For All The Facebook Fans

Quillette has an interesting piece from a former Facebook employee describing the leftist culture at Facebook and the rise of censorship. The original content policy was quite free-speech friendly:

We prohibit content deemed to be directly harmful, but allow content that is offensive or controversial. We define harmful content as anything organizing real world violence, theft, or property destruction, or that directly inflicts emotional distress on a specific private individual (e.g. bullying).

However, all this changed after Trump was nominated.

Employees plastered up Barack Obama “HOPE” and “Black Lives Matter” posters. The official campus art program began to focus on left-leaning social issues. In Facebook’s Seattle office, there’s an entire wall that proudly features the hashtags of just about every left-wing cause you can imagine—from “#RESIST” to “#METOO.”

The current policy is quite different from the pre-2016 one:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics—race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.

According to this author,

Simply saying you dislike someone with reference to a “protected characteristic” (e.g., “I dislike Muslims who believe in Sharia law”) or applying a form of moral judgment (e.g., “Islamic fundamentalists who forcibly perform genital mutilation on women are barbaric”) are both technically considered “Tier-2” hate speech attacks, and are prohibited on the platform.

The poor author has, sadly, adopted politically-correct modes of writing. This is not meant at a criticism of him specifically; he can’t help it when he’s immersed in the world of doublethink.

…a colleague declared that I had offended them by criticizing a recently installed art piece in Facebook’s newest Menlo Park office. They explained that as a transgender woman, they felt the art represented their identity, told me they “didn’t care about my reasoning,” and that the fact they felt offended was enough to warrant an apology from me. [emphasis added]

Who would have guessed that the Thought Police would be headquartered in Silicon Valley?

9+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Author: drlorentz

photon whisperer & quantum mechanic

17 thoughts on “For All The Facebook Fans”

  1. I think social media is a powerful force. It scares me to know that people who are totally unskilled are put in charge of moderation. These people are “judge, jury, and executioners” with little or no recourse. And if these people have drunk the SJW Kool-aid they imagine problems out of nowhere.

    I really wish George Orwell could have lived to see the Internet and some of these policy coming from Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube. I would have bought his book on the subject.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. I still don’t care what they do because they’re obviously trying to appeal to a certain demographic; that’s what all businesses do.

    I suggest you all use them as I did. I was able to build a new house thanks to the antics of Mark Z. Let him continue to prattle; perhaps I’ll be able to afford a pied-à-terre in Europe next year. 🙂

    0

  3. drlorentz:

    EThompson:
    I still don’t care what they do because they’re obviously trying to appeal to a certain democratic; that’s what all businesses do. [emphasis added]

    Freudian slip?

    No; my usual habit of multi-tasking when all sensible people writing even one sentence devote all of their attention to making it grammatically correct.

    Between moving, building a new house and the volatility of the market, I apologize to those members who take the time and effort to do it right the first time.

    Correction made.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  4. EThompson:
    I suggest you all use them as I did. I was able to build a new house thanks to the antics of Mark Z. Let him continue to prattle; perhaps I’ll be able to afford a pied-à-terre in Europe next year. 🙂

    Would you invest in an enterprise that engaged in an activity that you considered immoral (albeit legal)? Would it matter to you if this enterprise were damaging your country? Do you have any objectives besides increasing your wealth?

    These are a serious questions, not trolling or bait.

    0

  5. drlorentz:
    Do you have any objectives besides increasing your wealth?

    Hell no! if it’s within legal boundaries and hasn’t proven otherwise. I will note that I never opened a FB acct because I valued my privacy above all else. Apparently, others are narcissists and don’t. Their problem not mine and the more money I make, the more I can contribute to my political war chest and personal accoutrements.

    Zuckerberg is an ironic character indeed because he is empowering the very people who disagree with his politics not only by enriching them but by giving them the means to access one another.

    Carry on!

    0

  6. EThompson:

    drlorentz:
    Do you have any objectives besides increasing your wealth?

    Hell no! if it’s within legal boundaries and hasn’t proven otherwise.

