Lion of the Blogosphere

Why is Zuck suddenly pro free-speech?

Zuck now says he supports free speech.

Where does that come from? Obviously he realizes how impossible it is to censor speech in a way that makes everyone happy and doesn’t create the risk of even more liability for censoring the wrong way. Plus how hugely expensive it is to censor speech, given the massive amount of content posted on Facebook every day, and the current lack of AI technology that’s up to the task.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 18, 2019 at 11:55 AM

Posted in Technology

58 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Because the Feds are looking to buttravage him and he wants to cover his ass. That’s also why he’s meeting with Republicans.

    Monsieur le Baron

    October 18, 2019 at 12:35 PM

    • That’s exactly it. We started seeing Zuck 2.0 after he realized that Warren is the likely nominee and she wants to break his company up.

      Mike Street Station

      October 18, 2019 at 9:51 PM

    • Indeed. Trump is serious about his reelection. He also now realizes entities like Fox News are only fair-weather allies. The people surrounding him have been giving him some pretty shitty advice as well. The only real Trump supporters have been his base and people on the internet. Trump must be pushing his attorney general hard because a prominent Fox News anchor was fired recently after Barr met with Murdoch. The DOJ must be starting to put the pressure on big tech as well because they’re acting conciliatory after years of arrogance/censorship. The whole fake news push after the election was intended for a Hillary presidency but lost all its momentum because of Trump whose victory not only derailed their plans but he also turned the phrase against them.

      redarmyvodka

      October 19, 2019 at 4:55 AM

    • The only reason Zuck would say anything is because he wants to increase or preserve his power.

      Perhaps we are all saying the same thing.

      gothamette

      October 19, 2019 at 5:58 PM

  2. As time as worn on, I have grown to like Zuckerberg more and more. I am now unsure what to think of him.

    Is he sincere in this speech? He is getting heat from the Democrat candidates particularly, so it sure looks like sincerity. With something like this, he can’t help but hurt himself with his core users, probably 50% shitlib.

    Lowe

    October 18, 2019 at 12:36 PM

    • No one is being forced to believe the ads, and the kind of people who hate Trump won’t see any pro-Trump ads anyway.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2019 at 12:57 PM

      • Yes, but all the Trump-haters are going to see Warren calling Zuck a Trump supporter, essentially. What you are say in the original post is that Zuck just doesn’t have the resources to police speech… but even so, why stake out such a public position on it?

        Making speeches about it attracts attention, and it looks like sincere support for free speech, not just some Machiavellian maneuver, or rationalization of the fact that he can’t invent good enough censorship algos.

        Lowe

        October 18, 2019 at 1:10 PM

      • It’s likely that Zuck has convinced himself that free speech is good, so he can better sell it.

        The irony is that Zuck is a liberal who hates Trump, yet other liberals are jumping on him accusing him of helping Trump win.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 18, 2019 at 1:13 PM

      • I don’t think he is a liberal who hates Trump, I think he doesn’t care much about politics and he is a bit baffled by all the politic craziness around him. There was a time when he travelled the US in some desperate attempt to figure out what is going on but he is too autistic to really figure it out. He probably recognise that all the people around him expect him to hate Trump but he doesn’t feel anything about it deep inside. He just wants people to leave him alone and let him run his business. I wouldn’t want to be his friend but I start to like him for what he is.

        Hashed

        October 18, 2019 at 5:15 PM

      • “Making speeches about it attracts attention, and it looks like sincere support for free speech, not just some Machiavellian maneuver, or rationalization of the fact that he can’t invent good enough censorship algos.”

        I dunno, I read it as exactly a Machiavellian maneuver. He’s worried about his company. He was perfectly happy with manipulating free speech on his platform before the rise of Warren.

        Mike Street Station

        October 20, 2019 at 8:22 AM

    • I liked him at first. He seemed like a smart guy who built something. When “The Social Network”, it seemed like Hollywood types were slandering him, and by extension all programmers, by saying that he only built things because he was a looser trying to impress girls.

      Then when Facebook got into censorship, I stopped liking him. When he threatened employees for writing “all lives matter” on while board, I liked him even less.

      Now I think he realizes that he could wind up in the same boat as the rest of us, and my attitude has gone to “distrustful” I think he would sell anyone out in a heartbeat to if he thought it could get him back into the good graces of the Democrat party.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      October 18, 2019 at 1:40 PM

      • I’m suspicious of him too. Not that I’m impressed with Youtube and Twitter leadership either.

