About a decade ago, the founder of Facebook invited Twitter’s chief executive to his home, where the lamb came from the goat scoured by Mark Zuckerberg. That year, Zuckerberg’s New Year’s challenge was to eat only animals that he had slaughtered himself. Jack Dorsey, who was very attentive to food and insisted on intermittent cuts, later recalled that by the time the dishes came, the meat was cold: “I ate some salads. “
Jack Dorsey follows an unusually strict diet and lifestyle
This bizarre dinner isn’t the only “clash of ideas” between Zuckerberg and Dorsey, but it’s representative enough. Their different personalities and ideas also determine that they will manage their social media platforms in very different ways.
Ultimately, however, Facebook and Twitter are no different. Just as Apple is the embodiment of Steve Jobs’s will, Tesla is the will of Elon Musk, and Twitter is no exception, not to mention “Zuckerberg’s” Facebook.
Delete a post or not delete a post?
When Hamlet shouts “To be or not to be” (is it life or death?) When this question comes, It must be that Zuckerberg’s heart resonates with the words: “To delete or not delete to” (delete or not delete?) )
Later, at an online staff conference, Zuckerberg detailed the entire process from the team’s discovery of Trump’s post to his decision to keep it. After a full day of consideration, he said, they thought Trump’s reference to the National Guard was more of a “reminder of possible state action” and that the platform rules for inciting violence did not apply here.
Of the most controversial “dare to rob, dare to shoot”, he said: “There is no history to interpret it as sending the secret sign (“blow dog whistle”) to the private supporters, inciting them to fight for justice with violence.” “
“But after some ideological struggle, I still can’t make the decision to delete the post. Even if I’m personally disgusted with content, even if I know a lot of people will object to it, I can’t…” Zuckerberg added.
Trump’s controversial post, which read: “I can’t turn a blind eye to the unrest in Minneapolis… I’ve spoken to the governor and told him the army is on standby… If you dare to rob, you dare to shoot. “
Mr. Zuckerberg’s defense shones in the eyes of angry employees. An anonymous employee told the end of the civil rights era that since the civil rights era, segregationists have also used the phrase “dare to rob, dare to shoot” in their crackdown on black protesters.
Timothy Aveni, who resigned on Monday, June 1, was more radical, saying: “I don’t think (Zuckerberg’s) decision to delete the post is groundless.” He must have made the decision himself, and then tried to find a reason to stop it, which was not difficult for him. But this is not the right way to deal with it. “
While Zuckerberg and Facebook’s inaction on Trump’s controversial posts were deeply disappointing, tech and civil rights activists cheered Twitter.
Twitter not only marked Trump’s “dare to rob, shoot” post, citing “glorification of violence,” but also marked another Trump attack on “mail votes” a few days ago, as if it had taken the moral high ground overnight.
Twitter’s feat of getting people to delete Facebook doesn’t forget to invite people to “come and powder me on Twitter.”
Facebook: Walking in the wind
Facebook has been in trouble since The election of Donald Trump as us president in November 2016.
The election meddling, the Cambridge analytics scandal, the user data breach, privacy protections, and the proliferation of hate speech and the spread of disinformation on the platform have plunged Facebook into an unprecedented crisis of trust, and Facebook has been accused of buying companies that “pose a potential threat to the company”, such as WhatsApp and Instagram, in a massive information empire that faces increasingly intense antitrust investigations. Several advocacy groups and individuals have called for “splitting Facebook.
Facebook has nearly a quarter of the world’s population, with 1.73 billion daily active users. Such a large user base means that companies can collect more user data, increase the efficiency of online advertising, and in turn generate significant online advertising revenue, 98 per cent of which comes from online advertising. The nature of the Facebook platform determines that users are more closely related, more like a copy of offline relationships, such as family, friends, classmates, and colleagues. Therefore, the interpersonal effect on the platform is more significant, or the sense of group consciousness or belonging is more obvious.
