Mark Zuckerberg's Ridiculously Wrong, Misleading, And Self-Serving Statements Regarding Twitter Fact-Checking The President

from the oh-shut-the-fuck-up dept

As we continue to deal with the fallout of our thin-skinned President throwing a hissy fit over Twitter daring to provide more context to conspiracy theory nonsense that Trump himself tweeted, Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has apparently decided that it's more important to stomp on Twitter while it's down, rather than protect the wider internet. In a shameful display of opportunistic nonsense, Zuckerberg went on Fox News and pretended that Facebook was somehow not interested in moderating content the way Twitter did:

"We have a different policy, I think, than Twitter on this," Zuckerberg told Dana Perino, host of the Fox News show The Daily Briefing, in an interview clip. The full interview is expected to air on Thursday.

"I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. In general, private companies probably shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that," Zuckerberg added.

Perino said that Zuckerberg told her that Facebook refuses to intervene in censoring public posts unless there's a threat of imminent harm. She added that Facebook is "hands off" when it comes to political speech.

Sure, they have a different policy, because almost all sites have different policies, but if you compared Facebook's policies on content moderation to Twitter's you'd find that Facebook does vastly more moderation than Twitter has ever done and Facebook introduced similar "fact checking" efforts years ago. To pretend that Facebook doesn't do the exact same thing that Twitter is accused of doing here is just ridiculous. And, we all agree that no platform should be "the arbiter of truth" but that's not the same as saying "do no moderation" (and again, Facebook does a ton of moderation). As for the final claim that Facebook is "hands off" when it comes to political speech, that's also false. Facebook is hands off on political ads, but not all political speech. And so is Twitter, in that it bars all political ads in the first place.

This is disappointing, but all too common from Facebook, the company that stabbed the open internet in the back by supporting FOSTA a few years ago. The company has clearly made the decision that it can sell out the open internet in favor of more political clout.

Filed Under: arbiters of truth, cda 230, fact checking, free speech, jack dorsey, mark zuckerberg, section 230
Companies: facebook, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 11:25am

    I've got mine, screw you

    As Zuckerberg, never letting a chance to take shots at the competition pass, even when doing so just digs a hole for him to fall into down the line.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 11:47am

    Weird, you mean the guy who has met with Trump and whose supposedly agnostic approach to correcting blatant misinformation on his platform, even when it came from illegal campaign interference by known foreign agents, doesn't think he should do anything about circumstances that favor Trump and anyone else who thinks that the truth doesn't matter?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Koby (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 12:00pm

    Not Moderation

    And, we all agree that no platform should be "the arbiter of truth" but that's not the same as saying "do no moderation" (and again, Facebook does a ton of moderation).

    But what Twitter did the other day was not moderation. It was EDITORIALIZING.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:02pm

      Re: Not Moderation

      And it's still legal so what's your point?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Koby (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 12:18pm

        Re: Re: Not Moderation

        And it's still legal so what's your point?

        Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral. Creating an open free speech platform, and then adding a bias to punish those with whom you disagree is a morally ugly position to take. And that is why the calls for section 230 reform are growing louder. Every time someone says "but it's legal!", more people realize "that's true, so we need to make a change".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          What is exactly morally long about correcting the lies from your favorite liar?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

            Or, wrong

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

              What is exactly morally [wrong] about correcting the lies from your favorite liar?

              Apparently its' the "thinking (some) people speak anything less than absolute truth" that's horribly wrong (in their view).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 28 May 2020 @ 12:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral.

          It's legal to lie and it's not moral so let's make it illegal. I doubt you would like that when the Ministry of Truth knocks on your door to drag you away.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          "Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral."

          Hang on a sec ....
          1) Donald's tweet claimed things that are not true which makes it immoral but it remains legal.
          2) Twitter added a refernce to said tweet(s), this is both moral and legal.

          Which one do you think was not moral?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 1:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          the calls for section 230 reform are growing louder

          Those calling for section 230 "reform" are people who either 1) don't understand it, 2) have an underlying agenda that section 230 obstructs, or 3) think that "free speech" means others must be forced to listen to them.

          For all the argument about what 230 "was meant to do," consider that its writers are both still alive, and one of them is still in office. Why not just ask them if 230 is being used in the manner they intended?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 2:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

            Those calling for section 230 "reform" are people who

            Are 'red hats' who want to bully anybody who disagrees with them into submission.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 1:36pm

          Creating an open free speech platform, and then adding a bias to punish those with whom you disagree is a morally ugly position to take.

          Numerous Mastodon instances have open sign-ups; anyone can make an account, just like on Twitter. Most instances also have rules against users posting certain kinds of legally protected (but morally repugnant) speech. Should the law force the owners of those instances to…

          1. shut down those open sign-ups and prevent all federation with Mastodon instances that have open sign-ups,

          2. allow all speech that the rules banned and federate with all Mastodon-based instances (including Gab instances) regardless of the wishes of those instance owners, or

          3. shut down all of the instances that refuse to comply with either (or both) of the previous options?

          Remember: According to your logic, any option that allows the instances in question to both remain open to the public and “censor” legally protected speech (including the hiding of such speech from other instances that would otherwise be seen via federation) according to the whims of the instance owners is, as you put it, “morally ugly”.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral.

          Please explain how providing context is immoral?

          Creating an open free speech platform, and then adding a bias to punish those with whom you disagree is a morally ugly position to take.

          What "bias"? The first use of that fact checking I saw was to correct people saying incorrect things about Mike Pence.

          And WHEN and in WHAT WORLD is adding more context immoral? In what insane brain space do you live in that adding more speech is somehow an affront to free speech.

          And that is why the calls for section 230 reform are growing louder.

          Only from idiotic dipshits.

          Every time someone says "but it's legal!", more people realize "that's true, so we need to make a change".

          Which is barred by the 1st Amendment. Planning on changing that any time soon?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 2:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          Spreading blatant and harmful falsehoods is morally wrong.

          Providing factual correction to same is morally right.

          I think your moral compass is in severe need of recalibration.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 6:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

            Section 230 allows for blatant and harmful falsehoods to be spread for eternity through search engines.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 5:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          Just because something is (currently) legal does not make it moral

          And yet we have a pussy grabber in charge of the goddamn country.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 29 May 2020 @ 7:44am

          Re: Re: Re: Not Moderation

          "Every time someone says "but it's legal!", more people realize "that's true, so we need to make a change"."

          By nationalizing private property, effectively saying that if you open your home to someone that person will be entitled to squat forever in your living room?

          Fact of the matter there's very little you can do to 230 without effectively abolishing the right of any american to start an online service and keep owning it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:09pm

      Re: Not Moderation

      It was mitigating a blatant lie with a link to factual information.

      Now, they can't spend time correcting all you flat-earthers, but interfering in elections, i believe, was a thing of some importance recently that everyone wanted handled.

      Call it whatever you want, your categorization is immaterial and irrelevant.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:16pm

      Re: Not Moderation

      you are totally right. How dare Twitter host their own speech, on their own website, when it disagrees with someone elses' speech on the same page. That's not how free speech works, disagreeing with other is totally not allow. /s

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:22pm

        Re: Re: Not Moderation

        This is the pattern you see online a lot. People who bitch about being downvoted (but not having their comments deleted or their accounts banned unless they explicitly break a TOS rule) as if it's censorship, when they don't recognize that downvoting is other people using their own speech.

        These people are disingenuous and are attempting to use free speech ideology as a weapon against people who do support actual free speech.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:10pm

    Oh please, Donny, move to Facebook.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:18pm

    If we are ever to have truly "free" speech on the internet, then the platforms absolutely have to allow anything to be posted, even if it isn't true. Historically, newspapers, radios & TV have published material that was wrong and may have even caused people harm. Those same places have also restricted ads or refused to run articles because their editor didn't like them and have been chastised ever since. (Think the southern papers who didn't mention the civil rights bill in their newspapers). Free speech should always be just that - free without any restrictions. Otherwise we don't have free speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 12:48pm

      Free speech is not shorthand for consequence-free speech

      Nope, but enjoy your false dichotomy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 1:24pm

      If we are ever to have truly "free" speech on the internet, then the platforms absolutely have to allow anything to be posted, even if it isn't true.

      Should the law force the owner of a platform into hosting White supremacist propaganda against their will?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 12:38pm

    "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online," said NAMBLA supporter and noted coprophiliac Mark Zuckerberg, while personally giving cancer to orphans.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 6:31pm

      Re:

      Even though Zuckerberg is lying that Facebook doesn't do thoughtpolicing, his statement itself is what most Americans believe should be the case across Big Tech.

      However, I don't think anyone is saying Zuckerberg should be able to go after Techdirt for the defamation you wrote on Techdirt … just you personally.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ben L (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 12:51pm

    I wouldn't put it past Zuck to suck up to Fox News viewers, but it's also possible Perino is mis-communicating exactly what he said. Can we get a link to the actual interview so we can check for ourselves?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 28 May 2020 @ 1:04pm

    As Fox news have proven, there's more money in bulls**t than there is in truth and as long as that's the case, Zuckerberg and facebook will continue to support it while, pretending to be neutral. 'We can't be held responsible for any of the damage we've caused as we accept money from honest people as well as liars, it's not our fault liars have more of it.'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 2:48pm

    Facebook is a social media website with many private groups and community's and corporate accounts . Twitter is more like a microblogging online service. The point of of sections 230 is to allow websites to moderate content as they wish, to block users or ban certain types of content
    Of course Facebook moderates it's users posts and bans
    extreme political content
    Twitter does not have live streaming or certain services like Facebook Rooms user to user video conferencing. Section 230 allows websites to set their own standards and policy's as to what content
    they allow and how they moderate their users
    I think trump is just acting out and attacking China
    and tech company's maybe to distract his followers
    from the fact that his policy's re the covid 19
    have been a disaster

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2020 @ 5:30pm

    I would like to know how you can Fact Check Trump on an Opinion of what can happen in the Future?

    All the while the NAACP themselves are talking about massive voting fraud!!! The Judge in fact was doing voter fraud also. There's been a number of voting fraud cases being reported. Fact-checking an Opinion of something in the future by CNN Reporters who are Anti-Trump. They sure aren't FACTS. This site so so bias.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2020 @ 10:13am

    I believe this could all be summed up pretty easily.

    "Zuckerberg is a complete piece of shit".

    My work here is done.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    restless94110 (profile), 31 May 2020 @ 1:24am

    Definitions

    The definition of fact-checking is: Censorship.

    Zuck knows this. But didn't he just create a committee of left-wing hacks to moderate Facebook?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 31 May 2020 @ 10:50am

      The definition of fact-checking is: Censorship.

      Donald Trump is free to continue posting his lies about mail-in ballots and voter fraud all he wants. Fact-checking doesn’t stop him from lying — it stops him from lying without consequence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 31 May 2020 @ 6:01pm

    Did you hear Zuckerberg died?

    "Mark Zuckerberg – Dead At 36 – Says Social Media Sites Should Not Fact Check Posts"

    https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/05/28/mark-zuckerberg-dead-at-36-says-social-media-fac t-check/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.