        Frau Katze

        October 18, 2019 at 8:48 PM

    • A cynical person could take this sudden change-of-heart as a warning that the tea leaves available at Zuck’s access level could be indicating that it will be the Left that will be dominating the (possibly seeming) grassroots political propaganda in the medium term future in the open information market.

      Though, short of an intelligence operation I couldn’t guess as to how that hypothetical would come to be.

      These people are comfortable with endlessly flip flopping on policy and law when it gives them an advantage. Consistency isn’t part of their ethics.

      Mike

      October 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM

    • Of course Zuck is not sincere. He and his worthless sister were busy expounding on the evils of white civilization from the get go.

      Remember, a person is who he is based on what they instinctively do from the outset…not what they do when they have time to weigh the consequences of a course of action.

      When there was no threat, Zuck sided against civilization.

      map

      October 18, 2019 at 9:11 PM

      • “Of course Zuck is not sincere. He and his worthless sister were busy expounding on the evils of white civilization from the get go.”

        That’s horseshit. Zuck has never said a bad thing about “white civilization” in his life. If he has, cite it.

        gothamette

        October 19, 2019 at 6:06 PM

      • Gothamette,

        He funds his sister:

        Donna Zuckerberg is a Silicon Valley-based classics scholar and the author of “Not All Dead White Men.” She is editor in chief of the online classics publication Eidolon.

        Anyone who uses “Dead White Men” is anti-White.

        map

        October 20, 2019 at 1:55 AM

      • Yes on sister, no on Mark. He seems quite fond of classical Rome, naming his daughters August and Maxima. (Of course, he’s probably fantasizing about being emperor.)

        I agree he’s funding his sister, but she’s his *sister*, you’d expect some loyalty there.

        SFG

        October 20, 2019 at 5:02 PM

  3. From what little of the article that I was able to access without an incognito window:

    “WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren recently accused Facebook of being a “disinformation-for-profit machine.” Marc Benioff, chief executive of the online software maker Salesforce, said the social network “needs to be held accountable for propaganda on its platform.” And regulators around the world are examining whether to break the company up or clip its power”.

    The problem is that no one can agree on facts. When they can, they won’t.

    When they can agree on those facts, the next tactic is to ignore the inconvenient facts.

    Which sometimes extends to ignoring an entire group in order to be able to ignore those facts; which was a long time tactic of the communist media whenever the conservative proles were publicly shouting about implemented policies that they disliked.

    Given the lack of agreement on facts, today (and I suspect historically) one man’s “propaganda” is usually another’s truth.

    Which is another way of stating that opposing groups differ both in what they hold to be just political speech (what political speech is in their specific interest) and what they genuinely or disingenuously hold to be a lie, disinformation, propaganda, etc.

    Which means that “propaganda” and “disinformation” has become political code for “facts I dislike” in most modern and popular applications of the term.

    In turn, this means that Warren and Benioff are effectively advocating for the suppression of political speech.

    I suspect that this circular mechanism of political competition, manifest in a tendency toward speech regulation, was at least one significant reason for the creation of the First Amendment.

    The First Amendment is why all this talk about “Russian Interference” is a deeply corrosive political tactic and not based in real logic, aside from any actual “interference” efforts.

    A society that is predicated on Free Speech is principally incapable of regulating public speech whether or not it originates from foreign nationals.

    It follows that it is principally incapable of implying a de facto revocation of individual voter agency and its results (also a form of free speech) due to any public information, whether or not that information originates from foreign nationals.

    Without an affect on voter free agency, the concept of “interference” is absolutely null in the context of an election.

    Voter free agency can’t be affected by foreign “interference” due to the Free Speech inherent in both the dissemination of political speech and any free agency action taken as a result of the information’s consumption (when it was consumed at all).

    In short, for once Zuckerberg is indicating a path for his company’ administration that is coherent with the US Constitution as bedrock in the nation in which that company is located.

    Mike

    October 18, 2019 at 12:43 PM

    • “From what little of the article that I was able to access without an incognito window:”

      You can read all of the Washington Post for free if you turn off Javascript for their site.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2019 at 12:58 PM

      • I’ll try that. Thanks.