All this has made Facebook an important political platform in the United States and around the world. In fact, in terms of size and platform policy, Dorsey said last year that Twitter would ban political advertising, while Zuckerberg argued that Facebook, which advocates “free speech”, would not ban political advertising altogether, and that no platform would be better suited to be a stage for politicians to perform.
Of course, the result of dancing with wolves is that Facebook is also more vulnerable to attacks and regulatory scrutiny from MPs. That’s one of the reasons facebook has a string of problems.
The company was in crisis, and Zuckerberg stepped forward. He has absolute control over Facebook. Mr Zuckerberg, who owns just 14 per cent of the company, has nearly 60 per cent of the vote. Last year, at the annual general meeting, 68 percent of independent investors voted in favor of removing Mr. Zuckerberg as chairman of the board and replacing him with an outsider.
In this case, Zuckerberg’s Facebook , A Mark Zuckerberg Production, is largely a reflection of his personal attitude.
A Mark Zuckerberg Production
“I want to hear more people,” said Zuckerberg, who wrote the New Year’s goal for the national tour in 2017. “In that decade, Facebook was more concerned about whether the company was liked and respected by its users.
But Zuckerberg can’t make everyone like him, and Facebook can’t please either side. There has been growing criticism that the platform is accused of facilitating the rapid spread of disinformation while attacking companies for censoring the fact-checking of userposts; others say Facebook’s creepy monitoring of platform users is creepy; and others object to the company encrypting data on its communications apps as potentially criminal.
If the classic question of “To be or not to be” in the last decade has made Zuckerberg hesitant and action meaningless, then after all these years, Zuckerberg’s attitude seems more firm than ever: “So my next decade’s goal is not to win over people…” and “Facebook is neither a fact arbiter nor a fact arbiter.” “
Also a social media platform, Twitter is far less big than Facebook: 170million daily active users, almost a tenth of Facebook’s; revenue and net profit are far lower than Facebook’s.
While Twitter, like Facebook, is plagued by issues such as illegal content, hate and disinformation on its platform, the regulatory pressure on Twitter, particularly from lawmakers, is much smaller. Twitter is distracted by the platform’s “openness” and overstretched funding, compared with Facebook’s partnership with third-party agencies to de-check the platform’s content.
In fact, if Facebook’s factual checks and content reviews with third parties are disappointing, Twitter is only worse off. “So far, as far as I know, Twitter doesn’t have a systematic fact-checking process like Facebook,” said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University. Facebook’s current fact check ingestion is not perfect and does not handle potentially harmful content well. But at least Facebook has tried and tried, and Twitter has never. “
“White lives are the same” as “Black lives are the lives” as the hot topics on Twitter.
So what exactly does Twitter, which does not have a systematic fact-checking process, mark Trump’s controversial posts? Perhaps Twitter’s chief executive, Jack Dorsey, has already responded.
“Fact check: If someone is responsible for the company’s decision, that person should be me,” he said. It has nothing to do with my employees…”
Perhaps to the disappointment of those who have taken to Twitter’s moral high ground, people are unhappy that while Zuckerberg has put his will above Facebook, Twitter is not much better. Jack Dorsey has as much control over Twitter as Zuckerberg controls Facebook. Even if Twitter’s share price barely matches that of Dorsey when he returned to the company in 2015, he could remain at Twitter as his part-time CEO, even if he is also chief executive of payments company Square. It’s just that Zuckerberg is clear, and Dorsey doesn’t seem to know what he wants.
If you look closely, you’ll see that Twitter is actually fickle.
President Trump’s Twitter posts have also been controversial before. In September 2017, he wrote that North Korea “will not continue to exist for long”, which some believe is a threat to use nuclear weapons against the North, and in November 2017, he called Senator Elizabeth Warren a “Pocahontas” on Twitter, in violation of the platform’s ban on racist speech.
Not only did dorcy fail to act on both occasions, but until recently, in every incident that Trump was deemed to have been involved in harassing or spreading false information, Dorsey refused to act. Reason?
Jack Dorsey has made it clear in the past that Trump is exempt from platform rules because of the news of his content. (Under the platform’s “news value” policy, Twitter retains messages posted by politicians that may be unpleasant because they are important and not suitable for deletion.) )
Perhaps, from the beginning, Twitter cares less about “consensus” but about the attention and growth on the platform.
Worried about infuriating young users and employees
Twitter’s user growth has stagnated for years, so much so that the company stopped talking about user growth in its earnings, replacing it with metrics such as user engagement.
Until recently, after Twitter hit Trump, Apptopia reported that the Twitter app had a record number of single-day downloads. Many people who give up Facebook will choose Twitter because of their moral support.
At the same time, Twitter seems less willing to offend its employees.
Technology companies rely more on their young employees, especially good software engineers, than other traditional companies. But these young engineers, full of ideals and senses of justice, have long been outraged by the smoke on social media platforms.
Timothy Arwani, a 22-year-old software engineer and one of Facebook’s three former employees, told reporters that he knew Facebook was imperfect, but that Zuckerberg had occasionally bowed to pressure from conservatives, abandoned his principles and did nothing about Trump’s posts, leaving him unable to stay in the company: “I just feel like I’m too tired to hold on.” “
On the same day that Mr. Arwani offered to resign, hundreds of Facebook employees working from home launched an “online strike” (refusing to work and using automated email responses to explain the reasons for the strike) in protest at Facebook’s inaction.
Compared with Facebook, which has 1.7 billion users and more than 20,000 employees, Twitter is clearly losing out on the issue of users and employees.
Mr Zuckerberg may one day be under pressure to change his mind, but much will depend on the outcome of November’s election. After all, Facebook is also under huge regulatory pressure.
The trap of content review
After Twitter tagged Mr. Trump’s post, the president quickly signed an executive order to amend Section 230, which protects the legal status of social media.
Under section 230 of the Federal Communications Code Act of 1996, a technology platform may not be liable for content posted by third parties on the platform.
Section 230 of the Communications Specifications Act states that “the provider or user of any interactive computer service shall not be regarded as the publisher or spokesman of any information provided by another provider of information content”.
With Facebook’s stubbornness in the past, and President Trump’s retaliation, Twitter’s move may seem like a big deal, but the danger is beginning to emerge.
After Twitter tagged Trump’s “mail edited ballots” posts as “need to be verified,” columnist Marc A. Thiessen commented: “As we all know, it’s higher that postal ballots aren’t counted.” “
That’s exactly what Mr Zuckerberg fears.
When angry employees wanted Zuckerberg to add a descriptive tag to the post, like Twitter, Zuckerberg said he could consider it in the future, but cautioned: “I’m concerned that this approach is also risky and leads us to comment on content we don’t like, even if it doesn’t violate platform policy.” “
Free speech advocates also argue that fact-checking and tagging, no matter how calm or objective, inevitably lead to political bias. Also, what should be fact-checked? Who’s going to check this fact? All of this will cause new problems.
“The idea of giving the Silicon Valley board or content reviewers, similar to the Consumer Services Center, the right to arbitrate our speech is dangerous,” said Suzanne Nossel, director of PEN America, a free speech advocacy group.
Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas Law School, was surprised by the decision by so many liberals, especially in the tech industry, to support Twitter. “What happens to your opponent will end up on your own,” he said, “and if you give the platform the right to ban words, then the next person who will be forbidden will be yourself.” “
For now, disgruntled employees commented on Facebook’s intranet, “… If we don’t stand this test, history won’t treat us well,” and more than a hundred of America’s top scientists have joined forces to urge Zuckerberg to “stand on the right side of history.”
While the crowd took a snobest at Facebook, they thought they were on the moral high ground, but unwittingly became an accomplice to biased content censorship on Twitter.
Product: Sina Technology
Compiled by: Jun Lin