Why does Facebook let Donald Trump go on about his rants? There has been numerous complaints coming in from the public, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg have recently confirmed that his stance will be disparately different from Twitter.
“I know many people are upset that we’ve left the President’s posts up,” Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post. Trump’s posts read: “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”
Within two-and-a-half hours of the post, Twitter had placed a warning label on it saying it glorified violence. Facebook, by contrast, remained silent on the matter for 18 hours until Zuckerberg’s post appeared.
Zuckerberg wrote in justification of the company decision to let things be: “We looked very closely at the post that discussed the protests in Minnesota to evaluate whether it violated our policies.
Although the post had a troubling historical reference, we decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force.
Our policy around incitement of violence allows discussion around state use of force, although I think today’s situation raises important questions about what potential limits of that discussion should be.”
He also spoke in strong criticism of the social media rival Twitter:”Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician,” he wrote.
Even so, Zuckerberg said he did not agree with the general idea from the President’s post.
“I’ve been struggling with how to respond to the President’s tweets and posts all day.
Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric,” he wrote, adding, “But I’m responsible for reacting not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression.
” Ending his post, he concluded, “People can agree or disagree on where we should draw the line, but I hope they understand our overall philosophy is that it is better to have this discussion out in the open, especially when the stakes are so high.
I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.
”
If you liked this article, please LIKE SHARE AND COMMENT below! And don’t forget to check our other articles along the way!
Replaced!