Facebook Employees Ask Mark Zuckerberg If They Should Try To Stop a Donald Trump Presidency (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Mark Zuckerberg didn't shy from condemning several of Trump's views at his company's developer conference earlier this week. Things are getting tenser now. Gizmodo's Michael Nunez is reporting about a political discussion inside Facebook wherein employees appear to be asking Zuckerberg whether the company should try to "help prevent President Trump in 2017." Every week, Facebook employees vote in an internal poll on what they want to ask Zuckerberg in an upcoming Q&A session. A question from the March 4 poll was: "What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?"An excerpt from the report which talks about Facebook's position :But what's exceedingly important about this question being raised -- and Zuckerberg's answer, if there is one -- is how Facebook now treats the powerful place it holds in the world. It's unprecedented. More than 1.04 billion people use Facebook. It's where we get our news, share our political views, and interact with politicians. It's also where those politicians are spending a greater share of their budgets. And Facebook has no legal responsibility to give an unfiltered view of what's happening on their network.

Comments

Hardly unprecedented

[mi]

US election law isn't really equipped to deal with an entity with FB size and reach

NY Times and other national newspapers had a similar reach within the US only a short while ago... And their electoral endorsements mattered — and were actively sought-out by the politicians. Maybe, not so much any more, but there was never anything illegal or even unethical about it. You have an opinion — you voice it. If you happen to have a bigger megaphone, good for you...

Is that unlawful coordination?

Why can the media endorse a candidate, but not other corporations?

Re: Non-Issue

[lgw]

You're an idiot if you think no immigration is any different than limited immigration.

See, this is what I mean. You're probably against admitting invading armies, or convicted child rapists escaped from jail, or people with a declared (not assumed) intent to commit terrorism. You probably against admitting so many people so fast that it would unquestionably cause mass starvation from simple lack of infrastructure to move people and food around the first year.

You take the obviously wrong extreme position not because you've actually thought about it, but because you want to declare "see, I'm one of the good people, I hold the correct belief"! As do those who state the opposite end, of course.

Black and white answers are for children.