Facebook employees plan to stage a virtual walkout over Zuckerberg's inaction on Trump posts

[ghost]

Facebook employees plan to stage a virtual walkout over Zuckerberg's inaction on Trump posts

 

(CNN Business)Some Facebook employees plan to stage a virtual walkout on Monday to protest CEO Mark Zuckerberg's decision not to take action on a series of controversial posts from President Donald Trump last week, a person familiar with the plans told CNN Business.

 

As part of the walkout, employees will take the day off work. Managers at Facebook have been told by the company's human resources department not to retaliate against staff who are planning to protest, or to make them used paid time-off, the source told CNN.

 

The New York Times first reported the protest.

 

The walkout comes alongside a rare wave of public dissent from Facebook employees on Twitter. Jason Stirman, a design manager at Facebook, said he disagreed with Zuckerberg's decision to do "nothing" about Trump's recent posts. "I'm not alone inside of FB. There isn't a neutral position on racism," he wrote in a tweet on Saturday.

 

"Giving a platform to incite violence and spread disinformation is unacceptable, regardless who you are or if it's newsworthy," Andrew Crow, head of design for Facebook's Portal devices, tweeted over the weekend. "I disagree with Mark's position and will work to make change happen."

 

A Facebook spokesperson told CNN Business: "We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now, especially our Black community. We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we'll continue seeking their honest feedback."

 

The public pushback from employees comes after growing scrutiny of Facebook's inaction. Last week, Twitter for the first time affixed a fact-check label to multiple Trump tweets about mail-in ballots and days later put a warning label on a tweet from Trump about the protest, in which he warned: "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." While identical posts appeared on Facebook, the company chose to do nothing.

I don't know what to do, but I know doing nothing is not acceptable. I'm a FB employee that completely disagrees with Mark's decision to do nothing about Trump's recent posts, which clearly incite violence. I'm not alone inside of FB. There isn't a neutral position on racism.

— Stirman (@stirman) May 30, 2020

 

"I've been struggling with how to respond to the President's tweets and posts all day. Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric," Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post on Friday. "But I'm responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression."

 

Trump and Zuckerberg spoke on the phone Friday, a source familiar with the call previously told CNN.

 

While only a small number of Facebook employees are currently speaking out compared to Facebook's overall workforce of about 48,000, it nonetheless highlights Facebook's difficult tightrope walk. Taking action on Trump's posts risks angering the White House and conservatives, who have long complained of alleged bias on the platform, but doing nothing could alienate some of Facebook's top talent.

 

The criticisms from employees only grew as protests over the death of George Floyd spread to dozens of cities around the country.

 

Katie Zhu, an Instagram employee, tweeted that she was taking Monday off and that she's "deeply disappointed" and "ashamed" with "how the company is showing up." Zhu encouraged others who work for Facebook's apps to join her and "organize," while also sharing a screenshot of her paid time off status including the description #BlackLivesMatter.

 

"I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we're showing up. The majority of coworkers I've spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voice heard," Jason Toff, Facebook director of product management, wrote on Twitter on Monday.

 

In a post on his personal Facebook page Sunday, Zuckerberg said he knows "Facebook needs to do more to support equality and safety for the Black community through our platforms." He also said Facebook would pledge $10 million to groups working on racial justice.

 

CNN

[dMog]

Zuckerberg driven by greed and a little by fear of tump's wrath if he steps on and prevents trump's on line presence (LIES)

[Alanon]

I'm really not sure what this will accomplish? It most certainly won't stop Trump, as he still is the president, no matter how much anyone employed at these corporations wished it weren't the case, and laboured to change that fact.

 

Gab already has a seat warm for Donald Trump. They invite him to move over there regularly, for f*cks sake! We all know that the media will follow Trump and make inflammatory click-bait of whatever he posts, regardless of where he posts it, so what exactly is the point of this? We all know he's not backing down. What's the plan? Force him to a different platform, have him direct traffic to that platform, thus bolstering support for it and creating a new 4chan? Is this seriously going to create anything except more chaos?

