# Zuckerberg Refuses To Pick and Silence A Side



## billapong (Oct 18, 2019)

Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg is under fire from one side of the political spectrum because he is refusing to pick a side and silence the opposing voice in the upcoming 2020 USA Presidential Elections. Earlier this month, Facebook eliminated a rule that for years banned advertisements with “false or misleading content.” 

The entire thing about “false or misleading content” is that it doesn't actually have to be false or it could simply be "leading to voting for a certain party" (which is the point of political adds to begin with). Both sides constantly attack each other and claim the other is lying and by censoring one sides adds Facebook would be supporting a particular side of the issue. You can't really fact check when one side rejects the others facts and generally ignores logic and reality and bases every one of their decisions on emotion.

So you've got one side that bases it's decisions on emotion and twists the definition of words, uses them when they don't apply or simply creates their own words to push their agenda on others and then you have another side that is honest, bases their agenda on facts and doesn't try to manipulate you with word games. The thing you should be asking yourself is "which side is trying to silence the other side on Facebook"? The side trying to get the others opinions erased from the site is against free speech and doesn't want a fair election. The side that says "Let's have a fair election and we're not going to try to silence the opposition" is the side that has integrity.

Regardless, I believe that Mark Zuckerberg allowing everyone to have a voice is the correct thing to do. We see too many times how companies and individuals fall victim to intolerant hate mobs hell bent on pushing their immoral agenda on others and I'm glad the Facebook has drawn a line and said "Not us, we want a fair election and let the best person win". Yes, the "best person" will win come 2020 and just you watch on how the other side handles that loss. It'll clearly show what type of people that are.

Source/Proof: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...uke-zuckerberg-s-free-speech-address-n1068461


----------



## Kraken_X (Oct 18, 2019)

The entire thing about “false or misleading content” is that it is false and misleading.  Truth isn't a side.


----------



## billapong (Oct 18, 2019)

Kraken_X said:


> The entire thing about “false or misleading content” is that it is false and misleading.  Truth isn't a side.



If you ask one side what is "false and misleading" they will tell you it's stuff they simply don't agree with, stuff that makes them feel bad or stuff they think is racist. It's not actually "false". They tell you "the truth is objective", meaning if they don't agree with it then it's false simply because they don't like it. Their thought process in what is considered "false" is not logical. It's based on emotion. Regarding misleading. It if leads anywhere, but where they want it to lead it's considered misleading. So simply stuff posted to promote one candidate would be considered misleading because they don't want you to vote for that candidate.

Then you have the other side that bases if something is false based on if the data backs up it. If there's facts behind the logic. If it's logical to begin with. Although, they are human so possibly not in every case their logic is sound.

The problem I have is that one side thinks they can silence the other side. That we should only be exposed to "their version of the truth" and not have the option to decide for ourselves which side we want to pick. It's basically cheap and dishonest tactics to try to win an election and I'm glad that Zuckerberg saw though it and isn't going to let it happen.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Oct 18, 2019)

Unfortunately, people who are likely to fall for or have already fallen for false information are the same people likely to be sucked into the echo chambers where the information originated. I would agree with all of your points when applied to the world in general -- but the internet is a very different space. There is such a wealth of information (and misinformation) that it is very easy to pick out only the bits and pieces that support your point of view.

As beautiful as freedom of speech and expression sounds, I don't think Zuckerberg's decision was motivated by any honorable intentions of that nature. In the article, it looks like he actually revoked a pre-existing rule that banned false information. We gotta remember Facebook's profits are directly associated with the number of members who use the site, so of course he wants to make it a "welcoming" environment.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 18, 2019)

billapong said:


> The problem I have is that one side thinks they can silence the other side. That we should only be exposed to "their version of the truth" and not have the option to decide for ourselves which side we want to pick. It's basically cheap and dishonest tactics to try to win an election and I'm glad that Zuckerberg saw though it and isn't going to let it happen.


I just hope this doesn't involve any underlying tactics to influence the upcoming election the same way social media influenced the 2016 race.  I can't say Zuckerberg was involved in the 2016 fiasco, but Facebook and his underlings were and admitted on video that they will do everything they can to not allow Trump to win again.  
Robert Epstein(a psychologist and a devout Democrat) said that Google alone had “manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes” in favor of Hillary Clinton.  How many popular votes did Hillary have over Trump? 2.8 million?  Hmmm, how odd?  Who knows how many votes were influenced by facebook.  
This shows how popular Trump is by winning the election regardless of voter tampering and involvement by foreign countries, but it also shows how unfair it is that large liberal ran corporations have so much influence on our elections.


----------



## billapong (Oct 18, 2019)

cauliquackers said:


> Unfortunately, people who are likely to fall for or have already fallen for false information are the same people unlikely to be sucked into the echo chambers where the information originated. I would agree with all of your points when applied to the world in general -- but the internet is a very different space. There is such a wealth of information (and misinformation) that it is very easy to pick out only the bits and pieces that support your point of view.
> 
> As beautiful as freedom of speech and expression sounds, I don't think Zuckerberg's decision was motivated by any honorable intentions of that nature. In the article, it looks like he actually revoked a pre-existing rule that banned false information. We gotta remember Facebook's profits are directly associated with the number of members who use the site, so of course he wants to make it a "welcoming" environment.



According main stream news sites that are bias to one side of the issue the reasoning behind removing the old rule was to allow the "evil other side" the ability to advertise their "lies" and due to this they are outraged. So if you translate this from a third perspective they removed the rules so both sides can advertise freely and it has nothing to do with "lies", because like I already stated what the one side is calling "lies" is simply things they disagree with, but aren't actually lies (based on facts, logic and reality) (as opposed to basing facts on how you feel). Since the one side has been running stories on how this is "unfair" I figured I'd bring up conversation, because what is unfair is not letting both sides duke it out on even grounds with the same rules. There's no debate is only one side is allowed to talk.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> I just hope this doesn't involve any underlying tactics to influence the upcoming election the same way social media influenced the 2016 race.  I can't say Zuckerberg was involved in the 2016 fiasco, but Facebook and his underlings were and admitted on video that they will do everything they can to not allow Trump to win again.
> 
> Robert Epstein(a psychologist and a devout Democrat) said that Google alone had “manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes” in favor of Hillary Clinton.  How many popular votes did Hillary have over Trump? 2.8 million?  Hmmm, how odd?  Who knows how many votes were influenced by facebook.
> This shows how popular Trump is by winning the election regardless of voter tampering and involvement by foreign countries, but it also shows how unfair it is that large liberal ran corporations have so much influence on our elections.



Well, Facebook is a private organization that can push whatever agenda they want. They technically don't have to let both sides advertise, but at least they are allowing both sides to do so and without bias (in the fact both sides can advertise). If I was a billionaire and didn't like the President I wouldn't want the Government to tell me I can't use my private company to get votes for another candidate that I wanted in office, but of course then I'd be being a bias billionaire with an agenda. So if I were saying I run a neutral platform that welcomes everyone I would be lying.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I just hope this doesn't involve any underlying tactics to influence the upcoming election the same way social media influenced the 2016 race.  I can't say Zuckerberg was involved in the 2016 fiasco, but Facebook and his underlings were and admitted on video that they will do everything they can to not allow Trump to win again.
> Robert Epstein(a psychologist and a devout Democrat) said that Google alone had “manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes” in favor of Hillary Clinton.  How many popular votes did Hillary have over Trump? 2.8 million?  Hmmm, how odd?  Who knows how many votes were influenced by facebook.
> This shows how popular Trump is by winning the election regardless of voter tampering and involvement by foreign countries, but it also shows how unfair it is that large liberal ran corporations have so much influence on our elections.


