring sites to enforce their TOS's would mean removing 90% of alt-right pro-fascist content from the internet. Treating comment-thread threats as real declarations of intent to harm, with sites held liable if they won't remove them, would be an incredible boon to the people who want the internet to foster useful communication instead of hatemongering.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:05 PM on May 29, 2020 [47 favorites]
The part of the executive order that stood out to me was Section 7, "Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine."
Google Demotes Holocaust Denial and Hate Sites in Update to Algorithm (Fortune, Dec. 20, 2016)
YouTube Policies - Community Guidelines "[W]e don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, caste, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or content that incites hatred on the basis of these core characteristics."
Google Search Policy: "We block search results that lead to images of child sexual abuse."
Tik Tok Community Guidelines: "We do not allow dangerous individuals or organizations to use our platform to promote terrorism, crime, or other types of behavior that could cause harm. [...] We do not allow content that includes hate speech, and we remove it from our platform."
Trump Says Google Is Rigged, Despite Its Denials... (NYT, Sept. 5, 2018)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Google Demotes Holocaust Denial and Hate Sites in Update to Algorithm (Fortune, Dec. 20, 2016)
YouTube Policies - Community Guidelines "[W]e don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, caste, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or content that incites hatred on the basis of these core characteristics."
Google Search Policy: "We block search results that lead to images of child sexual abuse."
Tik Tok Community Guidelines: "We do not allow dangerous individuals or organizations to use our platform to promote terrorism, crime, or other types of behavior that could cause harm. [...] We do not allow content that includes hate speech, and we remove it from our platform."
Trump Says Google Is Rigged, Despite Its Denials... (NYT, Sept. 5, 2018)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
requiring sites to enforce their TOS's would mean removing 90% of alt-right pro-fascist content from the internet
Except that the reason that sites can't automatically remove actual fascist/neo-Nazi/white-supremacist content is that there is no way of differentiating between that and “legitimate” conservative talking points without already being familiar with who the poster is. Hence we get Nazis.
posted by acb at 3:16 PM on May 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
Except that the reason that sites can't automatically remove actual fascist/neo-Nazi/white-supremacist content is that there is no way of differentiating between that and “legitimate” conservative talking points without already being familiar with who the poster is. Hence we get Nazis.
posted by acb at 3:16 PM on May 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too. (Vice, April 25, 2019)
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:20 PM on May 29, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:20 PM on May 29, 2020 [24 favorites]
Nah, they can just remove death threats no matter who makes them, no matter how "ironic" they are. Those of us who like actual conversation will learn not to say "oh go die in a fire" when we disagree with someone.
I mean. They'd lose a lot of participants. But if the issue is "unfair and biased enforcement of the TOS," it's not the liberals who are gaining benefits from that.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:21 PM on May 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
I mean. They'd lose a lot of participants. But if the issue is "unfair and biased enforcement of the TOS," it's not the liberals who are gaining benefits from that.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 3:21 PM on May 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
Honestly, I don't think this executive order is meant to go anywhere. It's just a handy rallying cry for the campaign trail, that's why it name-checks Adam Schiff and "the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax."
"Trump and the White House often say they turn to social media because a hostile, left-leaning news media does not depict Trump’s achievements accurately. The Fact Checker video team analyzed thousands of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube posts and ads from Trump, his campaign and a long list of surrogates. The data revealed the backbone of a five-point strategy to tell their version of the coronavirus story: rewriting mistakes, highlighting achievements, deflecting blame, declaring victory and creating distraction." - Trump campaign is creating an alternate reality online about coronavirus, WaPo, Fact Checker analysis, May 28, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:31 PM on May 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
"Trump and the White House often say they turn to social media because a hostile, left-leaning news media does not depict Trump’s achievements accurately. The Fact Checker video team analyzed thousands of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube posts and ads from Trump, his campaign and a long list of surrogates. The data revealed the backbone of a five-point strategy to tell their version of the coronavirus story: rewriting mistakes, highlighting achievements, deflecting blame, declaring victory and creating distraction." - Trump campaign is creating an alternate reality online about coronavirus, WaPo, Fact Checker analysis, May 28, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:31 PM on May 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
Zeynep Tufekci points out in The Atlantic that the real target here isn't Twitter but Facebook:
posted by suelac at 3:38 PM on May 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
Trump is unlikely to repeal Section 230 or take any real action to curb the power of the major social-media companies. Instead, he wants to keep things just the way they are and make sure that the red-carpet treatment he has received so far, especially at Facebook, continues without impediment. He definitely does not want substantial changes going into the 2020 election. The secondary aim is to rile up his base against yet another alleged enemy: this time Silicon Valley, because there needs to be an endless list of targets in the midst of multiple failures.And it's working: Zuckerberg is already saying that FB shouldn't be reviewing anyone's posts for truth.
