Facebook: The Social Network for Racists
As everyone knows, like a hundred years ago (last week) Twitter made headlines by finally taking a stand against some of Trump’s tweets for spreading misinformation and glorifying violence. This week, Facebook is making headlines for their refusal to take a stand against Trump for the same posts.
Of course, Zuckerberg has been defending this position under the guise of free speech, but we all know that on Facebook, sowing division reaps ad revenue. His creepily robotic statement was as follows: “Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, but I’m responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression.” That’s definitely how normal people talk, affirmative?
On Friday, Zuckerberg had a phone call with the President regarding the call. In an open call with employees, he expanded on the nature of the call, saying, “I used that opportunity to make him know I felt this post was inflammatory and harmful, and let him know where we stood on it.” He then reiterated his puzzling stance that the posts didn’t technically violate the rules, because it was about “state force” which is apparently allowed under Facebook’s rules. Okay.
To their (nominal) credit, Facebook employees are speaking out against him. On Monday, The New York Times reported that a few Facebook employees were so strongly opposed to this position that they have decided to leave the company, and hundreds participated in a “virtual walkout” in protest. A large number of employees have made public remarks (usually on Twitter) criticizing Zuckerberg’s decision and saying that it makes them ashamed to work for the company. Here are a few remarks from Facebook employees:
“Along with Black employees in the company, and all persons with a moral conscience, I am calling for Mark to immediately take down the President’s post advocating violence, murder and imminent threat against Black people.”
“The hateful rhetoric advocating violence against black demonstrators by the US President does not warrant defense under the guise of freedom of expression.”
“The lack of backbone, and this weak leadership, will be judged by history. Hate speech should never be compared to free speech.”
Another employee explained his frustration with Facebook constantly moving the goalposts when it comes to holding Trump accountable. Ben Thompson and John Gruber had a good analysis of this employee’s statement on their new podcast “Dithering”. Essentially, they point out that when Zuckerberg was asked several months ago by Congress what sort of posts Facebook would remove, he explained that Facebook didn’t want to be in the business of moderating or fact checking because they saw it as a free speech issue, but he also conceded that if anyone (including a politician) posted something that incited or promoted violence, that it would be taken down. The podcast’s assessment was that in making that commitment, Zuckerberg was trying to avoid being in this position by drawing a line in the sand so far out, that even Trump wouldn’t cross it. Lo and behold, Trump crossed it, and Zuckerberg didn’t keep his word. Not a good look.
Facebook’s real risk here, as I see it, is getting branded as the social network for racists.
Here’s the thing, Facebook is already the social network for racists, it’s just a matter of when people start to associate racism with their brand on a fundamental level. Of course, not everyone who uses Facebook is a racist, but based on anecdotal evidence and the many structural advantages Facebook’s platform provides them, I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that people who are racists prefer Facebook over any other social network.
Not only does Facebook’s platform work well for racists to share their opinions and find one another, it helps them breed and radicalize budding racists. Facebook’s Achille's heel is that their executives are too greedy to stop this cycle. But this isn’t news, I’ve said it a hundred times: Facebook’s algorithms are designed to drive division because division drives engagement, and engagement equals ad revenue.
To back up my assessment, here’s a quote from an article posted to Medium by former Facebook employee, David Schnitt:
Unfortunately, I do not think it is a coincidence that the choices Facebook makes are the ones that allow the most content–the fuel for the Facebook engine–to remain in the system. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices align with the least resources required, outsourcing important aspects to third parties. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook’s choices appease those in power who have made misinformation, blatant racism and inciting violence part of their platform. Facebook says, and may even believe, that it is on the side of free speech. In fact, it has put itself on the side of profit and cowardice.