Story
We learned 9 things from the Mark Zuckerberg's leaked audio to his staff
Mark Zuckerberg held a Tuesday morning video Chat meeting with staff in order to discuss questions related to President Trump's decision not to take action in some recent positions. The decision sparked unusual internal differences between employees, as I reported on Thursday, and on Monday, with a few hundred employees, it was released into the general public.
Staff sent me a record of the meeting on Tuesday and provided a valuable insight into the decisions taken by Mark Zuckerberg, his planned next steps and the unhappiness of several staff. Adi Robertson, my colleague listened to me. She written: She writes:
Although Zuckerberg said that he should have offered employees more transparency, he took the view that what he called a "very thorough" evaluation of Trump's posts was difficult but correct to prevent them from being labelled and removed.
At some point, the conflict among top managers and participants of the walkout is unstoppable — you think either the role of Trump should have dropped or should not. But if it is worth knowing how Facebook explains and communicates its policy decisions, there will be other additional decisions such as those to take before the US president elections. As far as I am concerned. Trump put the business in a wrong position last week, and he will likely put them into a worse one if the events continue to develop as they have done over the past few days. Today's meeting can help us understand how Facebook can react.
- In the event of escalating civil unrest, Facebook could introduce temporary speech restrictions for US state actors.
- Zuckerberg admitted that he spoke about his posts to Trump, but said the conversation only happened if he had wanted to stop them.
- The Trump decision was made by only one black employee.
- The seven-point roadmap for Facebook answers employee questions regarding Trump's decision.
- Zuckerberg thinks the company's public image that Facebook keeps Trump updated is likely to be hurt.
- Zuckerberg encouraged workers to see defending freedom of speech as a worthy cause.
- A red line can't be crossed by Trump, and it is already implemented by Facebook.
- Zuckerberg is worried that the freedom of expression is only only going to be reduced, and one day we will regret it.
- These responses do not seem particularly touching to employees I talked with.
At the same time, another employee told me that the majority of Zuckerberg 's decision was endorsed, but those who agreed with it were terrified to speak out because they were afraid to appear offensive. (This was confirmed by an employee who spoke at the call.)
I assume that how you see the debate regarding Trump posts largely depends on how you feel the next year will come. Some predict a return to balance; some expect violent rhetoric to intensify further. This also means that optimists and pessimists are present.
The optimists argue that social media is no good or bad, but just a powerful new tool to be used by society. Its abuse takes more account than its positive uses, but these positive uses — for example the assassination of an innocent man by the police — eventually outweigh those which are negative. The optimists say this year may be a particular time, but eventually (and perhaps soon!) things get back to normal, and we shall rejoice in preserving our traditions of free speech so that movements like Black Lives Matter can continue using these tools for good purposes. In this framework, Zuckerberg is an optimist.
The pessimists argue that bad actors are playing on social networks to strengthen and worsen present power imbalances. For instance, the president used these platforms to call on the police and the military to "dominate" peaceful demonstrators and to condemn constitutionally protected gatherings – using one's own freedom of speech and the algorithm supported by social media to restrict others' freedom of speech. The pessimist knows that the President of the United States can never really disassemble, but she does not like to help a rich and powerful company build a megaphone.
Especially because she knows that worse jobs are due and collective damage can only increase.
The optimist believes that the long arc of history is turning to justice. The pessimist turns on the TV and sees fascist boots already pouring gas on the ground. The optimist may be able to wait for any civil unrest. Just not the pessimist.