posted by suelac at 3:38 PM on May 29, 2020 [12 favorites]
Leaked posts show Facebook employees asking the company to remove Trump’s threat of violence.
Twitter was a pretty niche thing, and was burning money at a prodigious rate before Trump ensured that their platform was constantly mentioned during every. single. news cycle.
That's really not true. I mean, Twitter went public 3 years before the 2016 election. We were talking about Twitter here on Metafilter in 2009. You are right that they were burning money back then and I'd agree that Trump and the attention his sphere has created has helped their numbers. But it's not like Trump made Twitter.
posted by Nelson at 3:58 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
Twitter was a pretty niche thing, and was burning money at a prodigious rate before Trump ensured that their platform was constantly mentioned during every. single. news cycle.
That's really not true. I mean, Twitter went public 3 years before the 2016 election. We were talking about Twitter here on Metafilter in 2009. You are right that they were burning money back then and I'd agree that Trump and the attention his sphere has created has helped their numbers. But it's not like Trump made Twitter.
posted by Nelson at 3:58 PM on May 29, 2020 [6 favorites]
Of course Zuckerberg is staying out of his way. Beyond the Trump FB fanbase, "The [Trump] campaign has spent $32.6 million on Facebook ads since January 2019, more than double the Facebook ad spending of presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden."
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:00 PM on May 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:00 PM on May 29, 2020 [10 favorites]
There's also the fact that if the Democrats take power, Facebook will be in the crosshairs of a number of Democratic legislators - a thought which terrifies Zuckerberg, a man who has spent his life making himself accountable to nobody but himself.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:05 PM on May 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:05 PM on May 29, 2020 [17 favorites]
Would not re-electing Trump be a good way of solving this?
posted by plonkee at 4:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by plonkee at 4:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [4 favorites]
Buzzfeed News: Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship, But He’ll Face An Obstacle: Justice Brett Kavanaugh
"President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship.posted by soundguy99 at 4:14 PM on May 29, 2020 [24 favorites]
But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesn’t appear to address: a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed, Brett Kavanaugh.
Trump’s executive order doesn’t — and couldn’t — change Supreme Court precedent. Last year, the court ruled 5–4 that private companies aren’t government actors subject to the First Amendment’s free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public. Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s two appointees to the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion.
Just this week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple brought by conservative activists, including far-right media personality Laura Loomer, who argued they’d been deplatformed and censored in violation of the First Amendment."
Count me on team Yes I Will Give Up All Social Media If It Shuts This Fucking Guy Up. I mean, without Twitter, what does he even have to communicate?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:59 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:59 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
Wierd or what?
White House reposts Khamenei tweet after Twitter flags Trump for 'glorifying violence'.
The official White House Twitter account shared a screenshot of a post made last week by the unverified account of Ali Khamenei, in which Iran's supreme leader defends the right of Palestinians to resist Israel's occupation.
posted by adamvasco at 5:13 PM on May 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
White House reposts Khamenei tweet after Twitter flags Trump for 'glorifying violence'.
The official White House Twitter account shared a screenshot of a post made last week by the unverified account of Ali Khamenei, in which Iran's supreme leader defends the right of Palestinians to resist Israel's occupation.
posted by adamvasco at 5:13 PM on May 29, 2020 [1 favorite]
Has it really not occurred to him that an EO that says "sites must enforce their TOS or they can be sued" is not going to work in his favor? Has nobody told him that any site can get out of the convoluted sanctions in his order by just... changing their TOS to say "the moderators can remove any content at all, for any reason, any time they like, but they claim no obligation to do so."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 6:06 PM on May 29, 2020 [18 favorites]
What this article (and Matt's statement in it) both point strongly to but don't exactly spell out is that Twitter created this 'crisis' by failing to enforce their own rules several years ago. They let him go and go and go and now even the slightest response from Twitter ("oh by the way this Tweet from the president may not be 100% accurate") sends Trump into one of his maniacal efforts to destroy the Constitution.