 

There are people who say that the voting public will be mislead by Trump's posts on social media and that's why he needs to be "fact-checked" by... presumably some wholly trustworthy, non-biased, benevolent overlords in the sky that have no political opinion or attitude about Trump whatsoever. Even if we take that as completely true, which would be a stretch even in the best of times, it's still a tacit admission that social media and the content posted therein have the power to swing elections. That's a case for more government regulation of social media, not less, and moreover, that's the case Trump is trying to mount as we speak!

 

Why are these buffoons playing right into his hand? They're literally firing up the Republican base and giving him the leverage he needs to convince his conservative paymasters to agree to his radical demands and actually vote for the agenda. I swear, all I'm seeing is a bunch of kids crying over their lollies with absolutely no endgame. They're playing politics, and are just going to get played.

[ghost]

4 minutes ago, Alanon said:

I'm really not sure what this will accomplish? It most certainly won't stop Trump, as he still is the president, no matter how much anyone employed at these corporations wished it weren't the case, and laboured to change that fact.

 

Gab already has a seat warm for Donald Trump. They invite him to move over there regularly, for f*cks sake! We all know that the media will follow Trump and make inflammatory click-bait of whatever he posts, regardless of where he posts it, so what exactly is the point of this? We all know he's not backing down. What's the plan? Force him to a different platform, have him direct traffic to that platform, thus bolstering support for it and creating a new 4chan? Is this seriously going to create anything except more chaos?

 

There are people who say that the voting public will be mislead by Trump's posts on social media and that's why he needs to be "fact-checked" by... presumably some wholly trustworthy, non-biased, benevolent overlords in the sky that have no political opinion or attitude about Trump whatsoever. Even if we take that as completely true, which would be a stretch even in the best of times, it's still a tacit admission that social media and the content posted therein have the power to swing elections. That's a case for more government regulation of social media, not less, and moreover, that's the case Trump is trying to mount as we speak!

 

Why are these buffoons playing right into his hand? They're literally firing up the Republican base and giving him the leverage he needs to convince his conservative paymasters to agree to his radical demands and actually vote for the agenda. I swear, all I'm seeing is a bunch of kids crying over their lollies with absolutely no endgame. They're playing politics, and are just going to get played.

This is standing up for your beliefs, morality and values. as far as the fact checks, that is vital thus people need to know the truth and hold lairs to account for their words. There are many republicans and conservatives that oppose Trump and the others ones are just too scared to speak out due to Trumps' base reprisal.

 

Most leaders, will try to defuse a bad situation and do their best to unite their country; but not Trump. He just wants to create a bigger rift between the two factions. 

[Alanon]

1 minute ago, ghost said:

This is standing up for your beliefs, morality and values. as far as the fact checks, that is vital thus people need to know the truth and hold lairs to account for their words. There are many republicans and conservatives that oppose Trump and the others ones are just too scared to speak out due to Trumps' base reprisal.

 

Most leaders, will try to defuse a bad situation and do their best to unite their country; but not Trump. He just wants to create a bigger rift between the two factions. 

 

Well, sure, I agree on principle 100%. But there's been an abundance of principled stands these past years about and around Trump's behaviour. Everybody and their mother have pronounced their moral line in the sand with regards to Trump. Yet it's funny to me how the end result of those principles always seems to be the status quo? To be clear, I'm not an American, I don't live on the continent, and if anything, I lean social-democratic, so this is by no means a defence of Trump, in any way. As an observer from the sidelines I see deafening silence surrounding certain issues with those principled people, and they close down any reasonable inquiries. Basically, I mostly agree with left-wingers like Kyle Kylinski or Jimmy Dore on this.

 

For example, who is controlling these fact-checkers? Who decides who is going to be a fact checker? What credentials does one need to have? Who exactly appoints them? Who, if anyone, supervises them? Is there a way of appeal or redress? What constitutes the process of fact-checking? If the goal is safeguarding the integrity of the polity, and a defence against lies and manipulation, no-one can afford to be cavalier about these things. It needs to be completely transparent, consistent and universal. In this situation you can't afford to check Trump, but leave the Ayatollah alone. And you certainly can't afford a lame cop-out like "find the facts" with a link to CNN!

 

CNN and the bulk of mainstream media outlets are not fact-checking resources, but corporations dedicated to profit making. The fact that some of them decided to go into the fact-checking business is nothing more than branding. CNN's record is abysmal, going back decades, and with what we now know of their coverage of Obama's administration, or lack thereof, they've lost almost all credibility. A fact-check from CNN is not a fact check, it's almost always opinion by another name. Why CNN? Why not Reuters, why not Associated Press, why does it always have to be some corporate shadow cabinet that we just heard about yesterday?

 

Again, if preserving integrity is the end goal, you don't go about it in a knee-jerk way, because you leave yourself open to indignation from people who can clearly see the double standards. This doesn't mean that these double standards are there because of some malice, I think it just carelessness. But that's still a massive problem. That makes the indignation that follows reasonable, and then you look unreasonable for claiming otherwise and trying to defend a**holes like CNN or Twitter, that have insinuated themselves among your allies. I pity the principles of any man who calls on CNN to defend them.

 

Just because you have principles doesn't mean it's a good idea to behave like an idiot about them. So yeah, I agree with the principle, I agree with the impulse of fact-checking. But this, this is a colossal blunder that's completely counterproductive. It has the potential to consolidate the opposition, which wasn't possible until now. If this is how the fact-checks are going to be handled from now on, then they might as well not exist, because you can't base fact-checks on opposing opinions and uncharitable or apocalyptic readings of the writings of an aged dyslexic buffoon.

[ghost]

54 minutes ago, Alanon said:

 

Well, sure, I agree on principle 100%. But there's been an abundance of principled stands these past years about and around Trump's behaviour. Everybody and their mother have pronounced their moral line in the sand with regards to Trump. Yet it's funny to me how the end result of those principles always seems to be the status quo? To be clear, I'm not an American, I don't live on the continent, and if anything, I lean social-democratic, so this is by no means a defence of Trump, in any way. As an observer from the sidelines I see deafening silence surrounding certain issues with those principled people, and they close down any reasonable inquiries. Basically, I mostly agree with left-wingers like Kyle Kylinski or Jimmy Dore on this.

 

For example, who is controlling these fact-checkers? Who decides who is going to be a fact checker? What credentials does one need to have? Who exactly appoints them? Who, if anyone, supervises them? Is there a way of appeal or redress? What constitutes the process of fact-checking? If the goal is safeguarding the integrity of the polity, and a defence against lies and manipulation, no-one can afford to be cavalier about these things. It needs to be completely transparent, consistent and universal. In this situation you can't afford to check Trump, but leave the Ayatollah alone. And you certainly can't afford a lame cop-out like "find the facts" with a link to CNN!

 

CNN and the bulk of mainstream media outlets are not fact-checking resources, but corporations dedicated to profit making. The fact that some of them decided to go into the fact-checking business is nothing more than branding. CNN's record is abysmal, going back decades, and with what we now know of their coverage of Obama's administration, or lack thereof, they've lost almost all credibility. A fact-check from CNN is not a fact check, it's almost always opinion by another name. Why CNN? Why not Reuters, why not Associated Press, why does it always have to be some corporate shadow cabinet that we just heard about yesterday?

 

Again, if preserving integrity is the end goal, you don't go about it in a knee-jerk way, because you leave yourself open to indignation from people who can clearly see the double standards. This doesn't mean that these double standards are there because of some malice, I think it just carelessness. But that's still a massive problem. That makes the indignation that follows reasonable, and then you look unreasonable for claiming otherwise and trying to defend a**holes like CNN or Twitter, that have insinuated themselves among your allies. I pity the principles of any man who calls on CNN to defend them.

 

Just because you have principles doesn't mean it's a good idea to behave like an idiot about them. So yeah, I agree with the principle, I agree with the impulse of fact-checking. But this, this is a colossal blunder that's completely counterproductive. It has the potential to consolidate the opposition, which wasn't possible until now. If this is how the fact-checks are going to be handled from now on, then they might as well not exist, because you can't base fact-checks on opposing opinions and uncharitable or apocalyptic readings of the writings of an aged dyslexic buffoon.

I, myself am a political centrist. Depending on the issue I lean left or right, but for the most part i am neutral in my opinion until i have all the facts. I have no political affiliations or political agendas.

I am not even American. But it pains me to see a country imploding and Trump dumping more fuel to the fire. It deeply bothers me to hear him lie all the time in an attempt to misled his people. 

 

Morality is universal, not based on culture, skin color, education, financial status, etc. The same can be said about "Facts" As the saying goes "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but never to their own facts." So my answer is no one controls "Facts". But i do agree some news media likes to frame a biased narrative.

 

Bottom line is, never in my lifetime have i witnessed anyone running a country trying to widen a fractured country further. Then blames other people for his own faults. Attacks everyone else that voices opposition. Here's a fact check: A person should never inject or ingest bleach, depending on amount will either make you really sick just just flat-out kill you. 

[Alanon]

1 hour ago, ghost said:

Bottom line is, never in my lifetime have i witnessed anyone running a country trying to widen a fractured country further. Then blames other people for his own faults. Attacks everyone else that voices opposition. Here's a fact check: A person should never inject or ingest bleach, depending on amount will either make you really sick just just flat-out kill you. 

 

I couldn't agree more. The thing is, the anti-Trump block keeps saying that he's horrible and that they are the real deal, and still they're failing at every step. We all know what he's going to do. We all know that if he can find the slightest crack to exploit, he'll do it. We all knew this during the election - hell, we had his whole play-book during the Republican nomination. So why give him a wide opening and make it easy for him? It's not that Trump is some genius, it's that the opposition are acting like absolute dunces. The whole cycle of tit for tat is what's giving his base the strength to keep pushing forward. Without that, he would deflate like a balloon. Trump thrives in outrage, and the media and Democrats just won't stop giving him exactly what he wants. That's what's shocking to me. Despite all their efforts and propping up the Russia thing, and the pornstar thing, and the Muller thing, and the Stone thing, and the Flynn thing, all of these were tragically mishandled not by Trump, but by the incompetent people in charge of the process. If they really wanted to bring him down, they should have gone for his business dealings, examined how much he profits from diverting business to his properties and tried to impeach through the emoluments clause. You know, like Trump is insisting that Biden's son be investigated. Show that he's corrupt, don't complain that he didn't pay his taxes and he won't give you the documents to prove it.

 

As far as morality, I couldn't agree that it's universal. A hundred years ago we had no problem saying women shouldn't vote, not to mention other cultures, like those in Africa that to this day see no issue with female genital mutilation. We constantly shift the boundaries of our morality, and most people tend to forget the moral outrages of their grandfathers. For a lot of people, also, moral choices exist on a spectrum, especially in this moment, when Americans are faced with electing one of two candidates with credible sexual assault accusations over their heads to the highest office of their nation. From an absolute moral point of view, neither should be elected, but there they are, having to weigh and balance the things they care about and try not to compromise their beliefs. That's why I think the moral reasoning isn't the right one for this situation. The public figures that usually take up the mantle of moral purity have no credibility to pull it off. They're no better than Trump, they just care enough to pretend. In fact, in this current state, going into the whole sphere of morality is a net loser politically. The Democrats are now defending Biden by using the single-issue approach, saying that you need him in office for Supreme court nominations, that will impact the future of abortion and other issues. Yet the Trump base can handily follow that same logic and calmly ignore all of Trump's moral failings - think of all the babies he will save if his Supreme court makes abortions illegal. Wouldn't that redeem him? etc. etc.

 

I also agree that we should strive to get to the facts, but a majority of reporting these days is dressed up opinion. Facts require evidence and some reliable method of deliberation. The problem with detecting media "bias" isn't in the examples of openly partisan quackery or conspiracy theory peddling, it's in the most charitable or the most damning readings of any given situation. So one side condemns Trump's "many Mexicans are..." (I won't repeat it here, we all remember what that was) and yet, Biden's "you ain't black" is merely a "failed joke". One party has heaps of good will for their candidate, and none whatsoever for the other. This even exists among the fact-checking websites, when they try to ascribe intent to a sentence whose meaning is unclear, and give their truthfulness rating based on that interpretation. That's still not actual fact-checking. Truth is, many of the sound-bites politicians rattle off can't be fact-checked properly. That's what breeds resentment that Trump exploits to great effect. And on some level, the bias is there, it is real, and it is wrong. This is why these details matter, because institutions with good legacies are being tarnished and ruined by this partisan process and all the good that they might lead to is brushed aside amid all the rancour. Think about it, had they played their cards right, in an open, transparent process, Twitter could have become the go to place for fact-checking political statements. Instead, they're another self-policing social media platform "employing Hillary campaigners to censor Trump". The whole thing tarnished, just like that.

 

However, a lot of the folks that are appalled with Trump and preen across the internet, I find, aren't appalled at what he's doing, but merely the open and uncouth way he's doing it. It's not the corporate tax-breaks they dislike, nor the utter incompetence (after all, the media recently praised Bush of all people as being "presidential"), it's not even the lying itself. It's that he isn't lying in the usual cover-your-bases way. Cuomo is enjoying tremendous popularity in America right now, despite the fact he's presiding over the worst hotspot in the world, largely because he has a pleasant manner and a reassuring demeanour. Most people had little trouble supporting a president that issued drone strikes that killed thousands of civilians along the way, but Trump's unfiltered garbled mess is suddenly taken as being the single greatest enemy the country's ever faced? The largest contingent of voters are the politically uninterested, so-called "low-information" voters. The kind of folks that just might go, well, gee, they "censored" Trump but not that radical Islamist? That doesn't seem fair. You know, they claim he glorified violence, but what about all these other people that are using some coarse language against the police, etc. The reason the centre isn't holding is because it keeps allowing the right to spin these things to oblivion, in a way that shifts the middle just enough to the right to make it count. Again, it's not that the right is so brilliant, it's that it truly doesn't take that much to outshine the merry band of virtue signallers. The fact that Trump might actually win the next election is evidence enough of just how inept these people are.

[ghost]

14 minutes ago, Alanon said:

 

I couldn't agree more. The thing is, the anti-Trump block keeps saying that he's horrible and that they are the real deal, and still they're failing at every step. We all know what he's going to do. We all know that if he can find the slightest crack to exploit, he'll do it. We all knew this during the election - hell, we had his whole play-book during the Republican nomination. So why give him a wide opening and make it easy for him? It's not that Trump is some genius, it's that the opposition are acting like absolute dunces. The whole cycle of tit for tat is what's giving his base the strength to keep pushing forward. Without that, he would deflate like a balloon. Trump thrives in outrage, and the media and Democrats just won't stop giving him exactly what he wants. That's what's shocking to me. Despite all their efforts and propping up the Russia thing, and the pornstar thing, and the Muller thing, and the Stone thing, and the Flynn thing, all of these were tragically mishandled not by Trump, but by the incompetent people in charge of the process. If they really wanted to bring him down, they should have gone for his business dealings, examined how much he profits from diverting business to his properties and tried to impeach through the emoluments clause. You know, like Trump is insisting that Biden's son be investigated. Show that he's corrupt, don't complain that he didn't pay his taxes and he won't give you the documents to prove it.