        Mike

        October 18, 2019 at 2:10 PM

      • It didn’t work for me.

        gothamette

        October 19, 2019 at 6:06 PM

  4. Steve Sailer wrote quite a convincing piece some time ago speculating that Zuckerburg was thinking of a presidential run some day. The circumstantial evidence did make sense: lots of photos of Zuck having gone around America meeting ‘ordinary Americans’, farmers and people like that. The sort of people you would go and meet if you wanted to show you were in tune with the concerns of the public. Maybe he is courting the conservative vote?

    prolier than thou

    October 18, 2019 at 3:16 PM

    • Zuck isn’t a politician. Never will be.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM

      • Not without a voice coach. His voice sounds an awful lot like the character “Marvin the Martian” (voiced by Mel Blanc) exclaiming that he “was expecting an earth shattering kaboom!”

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        October 18, 2019 at 5:22 PM

      • It’s not just his voice, it’s everything. He’s a weird-looking man. He looks like a high-school shooter.

        Apropos of nothing, thinking about high school shooters made me google Seung Hui Cho. He had selective mutism, anxiety disorders and depression. I occured to me that Greta Thunberg has selective mutism and OCD. This was some of his weird speech that he released as a video justifying his shooting– “Do you know what it feels like to be torched alive, do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and in pain, impaled on a cross and left to bleed to death…your Mercedes wasn’t enough you brats, your gold necklaces weren’t enough, your vodka and cognac weren’t enough”

        Compare and contrast with Greta Thunberg–“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying.Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

        Pretty similar, no?

        prolier than thou

        October 18, 2019 at 7:39 PM

      • Zuckerberg doesn’t want to be a politician. His control of Facebook gives him more power over the average person than being a politician would already. Facebook is more integrated into the day-to-day life of an individual, and manipulating people via Facebook (whether through censorship or incentives) is a lot easier and more powerful than trying to get a law passed to do the same.

        Assuming Facebook gets its own currency, it will eventually be able to take more severe actions to get people to fall in line. They already have their own rule-enforcement forces as well as a judicial system.

        The same thing holds for Google, albeit to an even greater degree.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        October 20, 2019 at 11:24 AM

    • Wants to but isn’t cut out for it.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      October 18, 2019 at 4:34 PM

    • He doesn’t have political instincts. I wonder if he is mildly autistic.

      Frau Katze

      October 18, 2019 at 8:51 PM

      • Autism prevents people from being successful. Zuck is very successful. So I don’t think so.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 19, 2019 at 12:45 AM

      • @Lion Perhaps a mild case has stopped him from achieving all he could have.

        Or maybe he’s just weird.

        Frau Katze

        October 19, 2019 at 1:28 AM

      • “ Lion Perhaps a mild case has stopped him from achieving all he could have.”

        If he’d wanted a life as a deputy prosecuting attorney he’d have made $129-45/year and would have a pension. Is he really worse off even assuming his online persona is really him?

        Curle

        October 19, 2019 at 8:48 PM

      • Autism is over-diagnosed by the public. Perhaps due to its diagnosis being somehow popularized in the media. Real autism, even Asperger’s, looks like mild to extreme retardation.

        Mike

        October 20, 2019 at 1:25 PM

    • “Steve Sailer wrote quite a convincing piece some time ago speculating that Zuckerburg was thinking of a presidential run some day…”

      I think Zuck actually gave it some honest consideration early on. The Trump win seemed to have convinced a lot of people that if Trump can do it, anyone can (the basis of the Beto candidacy). So Zuck did do a listening tour for a while, but I think he’s disabused himself of that notion and realized he’ll never understand the humans well enough to pass himself off as one.

      Mike Street Station

      October 20, 2019 at 8:30 AM

      • He’s just a nerd who got successful in one of the fields where a nerd can get super-rich given luck, timing, luck, skill, and luck. The ‘robot’ thing is what happens when you make an introverted, awkward guy give lots of public speeches.

        This then went to his head and he thought he could be President, but he seems to have come to his senses.

        SFG

        October 20, 2019 at 5:04 PM

  5. Heartiste would have had fun with this one:

    IHTG

    October 18, 2019 at 4:35 PM

    • Truly disgusting a sign of the times.

      Just 20 years ago this was criminal.

      Today all degeneracy is permitted.

      redarmyvodka

      October 19, 2019 at 6:56 AM

      • I think it’s unfair to call this woman a degenerate, and plaster this image all over the internet.

        I agree there is an issue with having a sexual relationship with your own staffer, but other than that I’m not understanding why everyone thinks I’m going to be shocked by this image.

        Do you imagine that you look really cool when you’re doing sexual stuff? Are you seriously telling me you’ve never had fantasies that would look disturbing if you acted on them?

        The hullabaloo in the alt-right over this seems disingenuous to me. Very much so.