Trump has so regularly made personal threats of violence against individuals and threats on the physical safety of whole nations full of people, threats that both embolden individual acts of violence and that, in the case of threats against nations, he very much has the power to act on, that we have simply all become used to it. In the first year of the Trump presidency I wrote letters to Jack Dorsey and to Twitter execs personally imploring them to deplatform Trump for breaking their own policies. Now, I just make a point to avoid reading what Trump said on Twitter today. There were a few tweets toward the beginning that I can't even remember now (something about fire and fury or some garbage) that were so fucking CLEARLY violations of their policy that it would have been so simple for them to simply delete.
It's been said before but of course Twitter profits off this and will never deplatform him, and of course Zuckerberg turns out to be the even more willing to roll around in the shit for any potential money or power it may grant him.
posted by latkes at 7:10 PM on May 29, 2020 [29 favorites]
Trump has so regularly made personal threats of violence against individuals and threats on the physical safety of whole nations full of people, threats that both embolden individual acts of violence and that, in the case of threats against nations, he very much has the power to act on, that we have simply all become used to it. In the first year of the Trump presidency I wrote letters to Jack Dorsey and to Twitter execs personally imploring them to deplatform Trump for breaking their own policies. Now, I just make a point to avoid reading what Trump said on Twitter today. There were a few tweets toward the beginning that I can't even remember now (something about fire and fury or some garbage) that were so fucking CLEARLY violations of their policy that it would have been so simple for them to simply delete.
It's been said before but of course Twitter profits off this and will never deplatform him, and of course Zuckerberg turns out to be the even more willing to roll around in the shit for any potential money or power it may grant him.
posted by latkes at 7:10 PM on May 29, 2020 [29 favorites]
Nice to see that the POTUS has solved the pandemic so he can focus on the pressing issues of the day.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 7:15 PM on May 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 7:15 PM on May 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
As a way to distract attention from this administration's abject failures, this is working well. And, I agree with the comments above that this is more about Facebook than Twitter.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:04 PM on May 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 8:04 PM on May 29, 2020 [3 favorites]
Between this and the arrest of the CNN reporter, they are veering waaaaayyyyy too close to violating the First Amendment in my opinion.
posted by bendy at 8:43 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by bendy at 8:43 PM on May 29, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think the only way out of this impasse is for Twitter to ban humans from the platform, and allow only (verified) bots to create content. Trump, like the rest of us, would be unable to pass the challenging "reverse captcha" test without jumping through quite a few hoops, Twitter could still make money from ads, and frankly it would save a lot of time and trouble since the whole "robot overlord" future is inevitable anyway. I can't say that the quality of tweets would change significantly — in fact with the state of today's education system, it'd probably be an improvement.
See, Twitter would be a more effective platform were it to embrace its true essence: a clunky object that generates curious word-bites, like a stock ticker dumping ribbons of numbers that no one will ever see or care about again. Ephemera to throw out the window to inaugurate a new year.
And as for the humans, let them make silly TikToks or whatever it is people do these days.
posted by swift at 8:44 PM on May 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
See, Twitter would be a more effective platform were it to embrace its true essence: a clunky object that generates curious word-bites, like a stock ticker dumping ribbons of numbers that no one will ever see or care about again. Ephemera to throw out the window to inaugurate a new year.
And as for the humans, let them make silly TikToks or whatever it is people do these days.
posted by swift at 8:44 PM on May 29, 2020 [8 favorites]
I think the only way out of this impasse is for Twitter to ban humans from the platform, and allow only (verified) bots to create content.
Vote number one quidnunc kid
posted by PMdixon at 10:54 PM on May 29, 2020 [26 favorites]
Vote number one quidnunc kid
posted by PMdixon at 10:54 PM on May 29, 2020 [26 favorites]
As a Metafilter fan I can't help seeing a lot of humor in this. A gentle warning accompanied a ridiculously deceitful tweet about mail in voting (which Mr Orange T himself uses ) and he and his lackey White House lost their minds. Imagine if the lies actually got deleted as often happens to over-the-top posts here. I'm not even going to point out how crazy lawless this EO is.
