Le Devoir Éditorial | La vraie nature de Zuckerberg

Well stated:

Pendant que le comté de Los Angeles compte les morts causés par d’effroyables incendies, le président des États-Unis désigné, Donald Trump, répand ses faussetés à la même vitesse que les flammes. Sur son réseau Truth Social, le 8 janvier, il a accusé le gouverneur de la Californie, le démocrate Gavin Newsom, d’être responsable des difficultés d’approvisionnement en eau en raison de son refus « de signer la déclaration de restauration de l’eau qui lui a été présentée et qui aurait permis l’accès à des millions de litres d’eau, provenant des pluies excédentaires et de la fonte des neiges du Nord ».

Une simple mais rigoureuse vérification des faits menée par l’équipe du Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, a montré que la « déclaration de restauration de l’eau » n’existe tout simplement pas. Et que ce sont les structures de stockage des eaux, et non ses méthodes de collecte à la source, qui ont entraîné des problèmes d’approvisionnement. Pour le président désigné, proférer des mensonges de manière consciente et calculée dans le but de discréditer l’adversaire est devenu aussi naturel que respirer. Il est donc profondément troublant d’apprendre que le p.-d.g. de Meta Platforms inc. (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads), Mark Zuckerberg, s’incline devant le règne de la désinformation et proscrit l’ère de la vérification des faits.

Dans une vidéo diffusée le 7 janvier dernier sur son réseau, l’ex-étudiant de Harvard âgé de 40 ans, et dont la fortune est évaluée à plus de 200 milliards de dollars américains, a affirmé qu’il souhaitait « revenir à la source » de Facebook, créé en 2004, et redonner la voix au peuple. Concrètement, il annonce la fin de la vérification des faits par une équipe de vérificateurs au profit des notes de la communauté, à la manière du réseau X, où les citoyens réagissent au gré de leurs connaissances,a priori et intentions partisanes. Ironiquement, le programme de vérification des faits lancé par Facebook en 2016, et salué dans le monde entier, visait à contrer le flot de fake news né de la campagne du candidat républicain Donald Trump. Zuckerberg n’en est pas à son premier revirement, mais celui-ci pourrait être dévastateur.

Dans une longue entrevue-confession accordée vendredi au polémiste et partisan de Trump Joe Rogan (l’un des animateurs de podcast les plus écoutés dans le monde), Zuckerberg explique qu’il a erré en confiant à des vérificateurs « idéologiquement partiaux » le mandat de valider la véracité des idées publiées par les utilisateurs de Facebook — il y en aurait 3,2 milliards chaque mois dans le monde, une quantité non négligeable. « On va se débarrasser d’une série de restrictions portant sur l’immigration et les questions de genre », dit-il, ne cachant pas son exaspération pour des courants wokes, qui lui semblent occuper trop d’espace.

Le p.-d.g poursuit son délire : fortement mal à l’aise avec le fait d’être « un de ceux qui décident de ce qui est vrai ou faux dans le monde », il préfère mettre fin à la « censure » et milite pour une saine autorégulation. Or, la désastreuse expérience du réseau X, sous la houlette d’un autre despote de la désinformation, Elon Musk, a montré les errements vers lesquels menait un réseau gangrené par les trolls et les manipulateurs. Avec les notes de la communauté, la vérité n’est pas vainqueure.

Zuckerberg parle de censure, mais ce que les vérificateurs de faits faisaient n’avait rien à voir avec une exclusion complète de propos s’éloignant de la vérité, mais relevait plutôt d’une diminution de leur portée. Facebook est une bête qui se nourrit à l’engagement, source de ses profits mirobolants. La décision a choqué partout dans le monde, et un groupe comme l’IFCN (Réseau international de vérification des faits) a immédiatement dénoncé la prémisse de Zuckerberg, selon laquelle les vérificateurs sont idéologiquement partiaux, ce qui en fait des censeurs.