        Lowe

        October 20, 2019 at 3:46 PM

    • Here is what she was really doing:

      Speaking of “abuse of power” this is the Vice Chair of @OversightDems naked, brushing the hair of her young staffer.

      map

      October 19, 2019 at 4:05 PM

      • Here is the actual image:

        This is a typical California Democrat.

        map

        October 20, 2019 at 2:20 AM

    • What gets me is that nobody is going to #MeToo this one. Power inequities only count when you can get a man in trouble.

      SFG

      October 20, 2019 at 5:08 PM

      • “Power inequities only count when you can get a man in trouble.”

        Power inequalities are not news unless they can result in stopping conservatives from exercising some lawfully derived authority. Weinstein would be sitting fat and happy now if Leftist women didn’t need his scalp to create an emergency where the real target was Trump. They protected all those low opportunity years.

        Curle

        October 20, 2019 at 7:28 PM

  6. How has this article been up for two days without Lion being all over it?

    “Why Don’t Rich People Just Stop Working?”

    I do not believe the reason is self-actualization. I think the principal reason is that working — in the correct type of job — helps these people maintain their status.

    If the culture shifted and it became high status to travel the world as an idle member of cafe society (which was the case 60 years ago), then these rich people would do that.

    Justice Duvall

    October 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM

    • I did read it.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 18, 2019 at 7:14 PM

    • It is due to procrastination.

      My 2¢

      October 18, 2019 at 7:39 PM

    • Seems like a non-question. Why do boxers keep turning up for work to get punched in the face? Why do polar explorers and mountaineers keep going back after they’ve lost fingers to frostbite? Because they’d rather be known as ‘Bob, the polar explorer guy/Bob, the guy with the boxing medals’ than ‘Bob, the guy who sits around’.

      prolier than thou

      October 18, 2019 at 8:29 PM

      • Off topic.

        @ prolier than thou

        Did you ever see my response to your post about Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies? It came up during a discussion about the new Joker film. I don’t think anyone really did since I posted it long after the thread was active.

        “With it being set in 1981 and involving a plot about Joker being the victim of cuts to mental health services I’m assuming that it has a typical left wing anti-Reagan, pro big government plotline. Every film set in 1980’s Britain had a similar ‘Thatcher’s Britain plotline.

        Comic books certainly lend themselves to right wing themes, but in practice that never seems to be the case. I remember there was some alt-right interest in the Christian Bale Batman films but I didn’t see anything interesting in it. But how many films have anything approaching a right wing theme? The only film that really springs to mind is Lars Von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’ which has such a shockingly anti pc theme I was amazed that it could be made.” – prolier than thou

        The Nolan Batman films at least the first two (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) are excellent. While the third film in the trilogy has a lot of problems (it would have been better off split into two parts) I feel still has some redeeming qualities.

        Nolan has been accused of being rightwing and even neoconservative but a better reading of the films is that he’s center left. The failure of democracy is surely on display with the masses shown to be weak, stupid, apathetic, and cowardly. The institutions of society are also corrupt, decadent, legalistic, and failures.
        In Batman Begins the hero has to peel away the layers of Gotham’s problems be they mass poverty, drug addiction, high crime, corrupt cops, the mafia, scarecrow, and a powerful secret society. This is the first mainstream Batman interpretation to show Bruce Wayne transitioning from a soft, intellectual, weak, yuppie into a fighter, vigilante, badass, and hero. It’s also the first Batman film to show a world beyond Gotham with a chunk of the movie taking place in Asia. The beautiful scenery and world building adds to the realism. It takes a minor nobleman to train, believe, reform, and reconquer his city donning on the armor of a modern knight to make things right. This film has a great mix of realism, action, stealth, and horror elements making it a unique origin story.

        In the sequel things scale down or scale up depending on how you view it. In The Dark Knight Gotham is improving but escalation is the major theme. The film has a strong crime thriller feel like the action crime classic Heat. One year has passed from the first film with Batman kicking non-stop ass. A new and charismatic district attorney is the first major ray of hope in decades. Despite major progress we see the failures of the legal system again when the hero travels to Hong Kong to seize the mob’s banker in a daring skyscraper assault. The mafia then gives a madman its weaponry, resources, manpower, and connections to drive the city into the ground in a terrorist campaign. The Dark Knight is the only major film today to have a major character kill negros frequently be they criminals and cops which might be a large part of the appeal of Heath Ledger’s Joker. His origins remain unknown but some speculate he was an Iraq combat veteran much like how the Batmobile was a vehicle designed for desert warfare. The Nolan Batman films provide a great window into the politics and worldviews of the 2000s. Despite the hero’s valiant efforts and achievements peace is won but based on a lie.