I do applaud Twitter for responding to the executive order by posting a warning again earlier today about Trump's outrageous threats of shooting Minneapolis protestors.
As for Zuckerberg, he's a disgusting toadie who is allowing active undermining of US democracy and it's past time Facebook was boycotted by everyone. Surely we can all find another place to post and share pix.
posted by bearwife at 11:18 PM on May 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
I do applaud Twitter for responding to the executive order by posting a warning again earlier today about Trump's outrageous threats of shooting Minneapolis protestors.
As for Zuckerberg, he's a disgusting toadie who is allowing active undermining of US democracy and it's past time Facebook was boycotted by everyone. Surely we can all find another place to post and share pix.
posted by bearwife at 11:18 PM on May 29, 2020 [5 favorites]
SILENCED ALL MY LIFE!!!
posted by moonlight on vermont at 11:38 PM on May 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by moonlight on vermont at 11:38 PM on May 29, 2020 [9 favorites]
I just realized the perfect solution to "editorial decision-making removes section 230 protections": have an algorithm do all the TOS policing.
Sure, the AI will have a swarm of false positives at first (like Tumblr's antiporn bot-managed system), but after a few thousand mostly-bot users are banned and several thousand individual posts are removed for containing keywords and phrases included in the bot's "this might be violent" database, things will settle down nicely, right?
I'm sure Trump could have no objections to an absolutely impartial, no-human-decisions-involved algorithm enforcing the TOS.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:11 AM on May 30, 2020
Sure, the AI will have a swarm of false positives at first (like Tumblr's antiporn bot-managed system), but after a few thousand mostly-bot users are banned and several thousand individual posts are removed for containing keywords and phrases included in the bot's "this might be violent" database, things will settle down nicely, right?
I'm sure Trump could have no objections to an absolutely impartial, no-human-decisions-involved algorithm enforcing the TOS.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 1:11 AM on May 30, 2020
As for Zuckerberg, he's a disgusting toadie who is allowing active undermining of US democracy and it's past time Facebook was boycotted by everyone. Surely we can all find another place to post and share pix.
Boycotting Facebook isn't the answer - it doesn't actually fix the underlying problems that have enabled Zuckerberg, leaves those who for various reasons cannot abandon Facebook high and dry, and is just another form of the very problematic "the solution to conflict is forking" mentality from open source that winds up covering problems up instead of resolving them.
No, what we need to do is twofold:
* First, we need to fix the damage done to anti-trust law by the Reagan Administration, and break Facebook up. Part of how Facebook maintains dominance is by buying out potential competetors - we need to stop that.
* Second, we need to make dual-tier stock structures illegal. This is how Zuckerberg has made himself unaccountable - he controls the majority of votes, so nobody can tell him no. Make it so that one share means one vote, and now he has to actually listen to other people.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:40 AM on May 30, 2020 [28 favorites]
Boycotting Facebook isn't the answer - it doesn't actually fix the underlying problems that have enabled Zuckerberg, leaves those who for various reasons cannot abandon Facebook high and dry, and is just another form of the very problematic "the solution to conflict is forking" mentality from open source that winds up covering problems up instead of resolving them.
No, what we need to do is twofold:
* First, we need to fix the damage done to anti-trust law by the Reagan Administration, and break Facebook up. Part of how Facebook maintains dominance is by buying out potential competetors - we need to stop that.
* Second, we need to make dual-tier stock structures illegal. This is how Zuckerberg has made himself unaccountable - he controls the majority of votes, so nobody can tell him no. Make it so that one share means one vote, and now he has to actually listen to other people.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:40 AM on May 30, 2020 [28 favorites]
The long-standing rumor that exercising editorial control deprives a site of Section 230 protections just won't die. The section is only 26 words long and is written in plain English, yet somehow this rumor persists. It's not a surprise that Trump's supporters don't understand this, but what's everyone else's excuse? Of course Trump won't "repeal" Section 230, because he can't. It's a statute and the president can't repeal statutes.
posted by 1adam12 at 6:48 AM on May 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 6:48 AM on May 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'm waiting for a hugely, bigly, bestest "It's me or Trump, Twitter" movement to take shape.
Millions of accounts, deleted, on a single day, never to return; it would be glorious.
And possibly tilting at windmills. I haven't really thought it out.
posted by Bill Watches Movies Podcast at 8:25 AM on May 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
Millions of accounts, deleted, on a single day, never to return; it would be glorious.
And possibly tilting at windmills. I haven't really thought it out.
posted by Bill Watches Movies Podcast at 8:25 AM on May 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
I miss IRC.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:47 AM on May 30, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:47 AM on May 30, 2020 [10 favorites]
I think Trump needs Twitter more than Twitter needs Trump.
Well, yes. And Trump attacking Twitter is sawing off the branch he's sitting on, as is his wont.
But because this is 2020 in the stupidest timeline and Trump is a cartoon President, the result will be that the tree falls over and Trump and the branch stay put.
posted by flabdablet at 9:20 AM on May 30, 2020 [17 favorites]
Well, yes. And Trump attacking Twitter is sawing off the branch he's sitting on, as is his wont.
But because this is 2020 in the stupidest timeline and Trump is a cartoon President, the result will be that the tree falls over and Trump and the branch stay put.
posted by flabdablet at 9:20 AM on May 30, 2020 [17 favorites]
The long-standing rumor that exercising editorial control deprives a site of Section 230 protections just won't die. The section is only 26 words long and is written in plain English, yet somehow this rumor persists. It's not a surprise that Trump's supporters don't understand this, but what's everyone else's excuse? Of course Trump won't "repeal" Section 230, because he can't. It's a statute and the president can't repeal statutes.
"Catch-22: They can do anything that we can't stop them from doing."
Congress and the courts have been consistent on the purpose and interpretation of Section 230, as that The Verge article linked upthread described. But the Senate, and therefore Congress, are in Trump's pocket. The courts are increasingly stuffed with Trump drones. The FCC is in Trump's pocket. I hesitate to venture that "of _course_ Congress will refuse to alter the statutes to Trump's liking, or the courts will strike the EO down." And, of course, who enforces these statutes, or chooses whom to enforce them against?
This is not to completely doom-and-gloom this situation. There will be at least some opposition, and some judges that will scoff at Trump's declaration. But that's also the point; this is about the attempt as much as the success of it. The mere fact that Trump felt the need to act dramatically about Persistent Anti-Conservative Bias in social media is proof positive to his Trumpoids that there _is_ persistent anti-conservative bias in social media. That any forum that reactionaries do not dominate is rigged against them, and that is the only possible explanation for that. And a nice, long court battle keeps that issue in the limelight for as long as it takes.
posted by delfin at 11:24 AM on May 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
"Catch-22: They can do anything that we can't stop them from doing."
Congress and the courts have been consistent on the purpose and interpretation of Section 230, as that The Verge article linked upthread described. But the Senate, and therefore Congress, are in Trump's pocket. The courts are increasingly stuffed with Trump drones. The FCC is in Trump's pocket. I hesitate to venture that "of _course_ Congress will refuse to alter the statutes to Trump's liking, or the courts will strike the EO down." And, of course, who enforces these statutes, or chooses whom to enforce them against?
This is not to completely doom-and-gloom this situation. There will be at least some opposition, and some judges that will scoff at Trump's declaration. But that's also the point; this is about the attempt as much as the success of it. The mere fact that Trump felt the need to act dramatically about Persistent Anti-Conservative Bias in social media is proof positive to his Trumpoids that there _is_ persistent anti-conservative bias in social media. That any forum that reactionaries do not dominate is rigged against them, and that is the only possible explanation for that. And a nice, long court battle keeps that issue in the limelight for as long as it takes.
posted by delfin at 11:24 AM on May 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
ends Trump into one of his maniacal efforts to destroy the Constitution.
Maybe if we leave a few decoy constitutions around the White House, he'll refrain from desecrating the real one.
posted by pwnguin at 12:25 PM on May 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Maybe if we leave a few decoy constitutions around the White House, he'll refrain from desecrating the real one.
posted by pwnguin at 12:25 PM on May 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
proof positive to his Trumpoids that there _is_ persistent anti-conservative bias in social media.
They should all stop using Social Media then!
I can dream.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:33 PM on May 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
They should all stop using Social Media then!
I can dream.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:33 PM on May 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
"I miss IRC."
Yeah, for certain. No trolls, no bots, no hate speech. Good times.*
* These attributes were present only in chat rooms with one participant, where that one participant wasn't a bot, a troll, and didn't engage in hate speech to themselves.
posted by el io at 2:11 PM on May 30, 2020 [8 favorites]
Yeah, for certain. No trolls, no bots, no hate speech. Good times.*
* These attributes were present only in chat rooms with one participant, where that one participant wasn't a bot, a troll, and didn't engage in hate speech to themselves.
posted by el io at 2:11 PM on May 30, 2020 [8 favorites]
These attributes were present only in chat rooms with one participant, where that one participant wasn't a bot, a troll, and didn't engage in hate speech to themselves.
And didn't read bash.org on their time off.
posted by jaduncan at 3:54 AM on June 1, 2020
And didn't read bash.org on their time off.
posted by jaduncan at 3:54 AM on June 1, 2020
Trump attacking Twitter is sawing off the branch he's sitting on, as is his wont.
But because this is 2020 in the stupidest timeline and Trump is a cartoon President, the result will be that the tree falls over and Trump and the branch stay put.
Flabdablet, this comment encapsulates my feelings about the present cultural and political moment more concisely and definitively than anything I've ever seen on this site or any other. I feel like I should crochet it on a pillow or something. If I knew how to crochet, anyway.
posted by invincible summer at 11:02 AM on June 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
But because this is 2020 in the stupidest timeline and Trump is a cartoon President, the result will be that the tree falls over and Trump and the branch stay put.
Flabdablet, this comment encapsulates my feelings about the present cultural and political moment more concisely and definitively than anything I've ever seen on this site or any other. I feel like I should crochet it on a pillow or something. If I knew how to crochet, anyway.
posted by invincible summer at 11:02 AM on June 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (which turns 30 this year) examines the executive order:
Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment (EFF.org, May 28, 2020)
Dangers of Trump’s Executive Order Explained (EFF.org, May 31, 2020)
The Executive Order Targeting Social Media Gets the FTC, Its Job, and the Law Wrong (EFF.org, June 1, 2020)
Trump’s Executive Order Seeks To Have FCC Regulate Platforms. Here’s Why It Won’t Happen (EFF.org, June 1, 2020)
Trump’s Executive Order Threatens to Leverage Government’s Advertising Dollars to Pressure Online Platforms (EFF.org, June 1, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:33 PM on June 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment (EFF.org, May 28, 2020)
Dangers of Trump’s Executive Order Explained (EFF.org, May 31, 2020)
The Executive Order Targeting Social Media Gets the FTC, Its Job, and the Law Wrong (EFF.org, June 1, 2020)
Trump’s Executive Order Seeks To Have FCC Regulate Platforms. Here’s Why It Won’t Happen (EFF.org, June 1, 2020)
Trump’s Executive Order Threatens to Leverage Government’s Advertising Dollars to Pressure Online Platforms (EFF.org, June 1, 2020)
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:33 PM on June 1, 2020 [4 favorites]
Second, we need to make dual-tier stock structures illegal. This is how Zuckerberg has made himself unaccountable - he controls the majority of votes, so nobody can tell him no. Make it so that one share means one vote, and now he has to actually listen to other people.
This might do something for one company but it sure feels like a lateral move for corporate governance in general.
posted by atoxyl at 11:02 PM on June 2, 2020
This might do something for one company but it sure feels like a lateral move for corporate governance in general.
posted by atoxyl at 11:02 PM on June 2, 2020
I don't think getting rid of non-voting stock options is going to fix corporate greed and sleaze. Instead, it'll mean that corporations only offer stock shares to people aligned with them about how the company should work - more millionaire-only boards of directors. It'd also be a nightmare for smaller companies with tech limitations; having to gather votes from every single person who owns stock would be a lot of effort and resources spent on counting people instead of running the company.
The fix for Zuckerberg is not "change how corporations work"; it's "make him pay his damn taxes."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:28 AM on June 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
The fix for Zuckerberg is not "change how corporations work"; it's "make him pay his damn taxes."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:28 AM on June 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Zuckerberg getting grilled during an internal call with FB employees seeped into print in less than a day: Mark Zuckerberg on leaked audio: Trump’s looting and shooting reference “has no history of being read as a dog whistle” (Vox, June 2, 2020) On a tense call with employees, the Facebook CEO defended his decision not to moderate Trump’s posts.