La nouvelle ne concerne pour l’heure que les États-Unis, mais Mark Zuckerberg a promis d’étendre cette mesure ailleurs. L’heure est grave : a-t-on oublié un faux pas tragique comme celui survenu en 2017 au Myanmar ? Un rapport dévastateur publié en 2022 par Amnesty International a démontré que « les systèmes d’algorithmes de Facebook amplifiaient la propagation de contenus nocifs anti-Rohingyas au Myanmar ». Des milliers de Rohingyas ont ainsi été « tués, torturés, violés et déplacés ». Avec Facebook comme caisse de résonance, la violence virtuelle s’est transposée sur le terrain.

Les nouvelles règles sur la conduite haineuse édictées par Facebook interdisent de cibler des caractéristiques mentales pour insulter des personnes, mais, de manière tout à fait outrancière, elles passeront outre auxdites allégations de maladie mentale ou d’anormalité si elles sont fondées sur le genre ou l’orientation sexuelle, et cela, « compte tenu du discours politique et religieux sur le transgenrisme et l’homosexualité ». La communauté LGBTQ+ fulmine et s’inquiète, avec raison. Voilà donc la vraie nature de Zuckerberg, qui, sous le couvert fourre-tout de la libre expression, pourrait stimuler des vagues de haine et d’intolérance sur ses réseaux sociaux.

Source: Éditorial | La vraie nature de Zuckerberg

Facebook Employees Revolt Over Zuckerberg’s Hands-Off Approach To Trump, Twitter contrast

Needed backlash at what can only be described as business-motivated collusion, one that becomes harder and harder to justify from any perspective:

Facebook is facing an unusually public backlash from its employees over the company’s handling of President Trump’s inflammatory posts about protests in the police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man in Minneapolis.

At least a dozen employees, some in senior positions, have openly condemned Facebook’s lack of action on the president’s posts and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s defense of that decision. Some employees staged a virtual walkout Monday.

“Mark is wrong, and I will endeavor in the loudest possible way to change his mind,” tweeted Ryan Freitas, director of product design for Facebook’s news feed.

“I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up,” tweeted Jason Toff, director of product management. “The majority of coworkers I’ve spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voice heard.”

The social network also is under intense pressure from civil rights groups, Democrats and the public over its decision to leave up posts from the president that critics say violate Facebook’s rules against inciting violence. These included a post last week about the protests in which the president said, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.

Twitter, in contrast, put a warning label on a tweet in which the president said the same thing, saying it violated rules against glorifying violence.

The move escalated a feud with the president that started when the company put fact-checking labels on two of his tweets earlier in the week. Trump retaliated by signing an executive order that attempts to strip online platforms of long-held legal protections.

Zuckerberg has long said he believes the company should not police what politicians say on its platform, arguing that political speech is already highly scrutinized. In a postFriday, the Facebook CEO said he had “been struggling with how to respond” to Trump’s posts.

“Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric,” he wrote. “I know many people are upset that we’ve left the President’s posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”

Zuckerberg said Facebook had examined the post and decided to leave it up because “we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force.” He added that the company had been in touch with the White House to explain its policies. Zuckerberg spoke with Trump by phone Friday, according to a report published by Axios.

While Facebook’s 48,000 employees often debate policies and actions within the company, it is unusual for staff to take that criticism public. But the decision not to remove Trump’s posts has caused significant distress within the company, which is spilling over into public view.

“Censoring information that might help people see the complete picture *is* wrong. But giving a platform to incite violence and spread disinformation is unacceptable, regardless who you are or if it’s newsworthy,” tweeted Andrew Crow, head of design for the company’s Portal devices. “I disagree with Mark’s position and will work to make change happen.”

Several employees said on Twitter they were joining Monday’s walkout.

“Facebook’s recent decision to not act on posts that incite violence ignores other options to keep our community safe,” tweeted Sara Zhang, a product designer.

In a statement, Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne said: “We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now, especially our Black community. We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we’ll continue seeking their honest feedback.”

Less than 4% of Facebook’s U.S.-based staff are African American, according to the company’s most recent diversity report.

Facebook will not make employees participating in the walkout use paid time off, and it will not discipline those who participate.

On Sunday, Zuckerberg said the company would commit $10 million to groups working on racial justice. “I know Facebook needs to do more to support equality and safety for the Black community through our platforms,” he wrote.