        Here is where the problems start with the trilogy concept. There simply isn’t enough Batman and multiple movies are needed to tell the story. The weakest entry into the trilogy The Dark Knight Rises discusses Occupy Wall Street. It starts strong with the opening of a CIA rendition operation that goes wrong. The bad guys can also play that game which they spectacularly demonstrate. The overthrow of the capitalist system is led by a secret society which has returned to seek revenge and to complete their mission which is the destruction of Gotham. Despite the peace and prosperity of the era built on a Patriot Act type law the rich and powerful plant the seeds of the city’s demise in their constant scheming for wealth/status. The hero is older and disillusioned but still a hero at his core though a fallen one. It is a rival billionaire who enables the antagonists to set their plan into motion and bring the city to heel. The terror unleashed by a false revolution done in the name of the people is central to the plot. This film has great ambition but it starts to go downhill at the midway point and never recovers it only gets worse. The final thirty minutes of the movie is atrocious with lots of goofy movie type logic and saves which are incoherent to what was previously established in a serious/realistic universe.

        All three movies are very red pilled on women who either decline the hero’s advances, dump him, betray him or all three. The only successful relationships with women are based openly on the hero’s looks, money, and status (LMS). The others fail because familiarity, sentimentality, love, and warmth breed contempt instead.

        redarmyvodka

        October 19, 2019 at 6:48 AM

      • redarmyvodka, yes I did read it, and in fact now I’ve read it twice!

        “Nolan has been accused of being rightwing and even neoconservative but a better reading of the films is that he’s center left. The failure of democracy is surely on display with the masses shown to be weak, stupid, apathetic, and cowardly. The institutions of society are also corrupt, decadent, legalistic, and failures”

        If believing all that is centre-left then I think I may be centre left myself. Your further description only lends itself more to the idea that the film is right rather than left wing and I actually found your retelling probably more memorable than the film itself for that reason.

        prolier than thou

        October 19, 2019 at 6:47 PM

    • The aspect of their personalities and habits that got them super-rich is still the same, no matter how much money they have.

      Frau Katze

      October 19, 2019 at 6:29 PM

  7. I’ll believe Zuckerberg is pro free speech when Alex Jones and Infowars get their accounts back.

    Dan

    October 18, 2019 at 8:19 PM

  8. Fecesbook does ban some speech, so Zuck is only talking about it because he does not want to be regulated as a publisher. They and Gulag need to feel the boot of the feds good and hard.

    A Texan

    October 19, 2019 at 8:33 AM

  9. More good news, Verizon is looking to sell HuffPo. This is part of trend that Tim Pool follows (he’s a leftist but opposed to identity politics). He believes identity politics can never be productive.

    Frau Katze

    October 19, 2019 at 6:10 PM

  10. I can’t recall if you’ve reported it, but Sarah “hate white people” Jeong is no longer on the editorial board at NYT. I’ve resubscribed. It’s unclear what connection she has to NYT now.

    Frau Katze

    October 19, 2019 at 6:16 PM

    • Keep the reports coming in.

      Curle

      October 19, 2019 at 8:44 PM

    • Is that so? Maybe I’ll resub too. I dunno though, it seems like they’re probably still off the deep end.

      I do like knowing what the Establishment wants though.

      Monsieur le Baron

      October 20, 2019 at 2:23 AM

      • Oh yes, still a lot of garbage there. But there is some good reporting if the subject isn’t political, like reporting on health. They had a good article describing a recent measles outbreak but how it was brought under control.

        Politically they’re hopeless, Still in thrall to the Clintons.

        Frau Katze

        October 20, 2019 at 9:12 AM

      • I couldn’t understand why a Dem like Tulsi Gabbard could get no traction despite the Dems being desperate with nothing but old men to put forward, or snakes like Beto O’Rourke.

        It was Hillary saying Tulsi was a “Russian asset,” a ridiculous accusation,

        The Clintons still have a lot of influence.

        (Remember, I’m a Canadian who is following the US situation but no doubt missing some details. Our immediate chore is to try to get rid of JustinTrudeau.)

        Frau Katze

        October 20, 2019 at 9:23 AM

  11. When Warren said she would broke his company, he took it seriously. Warren should have understood that you don’t ask the Turkey to prepare Christmas feast nor approve it.

    Bruno

    October 21, 2019 at 4:01 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: