• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mark Zuckerberg Manages to Upset Everybody With Explanation of Facebook's Fake News Policy

F

FreeWits

Banned
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
279
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mark Zuckerberg, known for putting his foot in his mouth, just managed to upset people on all sides of Facebook's Fake News policy. Many people are upset with the policy to take Fake News content down because they feel it infringes on a person's right to free speech, but of the people who liked the policy, Zuckerberg just made them upset by saying Facebook would not take down Holocaust denial because Holocaust deniers are not wrong on purpose. (Mark Zuckerberg seems to think good-faith Holocaust denial is a thing)

This is absolutely hilarious to me. I cannot think of much of a worse example to use as a frame of reference in the first place, but if he is going to use it, to defend Holocaust deniers like this publicly is just hilarious. I see this policy as the greatest threat to free speech that we have seen in a long, long time in the USA. If companies will have this much power over who can talk and what can be said, then companies like Facebook need to be broken up. But I am left wondering one thing: If Facebook isn't going to remove Holocaust denial with their Fake News policy, what is the policy even intended for? It really seems to be a political policy to control who gets elected at that point, so Facebook can have an excuse to ban news they don't like when it matters most. Facebook has way overstepped, and they need to be broken up, just as AT&T was broken up in the past.
 
FreeWits said:
Mark Zuckerberg, known for putting his foot in his mouth, just managed to upset people on all sides of Facebook's Fake News policy. Many people are upset with the policy to take Fake News content down because they feel it infringes on a person's right to free speech, but of the people who liked the policy, Zuckerberg just made them upset by saying Facebook would not take down Holocaust denial because Holocaust deniers are not wrong on purpose. (Mark Zuckerberg seems to think good-faith Holocaust denial is a thing)

This is absolutely hilarious to me. I cannot think of much of a worse example to use as a frame of reference in the first place, but if he is going to use it, to defend Holocaust deniers like this publicly is just hilarious. I see this policy as the greatest threat to free speech that we have seen in a long, long time in the USA. If companies will have this much power over who can talk and what can be said, then companies like Facebook need to be broken up. But I am left wondering one thing: If Facebook isn't going to remove Holocaust denial with their Fake News policy, what is the policy even intended for? It really seems to be a political policy to control who gets elected at that point, so Facebook can have an excuse to ban news they don't like when it matters most. Facebook has way overstepped, and they need to be broken up, just as AT&T was broken up in the past.
Click to expand...

He's not defending holocaust deniers. He's saying a very simple thing and if you don't understand it, it's probably because you don't want to.

They will remove news if it is intended to spread news that that the person knows to be false and is spreading for bad motives. You might disagree with the concept, and that's fine, but you should at least comprehend it and get it right before talking about it.
 
FreeWits said:
Mark Zuckerberg, known for putting his foot in his mouth, just managed to upset people on all sides of Facebook's Fake News policy. Many people are upset with the policy to take Fake News content down because they feel it infringes on a person's right to free speech, but of the people who liked the policy, Zuckerberg just made them upset by saying Facebook would not take down Holocaust denial because Holocaust deniers are not wrong on purpose. (Mark Zuckerberg seems to think good-faith Holocaust denial is a thing)

This is absolutely hilarious to me. I cannot think of much of a worse example to use as a frame of reference in the first place, but if he is going to use it, to defend Holocaust deniers like this publicly is just hilarious. I see this policy as the greatest threat to free speech that we have seen in a long, long time in the USA. If companies will have this much power over who can talk and what can be said, then companies like Facebook need to be broken up. But I am left wondering one thing: If Facebook isn't going to remove Holocaust denial with their Fake News policy, what is the policy even intended for? It really seems to be a political policy to control who gets elected at that point, so Facebook can have an excuse to ban news they don't like when it matters most. Facebook has way overstepped, and they need to be broken up, just as AT&T was broken up in the past.
Click to expand...

Facebook thinks Holocaust denial is absolutely fine and acceptable. Yet my posts on a Radical Centrist A.I dictatorship based upon only facts is against community standards blah blah? Thus my account gets disabled, seems logical (sarcasm) makes sense seems completely fair doesn't it? -_-
 
roughdraft274 said:
He's not defending holocaust deniers. He's saying a very simple thing and if you don't understand it, it's probably because you don't want to.

