Zuckerberg Vows To Stop Apologizing To Bad Faith Politicians, Right After Doing Just That
from the yeah,-sure,-whatever dept
Two weeks ago, Mark Zuckerberg apologized for something he didn’t actually do to appease a bad faith actor demanding he take responsibility for something that didn’t happen. This week, he’s claiming that he’s done falsely apologizing to bad faith actors demanding accountability for things he’s not responsible for.
Pardon me, but I think I’ll wait for some actual evidence of this before I take it on faith that he’s a changed man.
There were plenty of times over the last decade that Mark Zuckerberg seemed both unwilling and unable to speak up about how content moderation / trust & safety actually worked. He was so easily battered down by bad faith political actors into issuing pointless apologies that it became a sort of common occurrence. Politicians began to realize they could capitalize on this kind of theater to their own benefit.
Over the course of that decade, there were many times when Zuck could have come out and more clearly explained the reality of these things: content moderation is impossible to do well at scale, mistakes will always be made, and some people will always disagree with some of our choices. As such, there are times that people will have reasonable criticisms of decisions the company has made, or policies it has chosen to prioritize, but it’s got nothing to do with bad faith, or partisan politics, or the woke mind virus, or anything like that at all.
It just has to do with the nature of content moderation at scale. There are many malicious actors out there, many calls are subjective in nature, and operationalizing rules across tens of thousands of content moderators to protect the health and safety of users on a site is going to be fraught with decisions people disagree with.
Zuckerberg could have taken that stance at basically any point in the last decade. He could have tried to share some of the nuances and trade-offs inherent in these choices. Yet, each and every time, he seemed to fold and play politics.
So, there’s one side of me that thinks his recent appearance on some podcast in which he suggests he’s done apologizing and now focused on being more open and honest is nice to hear.
The founder of Facebook has spent a lot of time apologizing for Facebook’s content moderation issues. But when reflecting on the biggest mistakes of his career, Zuckerberg said his largest one was a “political miscalculation” that he described as a “20-year mistake.” Specifically, he said, he’d taken too much ownership for problems allegedly out of Facebook’s control.
“Some of the things they were asserting that we were doing or were responsible for, I don’t actually think we were,” said Zuckerberg. “When it’s a political problem… there are people operating in good faith who are identifying a problem and want something to be fixed, and there are people who are just looking for someone to blame.”
Of course, that would be a hell of a lot more compelling if, literally two weeks ago, Zuckerberg hadn’t sent a totally spineless and craven apology for things that didn’t even happen to one of the most bad faith “just looking for someone else to blame” actors around: Jim Jordan.
So it’s a little difficult to believe that Zuck has actually turned over a new leaf regarding political posturing, caving, and apologizing for things he wasn’t actually responsible for. It just looks like he’s shifted which bad faith actors he’s willing to cave to.
The problem in all of this is that there are (obviously!) plenty of things that social media companies and their CEOs could do better to provide a better overall environment. And there are (obviously!) plenty of things that social media companies and their CEOs could do better to explain and educate the public about the realities of social media, trust & safety, and society itself.
There are all sorts of problems that are pinned on social media that are really society-level problems that governments have failed to deal with going back centuries. A real leader would strive to highlight the differences between the things that are societal level problems and platform level problems. A real leader would highlight ways in which society should be attacking some of those problems, and where and how social media platforms could assist.
But Zuckerberg isn’t doing any of that. He’s groveling before bad faith actors… and pretending that he’s done doing so. Mainly because those very same bad faith actors keep insisting (in a bad faith way) that Zuck’s previous apologies were because of other bad faith actors conspiring with Zuck to silence certain voices. Except that didn’t happen.
So forgive me for being a bit cynical in believing that Zuck is “done” apologizing or “done” caving to bad faith actors. The claim he’s making here appears to be explicitly about now caving to a new and different batch of bad faith actors.
Filed Under: apologies, bad faith actors, content moderation, jim jordan, mark zuckerberg, politics, trade offs
Companies: meta


Comments on “Zuckerberg Vows To Stop Apologizing To Bad Faith Politicians, Right After Doing Just That”
Five minutes later...
Zuckerberg: I am done apologizing to bad faith actors for things that aren’t actually my fault or the fault of those that work for me!
Politician: Boo!
Zuckerberg: Ah! I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I promise I’ll do whatever you want me to and get right on fixing whatever you want me to which I’m sure you’re right in blaming me for, just don’t do the mean face again!
Always remember this about Zuckerberg...
…he’s a sociopath. His only value in life is Mark Zuckerberg. His only care in life is Mark Zuckerberg. His only goal in life is Mark Zuckerberg.
So he’s totally consistent — with this, with the only things that have ever mattered to him and will ever matter to him. He will do or say anything he thinks he needs to with no regard for the truth or the law or history or anything else, because none of things mean anything to him.
And it’s beyond awful that there are actually people who look up to this man, who think of him as some kind of a leader or visionary.
“apologized for something he didn’t actually do to appease a bad faith actor demanding he take responsibility for something that didn’t happen”
All cult members must submit.
Wonder what they have on him.
Wherever the political winds are blowing ...
Zuck (who now appears to dress like a nu-metal douche and/or a juggalo) will say whatever he thinks the next president wants to hear.
When it looked like things were going Trump’s way, he fellated Trump with a bunch of Republican talking points. Now he’s back-pedaling.
The comments discussed here happened on Tuesday, before Harris’s improved polling post-debate happened. I guarantee Zuck will distance himself further from his obviously phony, Trump-flavored comments in the coming weeks.
Re:
It will (probably) never cease to amaze me that supposedly-powerful people are among the weakest, most cowardly, think-skinned, pathetic cringing whining little weaklings on this planet:
Zuckerberg
Musk
Altman
Vance
Trump
(Larry) Hogan
DeSantis
Abbott
pretty much any other Republican
These people enjoy wealth and privilege vastly beyond even the dreams of most Americans, and yet they constantly show far less courage than teachers or social workers or nurses or other people who actually do the heavy lifting in society every damn day.
Re: Re: 'I have money, why would I need a spine?'
I suspect a lot of it is that they’ve never been in a position, or it’s been so long since they’ve been in the position where courage and integrity actually mattered, and where their money didn’t just shield them from all consequences or need to stand up for/to anything.
Re: Re: Re:
The rich have integrity and courage?
Re: Re: Re:2
Well no, that’s my point, much like a muscle that never builds up because it’s never been used my thought is that they so often lack those traits because they’ve never needed to have them thanks to their wealth shielding them from any situation where such traits would be needed(courage) or even considered positive(integrity).
Courage is for those that can’t just pay their way out of trouble, and integrity frequently isn’t as profitable as it’s absence.
Re: Re:
like a house cat,
“they’re convinced of their fierce independence while dependent on a system they don’t appreciate or understand.”
– somebody
Perhaps he should publicly unapologize.
Could it be that Original Android Zuckerberg just keeps using Apologising Robot Zuckeberg to save him any embarrassment or having to face fleshy human…ugh..beings?
There were plenty of times over the last decade that Mark Zuckerberg seemed both unwilling and unable to speak up about how content moderation / trust & safety actually worked.
He’s too fucking stupid to understand how it works. He’s a former lightweight coder turned billionaire. He shouldn’t be representing anything, including the dumpsterfire that is Facebook.
“I will never do THAT again.” — says the Sock Puppet.
Given that there are even odds of Trump becoming President again in a few months, and given that Trump has specifically threatened to throw Zuckerberg in prison, I can’t blame Zuck for throwing the Trumptards a bone like that.
Sure, you could say “if he had fought back against Trump it could reduce Trump’s chances of winning”. But if so, I have to ask: what color is the sky on your planet? We have nine years of proof that all the damning evidence in the world doesn’t reduce Trump’s support.
Re: 'Appeasement works!' -every dictator throughout history
It’s not a matter of evidence being ignored but playing along and making it seem like convicted felon Trump’s claims are legitimate, along with giving him a platform to lie from as he breaks rule after rule that would have resulted in any other account being banned outright.
I absolutely blame Zuckerberg for being a spineless coward and trying to appease a would-be tyrant in an attempt to cover his own ass at the expense of everyone else, because if anyone doesn’t have to worry about going to jail it’s a super rich white guy.
Zuckerberg
I’d love to make a snarky comment bout this but it’s just too serious. You don’t win in Washington playing defense all the time. As someone who works on child protection issues every day it’s extremely frustrating to have a leader in the field and the #1 reporter of CSAM come from a defensive position again and again. Some may write this off to arrogance but it often feels to me like he’s just getting really bad, ill informed advice. Congress has completely failed to implement existing law, ignores the law enforcement issues completely and is utterly devoid of concern about the horrendous child welfare performance of the same Govs/ AG’s who are whining about Meta et all. Zuckerberg should come screaming out of the box every day to point out the abject failure of Congress to implement the laws they have before they pass more laws that are virtue signaling self promotion.