Source: Facebook Employees Revolt Over Zuckerberg’s Hands-Off Approach To Trump

And Kara Swisher’s call for Twitter to take Trump off the platform:

C’mon, @Jack. You can do it.

Throw on some Kendrick Lamar and get your head in the right space. Pour yourself a big old glass of salt juice. Draw an ice bath and fire up the cryotherapy pod and the infrared sauna. Then just pull the plug on him. You know you want to.

You could answer the existential question of whether @realDonaldTrump even exists if he doesn’t exist on Twitter. I tweet, therefore I am. Dorsey meets Descartes.

All it would take is one sweet click to force the greatest troll in the history of the internet to meet his maker. Maybe he just disappears in an orange cloud of smoke, screaming, “I’m melllllllting.”

Do Trump — and the world — a favor and send him back into the void whence he came. And then go have some fun: Meditate and fast for days on end!

Our country is going through biological, economic and societal convulsions. We can’t trust the powerful forces in this nation to tell us the truth or do the right thing. In fact, not only can we not trust them. We have every reason to believe they’re gunning for us.

In Washington, the Trump administration’s deception about the virus was lethal. On Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the fat cats who carved up the country, drained us dry and left us with no safety net profiteered off the virus. In Minneapolis, the barbaric death of George Floyd after a police officer knelt on him for almost nine minutes showed yet again that black Americans have everything to fear from some who are charged with protecting them.

As if that weren’t enough, from the slough of our despond, we have to watch Donald Trump duke it out with the lords of the cloud in a contest to see who can destroy our democracy faster.

I wish I could go along with those who say this dark period of American life will ultimately make us nicer and simpler and more contemplative. How can that happen when the whole culture has been re-engineered to put us at each other’s throats?

Trump constantly torques up the tribal friction and cruelty, even as Twitter and Facebook refine their systems to ratchet up rage. It is amazing that a septuagenarian became the greatest exploiter of social media. Trump and Twitter were a match made in hell.

The Wall Street Journal had a chilling report a few days ago that Facebook’s own research in 2018 revealed that “our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness. If left unchecked,” Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”

Mark Zuckerberg shelved the research.

Why not just let all the bots trying to undermine our elections and spreading false information about the coronavirus and right-wing conspiracy theories and smear campaigns run amok? Sure, we’re weakening our society, but the weird, infantile maniacs running Silicon Valley must be allowed to rake in more billions and finish their mission of creating a giant cyberorganism of people, one huge and lucrative ball of rage.

“The shareholders of Facebook decided, ‘If you can increase my stock tenfold, we can put up with a lot of rage and hate,’” says Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

“These platforms have very dangerous profit motives. When you monetize rage at such an exponential rate, it’s bad for the world. These guys don’t look left or right; they just look down. They’re willing to promote white nationalism if there’s money in it. The rise of social media will be seen as directly correlating to the decline of Western civilization.”

Dorsey, who has more leeway because his stock isn’t as valuable as Facebook’s, made some mild moves against the president who has been spewing lies and inciting violence on Twitter for years. He added footnotes clarifying false Trump tweets about mail-in ballots and put a warning label on the president’s tweet about the Minneapolis riots that echo the language of a Miami police chief in 1967 and segregationist George Wallace: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

“Jack is really sincerely trying to find something to make it better,” said one friend of the Twitter chief’s. “He’s like somebody trapped in a maze, going down every hallway and turning every corner.”

Zuckerberg, on the other hand, went on Fox to report that he was happy to continue enabling the Emperor of Chaos, noting that he did not think Facebook should be “the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.”

It was a sickening display that made even some loyal Facebook staffers queasy. As The Verge’s Casey Newton reported, some employees objected to the company’s rationale in internal posts.

“I have to say I am finding the contortions we have to go through incredibly hard to stomach,” one wrote. “All this points to a very high risk of a violent escalation and civil unrest in November and if we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly.”

Trump, furious that Dorsey would attempt to rein him in on the very platform that catapulted him into the White House, immediately decided to try to rein in Dorsey.

He signed an executive order that might strip liability protection from social media sites, which would mean they would have to more assiduously police false and defamatory posts. Now that social media sites are behemoths, Galloway thinks that the removal of the Communications Decency Act makes a lot of sense even if the president is trying to do it for the wrong reasons.

Trump does not seem to realize, however, that he’s removing his own protection. He huffs and puffs about freedom of speech when he really wants the freedom to be vile. “It’s the mother of all cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face moves,” says Galloway.

The president wants to say things on Twitter that he will not be allowed to say if he exerts this control over Twitter. In a sense, it’s Trump versus his own brain. If Twitter can be sued for what people say on it, how can Trump continue to torment? Wouldn’t thousands of his own tweets have to be deleted?

“He’d be the equivalent of a slippery floor at a store that sells equipment for hip replacements,” says Galloway, who also posits that, in our hyper-politicized world, this will turn Twitter into a Democratic site and Facebook into a Republican one.

Nancy Pelosi, whose district encompasses Twitter, said that it did little good for Dorsey to put up a few fact-checks while letting Trump’s rants about murder and other “misrepresentations” stay up.

“Facebook, all of them, they are all about making money,” the speaker said. “Their business model is to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts.” She crisply concluded that “all they want is to not pay taxes; they got their tax break in 2017” and “they don’t want to be regulated, so they pander to the White House.”

C’mon, Jack. Make @realDonaldTrump melt to help end our meltdown.

Source: Think Outside the Box, Jack

 

How Billionaire Techies Hope To Reshape The US Immigration Debate : NPR

Needed antidote to much of the rhetoric in the US, and a natural for the tech industry given their need for talent:

The immigration-reform advocacy group founded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — FWD.us (pronounced “forward U.S.”) — and funded by fellow Silicon Valley entrepreneurs including Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer — is rolling out a plan for the 2016 election that will include “substantial” investments in battleground states.

This primary campaign season, the immigration conversation has been dominated by hard-line rhetoric about border walls, mass deportations and birthright citizenship, and now Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration ban. FWD.us says it’s trying to refocus the conversation on comprehensive immigration reform.

“We are making the case over the next year that immigration reform needs to be something that gets done right away under the next presidency,” said
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us. “That starts with making clear the awful and absurd policies of mass deportation that we’re hearing.”

FWD.us won’t be targeting a particular candidate. But with a focus on mass deportations, it’s clear one immediate target for these tech billionaires is a fellow billionaire — Donald Trump, and the immigration rhetoric his campaign has sparked this primary season.

“The stakes are incredibly high,” said Schulte. “Embracing this mass deportation agenda is absolutely toxic.”

Schulte said the rules of the game have changed since the 2014 midterms, and this election cycle, there’s a whole new side to the immigration debate.

FWD.us would not disclose its spending plans, but it is considered the most well-funded immigration reform group in the country.

In 2013 and 2014, FWD.us spent $10 million on digital, radio, tv and cable advertising, according to a spokesman with the group. Schulte said the group intends to spend similar amounts of money this election cycle. Records indicate it also spent $1.3 million on lobbying activities in 2013 and 2014.

“One role that FWD.us did is put a big voice out there on TV, with a serious amount of money behind it, to fill a void that otherwise exists on the campaign airwaves,” said Elizabeth Wilner, who tracks campaign ads with the research firm Kantar Media. “It’s not typical of something we’ve seen in the past,” she added. “It’s only fairly recently that business has made it their business to take a side.”

The group’s current mission this election season does not focus on huge ad expenditures; instead, FWD.us is working on voter education through research, engagement and polling, with just one lofty goal in Schulte’s words: “Pass immigration reform right out of the gate under the next president, plain and simple.”

FWD.us launched in 2013 with a splash (and an estimated $50 million). It was considered an ambitious big-money venture with the potential to legitimately move the dial on comprehensive immigration policy overhaul.

“In a knowledge economy, the most important resources are the talented people we educate and attract to our country,” Zuckerberg wrote in an op-ed announcing the group. “A knowledge economy can scale further, create better jobs and provide a higher quality of living for everyone in our nation.”

Source: How Billionaire Techies Hope To Reshape The Immigration Debate : NPR