They will remove news if it is intended to spread news that that the person knows to be false and is spreading for bad motives. You might disagree with the concept, and that's fine, but you should at least comprehend it and get it right before talking about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah well Zuckerberg seems to hate radical centrists like myself or whoever keeps banning me because "it's against community guidelines" I'm just explaining absolute facts nothing more... How does this on earth warrant a ban in the slightest essentially? Liberals and conservatives both have irrational, illogical biases. I think they both objectively people in the middle like me the most because we are not hysterical like the rest of you.
 
Last edited:
CentristFascist said:
Yeah well Zuckerberg seems to hate radical centrists like myself or whoever keeps banning me because "it's against community guidelines" I'm just explaining absolute facts nothing more... How does this on earth warrant a ban in the slightest essentially?
Click to expand...


I’ll take a chance; what are some of the “absolute facts” that you explain on FB?
 
Rexedgar said:
I’ll take a chance; what are some of the “absolute facts” that you explain on FB?
Click to expand...

Historically back in World War 2 it was the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler who befriended the Muslim dictators in Arab countries because of their shared hatred of Jews/Anti-Semitic belief systems. Ironically back in the 1940s it was the far-right Aryan german nazis/Fuhrer Hitler who loved the muslims. Adolf Hitler actually said to the supreme leaders of the Arab nations and I quote: "The only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the prophet Muhammad."
On the other hand Joseph Stalin the far left dictator of the USSR/Soviet Russia declared Islam "the enemy of freedom" he also told his military to forceably remove burqas from any/all females in Russia. He essentially was the one who killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in neighbouring regions in Ukraine etc he exterminated an awful lot of muslims... So historically speaking the far-left/left objectively have been a lot more islamophobic then the conservative and or far-right on this one particular aspect of history/politics. anyways numerous, hundreds of posts like this I have ever posted keep getting deleted by facebook essentially and I constantly keep receiving the same "Rule violation/infraction community guidelines" ban notice. My point is whoever is running facebook seems to dislike fundamentally objective facts particularly when it does not fit in their whatever agenda they are advocating/promoting.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He's not defending holocaust deniers. He's saying a very simple thing and if you don't understand it, it's probably because you don't want to.

They will remove news if it is intended to spread news that that the person knows to be false and is spreading for bad motives. You might disagree with the concept, and that's fine, but you should at least comprehend it and get it right before talking about it.
Click to expand...

Well, he is saying that they won't remove Holocaust denial despite not knowing the intention of the Holocaust denier, so that is a defense of Holocaust denial. There may very well be Holocaust deniers that deny the Holocaust because they hate Jews. But that's not really the point here, anyways. The point is just the perception this argument creates. Zuckerberg had to know the perception he could create. It's just yet another foot-in-mouth moment by Zuckerberg, and I would argue that you never truly know what a person's intentions for speaking are, so what even is the point of this Fake News policy?
 
That was an inflammatory example but I get what he is saying. There is a difference in being deceitful and being wrong.
 
FreeWits said:
Well, he is saying that they won't remove Holocaust denial despite not knowing the intention of the Holocaust denier, so that is a defense of Holocaust denial. There may very well be Holocaust deniers that deny the Holocaust because they hate Jews. But that's not really the point here, anyways. The point is just the perception this argument creates. Zuckerberg had to know the perception he could create. It's just yet another foot-in-mouth moment by Zuckerberg, and I would argue that you never truly know what a person's intentions for speaking are, so what even is the point of this Fake News policy?
Click to expand...

That's not a defense. In any way.

This perception only exists because of very ignorant and/or dishonest people who refuse to acknowledge even the slightest bit of nuance or logic.

He doesn't want to delete people just because they are wrong. He wants to get rid of them if they are wrong on purpose, as in trying to spread false information for nefarious purposes.

For instance. say I'm a student. I argue and really think that 3+3=5. And I tell everyone that. You can't convince me I'm wrong as I just claim that you don't understand. I'm hard headed. You don't punish me for simply being stupid and wrong.