Facebook only cares about money, not about who wins, I believe if we got rid of Facebook it would help to stop the anti-vaxxer community (which Facebook allows to exist), as I don't think they are smart enough to move to another platform.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 18, 2019)

Like so many other neolibs/neocons, Zuck is a pathetic weasel who will cozy up to whoever he thinks will give him the biggest tax break.  The "side" he's picked is greed.  Fact-checking should not be optional, and nobody should be running ads about the US election paid for in rubles.  If Facebook is the biggest influence in deciding our elections, we've already hit peak late-stage capitalism, also known as Idiocracy.


----------



## billapong (Oct 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Like so many other neolibs/neocons, Zuck is a pathetic weasel who will cozy up to whoever he thinks will give him the biggest tax break.  The "side" he's picked is greed.  Fact-checking should not be optional, and nobody should be running ads about the US election paid for in rubles.  If Facebook is the biggest influence in deciding our elections, we've already hit peak late-stage capitalism, also known as Idiocracy.



Well, you can't really fact check based on how you feel about something, whether or not you think it's racist or if it goes against your agenda. You'd have to use reason and logic and since one side fails to do this I don't think you'll get much agreement about what "facts" actually are. Besides, Facebook isn't a referee and shouldn't be obligated to screen candidates ads let alone peoples posts for accuracy. I'm just glad they decided to not get into the entire "feeling/fake fact vs logical/real fact" mess and are giving both sides the ability to simply run what they want, which is normal and is what has been happening long before there was color television.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 19, 2019)

billapong said:


> Well, Facebook is a private organization that can push whatever agenda they want. They technically don't have to let both sides advertise, but at least they are allowing both sides to do so and without bias (in the fact both sides can advertise). If I was a billionaire and didn't like the President I wouldn't want the Government to tell me I can't use my private company to get votes for another candidate that I wanted in office, but of course then I'd be being a bias billionaire with an agenda. So if I were saying I run a neutral platform that welcomes everyone I would be lying.


While I completely agree with you on the basis that the government shouldn't tell a company or the people in charge of it who they can vote for or push for, I was leaning more towards the contribution limits that a company or person can donate to someone running for office.

If facebook donates the max contribution limit to a democrat running for president, they shouldn't be allowed to use their platform to further push their agenda and/or silence anybody pushing for the other side as this can be seen as donating their employees' time (which equals money that facebook has to pay out) to work on influencing the undecided voters using their services.

In other words, if Facebook or Google uses their platform to influence undecided voters to vote for the democrat to the tune of 2.6 to 16 million votes, this is a considerable "contribution" to the election.  A similar thing happened with NBC when they had Trump on SNL and The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.  Clinton, as well as the other Republicans running against Trump, demanded they have equal time on NBC to keep it fair.

As for the advertisements, Facebook shouldn't censor anybody's advertisement as they should not be the determining factor of what makes an ad "truthful" or "worthy of being shown" as long as the ad complies with the law.  Looks like the Zuck agrees with me -- “While I certainly worry about the erosion of truth, I don’t think most people want to live in a world where you can only post things that tech companies judge to be 100% true,” said Zuckerberg.


----------



## billapong (Oct 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> While I completely agree with you on the basis that the government shouldn't tell a company or the people in charge of it who they can vote for or push for, I was leaning more towards the contribution limits that a company or person can donate to someone running for office.
> 
> If facebook donates the max contribution limit to a democrat running for president, they shouldn't be allowed to use their platform to further push their agenda and/or silence anybody pushing for the other side as this can be seen as donating their employees' time (which equals money that facebook has to pay out) to work on influencing the undecided voters using their services.
> 
> ...



I see your point, but maybe the fact I consider Facebook as modern crap I'll never use I have a hard time comparing it to national TV networks. To me it's just a shitty web site, but now that you put it into perspective I can understand your position better. I guess I'm missing out a little on not using modern social media, but that's okay. I rather not understand someones perspective at first then put my entire life online for the Government to freely access and monitor then use for whatever the political climate is about now and in the future.


----------

