> In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”

So the President of the US says on social media "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" and people want Facebook to take this down and this is their issue with Zuckerberg, that he won't take this down or do anything about it.

People are idiots. Removing the post does nothing to prevent the President from ordering "the shooting" he has indicated he will order. Taking the post down amounts to denying people valuable information they may need to try to protect their lives in this mess.

There is a reason that democracy values a free press. There is a reason that humans have historically developed policies like "Don't shoot the messenger."

It's worse when you can't get the word out that someone with real and serious power to order this to happen is told "Shut up. We don't want to hear from you." It does nothing whatsoever to stop him from ordering in the troops. In fact, it makes it more likely he will do just that in part because it makes it less likely people will get the memo that "If you do x, the consequence is Y, so maybe don't do x."

This is a bullshit complaint. Silencing the President on Facebook isn't remotely the same as silencing some random asshole whose words might foment violence but who otherwise lacks the ability to literally command armies to come into your town and shoot people. Because one of the hats the President wears is Commander in Chief and his picture is on the wall of many a military barracks as the top guy in the chain of command, along with all the officers in that unit locally and all the officers between the local Captain (or whatever) and the Commander in Chief.

Uhh. Bloomberg is falling apart in terms of reporting. Semi random person asks Zuckerberg to make changes and he politely dismisses them.. how is that even news? It is agitation for a desired outcome.

It is getting annoying and I am slowly starting to think that FB is on the right side of this issue.

Twitter can do what they want in terms of their platform. So can FB. Why do people find it so offensive?

Of all the big tech CEOs Zuckerberg seems like the most removed from reality. Not just on this particular issue, but on every single one, he gives, without exception, the same pre-arranged PR department answer imaginable.

No matter if it's issues with AI, privacy, advertisement or now political or racially charged content, you can be sure you get the "we're trying to connect the world" stump speech

If Zuckerberg were to make Facebook politically active, it would probably be his personal views that they pushed. Why would it be anything else?

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

--Upton Sinclair.

It's frustrating to me how many people want platform companies to censor their customers/users. When and how did media censorship become popular?

I, for one, don't want any third party telling me what I am or am not allowed to read. If someone wants to put something on the internet, it's not the hosting platform's job to say that they shouldn't, provided that material is legal. If it's bad content, I won't read it. Maybe other people will; not my business, nor yours.

When did we go from "I don't want to read that" to "nobody should be able to read that"?

Would you tolerate arbitrary censorship of your own webpage by your web host?

Why are so many people demanding that Facebook play cop? Being wrong on the internet isn't illegal, nor should it be, and Facebook is correct for staying out of that, no matter how repugnant the stupid shit posted to Facebook becomes.

Ultimately, any platform used by billions is going to be filled with stupid, repugnant, wrong shit, or filled with censorship. I'd prefer the former, because the latter is unacceptable.

This article has zero content. Why were they frustrated? What did they propose? What did Zuckerberg say?

Bad journalism.

I hate Trump but it’s not facebook’s job to censor the president.

So are social media companies a platform or are they editorialized?

Let's say we decide to go to war with China. Should Facebook censor anti-Chinese content? Should it censor anti-war content?

I think there are some things that are objectively censor worth (child pornography) and then there is a lot of gray area. My question to Facebook employees who oppose Mark's viewpoint is: "What is your solution and how do you prevent Facebook from censoring anything you don't agree with?"

One new problem I see on Facebook these days are lots of images shared of false claims of people coming to attack/riot in neighborhoods... like really poorly doctored snapchat screenshots that wouldn't fool anyone under 40 but get proliferated everywhere by boomers.

There's now a massive line outside my local Home Depot with people standing in 90 degree heat trying to return plywood and OSB for looting and imaginary "ANTIFA caravan riots" that never came. Absolutely corrosive stuff to social order in its own right.

Zuck walked right into that trap.

The attempts to work the refs and shape political discourse on FB leading up to the election are only going to get more and more intense. Hillary Clinton as far as I can tell still blames facebook primarily for her loss.

Nothing he said could have satisfied them. Don't even know why he did this. People just don't understand this isn't a Facebook problem.

This doesn't really seem newsworthy.

They should be happy Zuckerberg spoke to them and they got to share their different perspectives with him.

He runs one of the largest companies in the world, and they are just a single NGO with their own view point on racial ideas.

Why don't any companies ever work with non liberal NGO's?

I'd love to see more of Thomas Sowell type thinking.