I wonder what Mark Zuckerberg was thinking when he said Facebook would take no action on US President Donald Trump’s volatile posts about the George Floyd protests. His stance has polarised Facebook itself, with about 400 employees staging a "virtual walkout" last week, several resigning and senior managers expressing dissent. Obviously, all this happened over on Twitter.
Just days before, Twitter — which has been inching towards finding a backbone over the egregious way Trump breaks its terms and conditions — finally acted. It didn’t actually delete the tweet that referenced an infamous 1960s racist comment about that decade’s riots — "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" — but hid it behind a warning. Still, at least it did something. Finally.
That Facebook did not, is astounding. If ever it had a chance to act against a serial offender who not only violates its "community standards" but spreads outright lies, this was it.
Last week Zuckerberg held a video meeting with 25,000 Facebook employees during which he defended his decision, saying he consulted widely with his aides, his "team" and a "diverse set of folks".
He said: "We basically concluded after the research and after everything I’ve read and all the different folks that I’ve talked to, that the reference is clearly to aggressive policing — maybe excessive policing — but it has no history of being read as a dog whistle for vigilante supporters to take justice into their own hands."
Twitter finally acted. That Facebook did not, is astounding
His argument is some of the shrewdest "baffle with bullshit" you’ll ever hear. The Zuck added: "This isn’t a case where [Trump] is allowed to say anything he wants, or that we let government officials or policy-makers say anything they want."
Huh? That’s exactly what just happened.
During last week’s meeting there were reportedly tense exchanges between Zuckerberg and staff, one of whom asked how many people of colour were involved in the decision. Just one: Maxine Williams, Facebook’s global diversity officer.
Zuckerberg is revealing something quite noteworthy (apart from how tone deaf he is). He has long argued that Facebook should not be considered to be a publisher and therefore should not edit its content, or be responsible for its publication. Facebook claims it only applies its "community standards", a rambling set of instructions, to test if action should be taken against a post. Numerous exposés have shown how useless and vague these standards are.
But the end result of the Trump saga is that it demonstrates Zuckerberg is indeed Facebook’s editor-in-chief. He made the decision not to fact-check posts or hide them behind a warning.
Zuckerberg is in charge of what nearly 3-billion people see. He spectacularly failed this moral test. What kind of community standard is he setting?
- Shapshak is editor-in-chief and publisher of Stuff magazine
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.