After opening the call, Zuckerberg went on to take questions from a preselected list, with employees asking questions via videoconference. In one of several tense exchanges, an employee asked Zuckerberg to confirm how many black people were involved in Zuckerberg’s final decision not to take down Trump’s post. Zuckerberg’s answer: just one person (Facebook’s global diversity officer, Maxine Williams). [...]
The employee pressed why Facebook’s head of integrity, Guy Rosen, who is tasked with overseeing efforts around general user safety on the platform, wasn’t in the final group of decision-makers. In response, Zuckerberg appeared to stumble with his reasoning, first saying that Rosen was present — but then saying he actually wasn’t sure if Rosen was a part of the final decision. Ultimately, Zuckerberg said Rosen is responsible for building and enforcing policies overall, but not this particular decision.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:57 AM on June 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
After opening the call, Zuckerberg went on to take questions from a preselected list, with employees asking questions via videoconference. In one of several tense exchanges, an employee asked Zuckerberg to confirm how many black people were involved in Zuckerberg’s final decision not to take down Trump’s post. Zuckerberg’s answer: just one person (Facebook’s global diversity officer, Maxine Williams). [...]
The employee pressed why Facebook’s head of integrity, Guy Rosen, who is tasked with overseeing efforts around general user safety on the platform, wasn’t in the final group of decision-makers. In response, Zuckerberg appeared to stumble with his reasoning, first saying that Rosen was present — but then saying he actually wasn’t sure if Rosen was a part of the final decision. Ultimately, Zuckerberg said Rosen is responsible for building and enforcing policies overall, but not this particular decision.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:57 AM on June 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Snapchat stops promoting Donald Trump's account due to 'racial violence' (BBC, June 4, 2020) As a result, it will no longer feature in the app's Discover section. The firm said it would "not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice". [...] Snapchat's parent company Snap said: "Racial violence and injustice have no place in our society and we stand together with all who seek peace, love, equality, and justice in America."
President Trump has more than one million followers on Snapchat, according to the Bloomberg news agency. It said the app is seen as being a "key battleground" by Mr Trump's re-election campaign because it offers a way to reach first-time voters. [...] The president's account will not be suspended or deleted. However, the fact it will not feature in Discover means that his posts will only be seen by people who subscribe to or search for his account directly.
--
Note, the company made this decision based on his tweets, not his activity on the Snapchat platform itself.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:54 PM on June 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
President Trump has more than one million followers on Snapchat, according to the Bloomberg news agency. It said the app is seen as being a "key battleground" by Mr Trump's re-election campaign because it offers a way to reach first-time voters. [...] The president's account will not be suspended or deleted. However, the fact it will not feature in Discover means that his posts will only be seen by people who subscribe to or search for his account directly.
--
Note, the company made this decision based on his tweets, not his activity on the Snapchat platform itself.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:54 PM on June 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
The employee pressed why Facebook’s head of integrity, Guy Rosen, who is tasked with overseeing efforts around general user safety on the platform, wasn’t in the final group of decision-makers. In response, Zuckerberg appeared to stumble with his reasoning, first saying that Rosen was present — but then saying he actually wasn’t sure if Rosen was a part of the final decision. Ultimately, Zuckerberg said Rosen is responsible for building and enforcing policies overall, but not this particular decision.
Of course, Webex in exec meetings is kind of a UI disaster -- only so many attendees are listed and the head count of exec meetings is often quite large. Even in normal meetings peons like myself attend people have to verbally ask 'is $person dialed in?'
Buuuuuuuut, just checking out this Guy Rosen's LinkedIn indicates that while he is now VP of Integrity @ FB, he also co-founded Onavo, which was in the news last year for reasons some might describe as a lack of integrity.
posted by pwnguin at 5:34 PM on June 4, 2020
Of course, Webex in exec meetings is kind of a UI disaster -- only so many attendees are listed and the head count of exec meetings is often quite large. Even in normal meetings peons like myself attend people have to verbally ask 'is $person dialed in?'
Buuuuuuuut, just checking out this Guy Rosen's LinkedIn indicates that while he is now VP of Integrity @ FB, he also co-founded Onavo, which was in the news last year for reasons some might describe as a lack of integrity.
posted by pwnguin at 5:34 PM on June 4, 2020
I don't think getting rid of non-voting stock options is going to fix corporate greed and sleaze. Instead, it'll mean that corporations only offer stock shares to people aligned with them about how the company should work - more millionaire-only boards of directors. It'd also be a nightmare for smaller companies with tech limitations; having to gather votes from every single person who owns stock would be a lot of effort and resources spent on counting people instead of running the company.
This comment shows a significant misunderstanding of how voting stock works.
First, when people talk about dual-tier stock structures, they're not referring to non-voting stock (which actually aren't that common and are regulated in other countries), but a system in which there are two tiers of voting stock - one tier which is sold publicly and has a 1:1 share/vote ratio, and a second tier of stock only held by a small group of insiders that has a 1:X share/vote ratio (1:10 is a pretty common ratio here.) This is how Zuckerberg holds control of Facebook - he owns shares that give him around 60% of the shareholder vote, so he controls the shareholder vote outright. Alphabet has a similar structure (though the vote is spread between the founders), and a large part of why WeWork continues to be a soap opera in corporate form is because the share grants given to Adam Newmann were structured this way, giving him significant leverage over SoftBank.
Also, the reality is that stockholder votes are actually pretty rare - the reason that the board of directors and CEO exist is to manage the company on behalf of the stockholders, who usually only vote on the election of those positions, or on major proposals such as mergers. When I was growing up, my parents bought some Disney stock which was voting, and we would receive corporate ballots about once a year or so, usually when the board came up for election. Thus, there's really no major overhead for voting stock - the board doesn't go to the stockholders on every matter, and it's usually a sign of major problems when they do (for example, the famous vote of no confidence over Michael Eisner at Disney back in the 2000s.)
Finally, the issue with Zuckerberg isn't greed, at least not in the usual sense of the term. Rather, his entire career has been centered around creating a system where he is answerable to nobody but himself, and his conduct shows this, with his comments about how he's taking the actions he does because the public doesn't understand the importance of free speech (and thus he has to act to "protect" us.) This isn't an issue of him paying/not paying taxes, but of him thinking that he knows better than the rest of us, and thus should not be held accountable to us - hence why Warren terrified him to the point of basically stating that he would go to the mattresses against a Warren administration, because she was arguing to hold him accountable with the authority of the US government.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:31 AM on June 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
This comment shows a significant misunderstanding of how voting stock works.
First, when people talk about dual-tier stock structures, they're not referring to non-voting stock (which actually aren't that common and are regulated in other countries), but a system in which there are two tiers of voting stock - one tier which is sold publicly and has a 1:1 share/vote ratio, and a second tier of stock only held by a small group of insiders that has a 1:X share/vote ratio (1:10 is a pretty common ratio here.) This is how Zuckerberg holds control of Facebook - he owns shares that give him around 60% of the shareholder vote, so he controls the shareholder vote outright. Alphabet has a similar structure (though the vote is spread between the founders), and a large part of why WeWork continues to be a soap opera in corporate form is because the share grants given to Adam Newmann were structured this way, giving him significant leverage over SoftBank.
Also, the reality is that stockholder votes are actually pretty rare - the reason that the board of directors and CEO exist is to manage the company on behalf of the stockholders, who usually only vote on the election of those positions, or on major proposals such as mergers. When I was growing up, my parents bought some Disney stock which was voting, and we would receive corporate ballots about once a year or so, usually when the board came up for election. Thus, there's really no major overhead for voting stock - the board doesn't go to the stockholders on every matter, and it's usually a sign of major problems when they do (for example, the famous vote of no confidence over Michael Eisner at Disney back in the 2000s.)
Finally, the issue with Zuckerberg isn't greed, at least not in the usual sense of the term. Rather, his entire career has been centered around creating a system where he is answerable to nobody but himself, and his conduct shows this, with his comments about how he's taking the actions he does because the public doesn't understand the importance of free speech (and thus he has to act to "protect" us.) This isn't an issue of him paying/not paying taxes, but of him thinking that he knows better than the rest of us, and thus should not be held accountable to us - hence why Warren terrified him to the point of basically stating that he would go to the mattresses against a Warren administration, because she was arguing to hold him accountable with the authority of the US government.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:31 AM on June 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
« Older Comics as a tool to explain mining concepts | 🚽 ludological lavatories 💩 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by springo at 11:51 AM on May 29, 2020 [119 favorites]