    Thanks for a straightforward answer to that question. Can I infer from your answer to the last question that you would invest in an enterprise that engaged in an activity that you considered immoral and you wouldn’t mind if this enterprise were damaging your country?

    0

  7. drlorentz:
    Can I infer from your answer to the last question that you would invest in an enterprise that engaged in an activity that you considered immoral and you wouldn’t mind if this enterprise were damaging your country?

    No you cannot. Where we differ is in how we define “immoral” and “damaging.”

    I’m a history buff and although popular to blame tycoons for dreadful business practices, they did far more good than bad. See: Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Schiffs, etc.

    You’re engaging in an age-old practice of resenting the rich. It just isn’t attractive and it isn’t very American. Sorry!

    0

  8. EThompson:

    drlorentz:
    Can I infer from your answer to the last question that you would invest in an enterprise that engaged in an activity that you considered immoral and you wouldn’t mind if this enterprise were damaging your country?

    No you cannot. Where we differ is in how we define “immoral” and damaging.”

    That’s impossible since I didn’t define those terms in any particular manner nor do I agree with the definitions you have assigned to me. Please read the question, taking particular notice of the emphasized part:

    Would you invest in an enterprise that engaged in an activity that you considered immoral (albeit legal)?

    Also, would it matter to you if this enterprise were damaging your country?

    Given that you acknowledge that your only objective is to increase your personal wealth, the answer to this last question would seem to be no. If not, please explain how you can reconcile your answers.

    0

  9. drlorentz:
    Given that you acknowledge that your only objective is to increase your personal wealth, the answer to this last question would seem to be no. If not, please explain how you can reconcile your answers.

    Any company that increases wealth and GNP of its country as a whole is a good thing.

    drlorentz:
    That’s impossible since I didn’t define those terms in any particular manner nor do I agree with the definitions you have assigned to me.

    Well then I suppose you should define your terms so we can argue intelligently.

    I’m game!

    0

  10. drlorentz:
    Given that you acknowledge that your only objective is to increase your personal wealth, the answer to this last question would seem to be no.

    Saul Alinsky couldn’t have said it better!

    BTW, there is no such thing that creates wealth for both Wall and Main Street and damages the country.

    0

  11. EThompson:
    Any company that increases wealth and GNP of its country as a whole is a good thing.

    Yours is the same argument that is used by the open borders crowd. More immigration will surely increase the country’s GDP. This view treats people merely as economic units. It is the globalist view.

    Money is not the only social good. People value other things: community, social trust. Mass immigration may be good for the economy but has other consequences that people don’t like. The same goes for the trade regime of the status quo ante.  President Trump was elected largely on this basis that these other considerations matter. Hillary Clinton is better aligned with the humans-as-economic-units position.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  12. EThompson:
    Saul Alinsky couldn’t have said it better!

    Raw insults devoid of rational argument are not persuasive.

    EThompson:
    BTW, there is no such thing that creates wealth for both Wall and Main Street and damages the country.

    This is not true. See previous comment. See also, almost any speech by Donald Trump.

    0

  13. EThompson:

    drlorentz:
    Would you invest in an enterprise that engaged in an activity that you considered immoral (albeit legal)? Also, would it matter to you if this enterprise were damaging your country?

    This (no offense) iditotic assumption is irrelevant as it pertained to FB. You’re just angry that a liberal is making beaucoup bucks. I’m not!

    This was a question, not an assumption. If you don’t want to answer it, just say so.

    0

  14. EThompson:
    I’m not answering it because I don’t consider Mark Zuckerberg anything but a  genius entrepreneur. You obviously have a personal grudge.

    Your mind-reading ability is truly awesome. Actually, I don’t care a fig about Mr. Zuckerberg. It’s unlikely that he’s even aware of all details of the free-speech suppression in which his enterprise engages. A better understanding of the situation is that the company is chock-full of SJWs who are going about imposing their ideology.

    0

  15. EThompson:
    I’d love to tell you to keep it to yourself

    You and Facebook have a lot in common in the shut up department. They also tell people to keep it to themselves.

    I tried reasoned discussion but, sadly, you revert to insults. I’ll have to return to ridicule. 😉

    0

Leave a Reply