 

As far as morality, I couldn't agree that it's universal. A hundred years ago we had no problem saying women shouldn't vote, not to mention other cultures, like those in Africa that to this day see no issue with female genital mutilation. We constantly shift the boundaries of our morality, and most people tend to forget the moral outrages of their grandfathers. For a lot of people, also, moral choices exist on a spectrum, especially in this moment, when Americans are faced with electing one of two candidates with credible sexual assault accusations over their heads to the highest office of their nation. From an absolute moral point of view, neither should be elected, but there they are, having to weigh and balance the things they care about and try not to compromise their beliefs. That's why I think the moral reasoning isn't the right one for this situation. The public figures that usually take up the mantle of moral purity have no credibility to pull it off. They're no better than Trump, they just care enough to pretend. In fact, in this current state, going into the whole sphere of morality is a net loser politically. The Democrats are now defending Biden by using the single-issue approach, saying that you need him in office for Supreme court nominations, that will impact the future of abortion and other issues. Yet the Trump base can handily follow that same logic and calmly ignore all of Trump's moral failings - think of all the babies he will save if his Supreme court makes abortions illegal. Wouldn't that redeem him? etc. etc.

 

I also agree that we should strive to get to the facts, but a majority of reporting these days is dressed up opinion. Facts require evidence and some reliable method of deliberation. The problem with detecting media "bias" isn't in the examples of openly partisan quackery or conspiracy theory peddling, it's in the most charitable or the most damning readings of any given situation. So one side condemns Trump's "many Mexicans are..." (I won't repeat it here, we all remember what that was) and yet, Biden's "you ain't black" is merely a "failed joke". One party has heaps of good will for their candidate, and none whatsoever for the other. This even exists among the fact-checking websites, when they try to ascribe intent to a sentence whose meaning is unclear, and give their truthfulness rating based on that interpretation. That's still not actual fact-checking. Truth is, many of the sound-bites politicians rattle off can't be fact-checked properly. That's what breeds resentment that Trump exploits to great effect. And on some level, the bias is there, it is real, and it is wrong. This is why these details matter, because institutions with good legacies are being tarnished and ruined by this partisan process and all the good that they might lead to is brushed aside amid all the rancour. Think about it, had they played their cards right, in an open, transparent process, Twitter could have become the go to place for fact-checking political statements. Instead, they're another self-policing social media platform "employing Hillary campaigners to censor Trump". The whole thing tarnished, just like that.

 

However, a lot of the folks that are appalled with Trump and preen across the internet, I find, aren't appalled at what he's doing, but merely the open and uncouth way he's doing it. It's not the corporate tax-breaks they dislike, nor the utter incompetence (after all, the media recently praised Bush of all people as being "presidential"), it's not even the lying itself. It's that he isn't lying in the usual cover-your-bases way. Cuomo is enjoying tremendous popularity in America right now, despite the fact he's presiding over the worst hotspot in the world, largely because he has a pleasant manner and a reassuring demeanour. Most people had little trouble supporting a president that issued drone strikes that killed thousands of civilians along the way, but Trump's unfiltered garbled mess is suddenly taken as being the single greatest enemy the country's ever faced? The largest contingent of voters are the politically uninterested, so-called "low-information" voters. The kind of folks that just might go, well, gee, they "censored" Trump but not that radical Islamist? That doesn't seem fair. You know, they claim he glorified violence, but what about all these other people that are using some coarse language against the police, etc. The reason the centre isn't holding is because it keeps allowing the right to spin these things to oblivion, in a way that shifts the middle just enough to the right to make it count. Again, it's not that the right is so brilliant, it's that it truly doesn't take that much to outshine the merry band of virtue signallers. The fact that Trump might actually win the next election is evidence enough of just how inept these people are.

First and foremost Thank you for sharing your opinions and point of view. I try to be fair and keep an open mind about everything. My thoughts are my own and not borrowed talking points from other people. Unlike other trump haters i don't use the Russia thing, porn-star thing or anything like that to maim his credibility. However, my dislike of Trump comes from his own mouth and tweets. He says the dumbest things, lies, denies and deflects, despite video proof he said all those things. He is the President of the richest most powerful nation and controls the most powerful military in world. But yet he acts like a 3rd grade punk. 

 

So to sum up what i just said. I don't hate him because of what other people says about him. I dislike him because of what he himself says and does. I never had an issue with any other US Presidents from the period i am alive for (from Carter to Obama) till he came along.