Or, I am a student and I make real looking study guides giving the wrong answers to simple math and give this out to the other students in class. It sounds and looks legit. It even says "official study guide" across the top. I tell the other students falsely that I got this from a source close to the teacher and some of these will be on the test and you better get these answers or you'll get them wrong. Then when the test comes, I fill out the correct answers to the best of my ability, many of the other students get them wrong because they followed my "cheat sheet" and the teacher grades on a curve so my grade is so much better than it would have been if I hadn't lied to everybody.

Those two scenarios are very different. The motive is so very different that any rational person can spot it in a second. It's also obvious that it matters. It matters to a point that I would completely understand why a student would get punished for doing that. And none of this is "defending being wrong". It's just acknowledging that there is a distinct difference between someone being stupid and someone who is knowingly spreading false info.
 
roughdraft274 said:
That's not a defense. In any way.

This perception only exists because of very ignorant and/or dishonest people who refuse to acknowledge even the slightest bit of nuance or logic.

He doesn't want to delete people just because they are wrong. He wants to get rid of them if they are wrong on purpose, as in trying to spread false information for nefarious purposes.

For instance. say I'm a student. I argue and really think that 3+3=5. And I tell everyone that. You can't convince me I'm wrong as I just claim that you don't understand. I'm hard headed. You don't punish me for simply being stupid and wrong.

Or, I am a student and I make real looking study guides giving the wrong answers to simple math and give this out to the other students in class. It sounds and looks legit. It even says "official study guide" across the top. I tell the other students falsely that I got this from a source close to the teacher and some of these will be on the test and you better get these answers or you'll get them wrong. Then when the test comes, I fill out the correct answers to the best of my ability, many of the other students get them wrong because they followed my "cheat sheet" and the teacher grades on a curve so my grade is so much better than it would have been if I hadn't lied to everybody.

Those two scenarios are very different. The motive is so very different that any rational person can spot it in a second. It's also obvious that it matters. It matters to a point that I would completely understand why a student would get punished for doing that. And none of this is "defending being wrong". It's just acknowledging that there is a distinct difference between someone being stupid and someone who is knowingly spreading false info.
Click to expand...

TIL saying someone is arguing in good faith is not defending them.
 
"I demand my free speech!!! But only what I think should be free speech. **** those other guys!"

If you want to see where this is headed, simply look across the pond. A once great free people have subjugated themselves to the point where now people are being arrested and jailed for saying things other people find 'offensive'. Thats what happens when you start down the road of allowing censorship and ultimately, criminalizing speech.
 
FreeWits said:
TIL saying someone is arguing in good faith is not defending them.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that someone is arguing in good faith. He's saying that the guideline is that if someone really believes the stupid **** they are arguing, then they should be allowed to say stupid ****. If they are saying stupid **** in an attempt to confuse others then they shouldn't be allowed. This is not a defense of holocaust deniers.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He didn't say that someone is arguing in good faith. He's saying that the guideline is that if someone really believes the stupid **** they are arguing, then they should be allowed to say stupid ****. If they are saying stupid **** in an attempt to confuse others then they shouldn't be allowed. This is not a defense of holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

When he said that Holocaust deniers are wrong unintentionally then he is saying they are arguing in good faith. Not sure why you would take that any other way.
 
FreeWits said:
When he said that Holocaust deniers are wrong unintentionally then he is saying they are arguing in good faith. Not sure why you would take that any other way.
Click to expand...

If you just feel like being outraged then go ahead. But you're denying reality. He's not defending holocaust denial. He's simply saying that that in and of itself doesn't break the rules if they genuinely believe it and aren't just trying to trick other people. He's saying that arguments and discussions can take place, even when a person is obviously wrong, if the person really believes it. That's not defending the position. Big difference.
 
roughdraft274 said:
If you just feel like being outraged then go ahead. But you're denying reality. He's not defending holocaust denial. He's simply saying that that in and of itself doesn't break the rules if they genuinely believe it and aren't just trying to trick other people. He's saying that arguments and discussions can take place, even when a person is obviously wrong, if the person really believes it. That's not defending the position. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not outraged. As I said, I found the foot-in-mouth aspect humorous. In fact, my position is that Facebook's Fake News policy is idiotic, and shouldn't be implemented at all. The best chance of this stupid policy not being implemented is for Zuckerberg to keep making statements like this, so I'm quite happy about the situation. Not sure how you misconstrued my reaction, but wow you were off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom