Slashdot Mirror
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.
Facebook is already manipulating you, by manipulating stories. Why would you assume they're not doing what's optimal for profit. The only question is if they're looking short term or long term.
if facebook users don't know by now.....
The fact the question is being asked so openly at a large, public corporation is proof that Trump has little chance in the general election.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Skynet us already, all these decisions are taking away valuable Candy Crush playing time!
Particles, stuff that matters.
Facebook is just a forum they should stay neutral and let the Democratic process work. While people may not agree with Trump it doesn't mean stop him from running for president. After all we are the same population whop allowed 2 terms for "W"
Yes, they do have a legal responsibility. It's one thing to say they have no responsibility for what people post, although they do in their terms in regards to hate speech and the like.
But the officers and Directors of Facebook have a legal responsibility to protect and maximize the value of their shareholders. If Facebook were to take an active stance in filtering content to attempt to alter the political landscape, they risk alienating a rather large userbase those political ideas. The fact is that enough users support Trump that if Facebook attempted to skew the results, they risk alienating that userbase and losing them, which in turn affects Facebook's value and revenue that their officers and Directors are legally required to protect.
And even if it did work, and Trump was defeated and Clinton or Sanders got elected, both the Republicans and the Democrats would unify and pass a law stopping that from ever happening again. Neither party wants a bunch of millenial nitwits having that kind of political clout; that kind of manipulation would be regulated into oblivion with full bi-partisan support.
Attempting to sway a political discussion risks a blowback that could result in a shareholder lawsuit and throwing out the Board and Officers, and is a really stupid idea for a company. Despite the ideology of Facebook employees which most likely skew one particular direction, this would be a very bad idea for Facebook. Their prupose is to provide a social media service to users and in turn sell those users' viewing minutes to advertisers, not to attempt to sway political opinion.
Cruz is far worse than Trump. Even Hillary is worse than Trump on some issues.
National polls have shown that Bernie stands a far better shot at defeating any Republican candidate than Hillary does. If Facebook wants to stop Trump and similar demagogues, their best bet is to support Bernie.
Isn't the argument that firms don't have any responsibility other than the fiduciary interest of their shareholders?
So shouldn't Facebook only care about which Presidential candidate will increase the profitability of Facebook?
Given all the time people seem to spend posting anti-Trump messages on Facebook now, you could almost argue that they have a fiduciary interest in assuring a President Trump because it will surely create the "social dynamics" which leads to more Facebook use.
Or if that analysis isn't good enough, shouldn't they look to support a Presidential candidate whose economic policies will support multinational corporations (lower taxes, more H1Bs, etc etc)?
They've lost me when they can't find "good deeds" to do with higher priority than "stopping" a candidate unlikely to end up on the ballot.
They (Facebook employees) vote on what questions they will ask their boss? How about unscripted Q&A? As I said in the last political thread. If Bernie is the nomination, I'll vote Libertarian. If it's that criminal bitch Clinton, I vote Trump.
I don't think Facebook's and Zuckerberg situation is anything new, historically speaking.
It seems very similar to me to the power that newspaper conglomerate owners held over the past few centuries in America: William Randolph Hurst, Rupert Murdoch, etc.
I've read many articles comparing Trump's manners with Facebook posts. Hey Mark, maybe you could use this to your advantage?
It's where we get our news, share our political views, and interact with politicians.
Really? I have never got my news from Facebook, never! People forget that many of those so called Facebook accounts are accounts held by single entities, and for others, they are kind of dormant.
1HB's are scared.
We need to end this enslavement now!
I hate Trump as much as the next owner of his/her own brain, but Facebook should do nothing. It's a company. It's a system of contracts. It has no place getting involved in politics. None of them do.
Politics, campaign funding, and voting is for people.
One point of view is that Facebook is inherently making some sort of decisions about which stories to prioritize / have appear in people's feeds, search results, etc. (whether explicitly or through the tuning of the algorithms), so it is already taking a point of view on how an issue like Donald Trump should be handled. That position, right now, might be "nothing", but it is a position.
To take another example, when you Google some offensive terms, Google will show you or give you an explanation of why those results have risen to the top.
Who decides whether some issue rises to the level that it should get some explanation or special treatment? And who decides what the right side of it is -- such that the "democractic" search results should be interfered with? Then, what's the action to be taken, and what outcome is the action attempting to accomplish? Here, the goal would be contributing to someone losing a political race. That's very different from explaining a search result difference... And the problem is that these issues are not imminent threats, like a bomb or child abduction or terrorist threat. They are ideas, not yet actions. That is a hard line to cross, to figure out when it rises to a threshold to act.
Finally remember, as a insightful saying goes, "neutrality or refusal to take a position generally favors the aggressor in a fight". But knowing what to do instead of whether to stay neutral is a very different question.
It's one this for Facebook, Inc. to take a political position and back it with money or what-not.
It's another thing all together for Facebook as a service provider to treat their custumers differently based on their political views or to allow some political discourse but not other dscourse.
The latter usually backfires unless the "silenced" topics are almost universally reviled by your customers and prospective customers or at least that the censorship has nearly-universal customer support.
In other words, if Facebook treated pro-Trump content differently than pro-other-candidate material, it will bite them bad.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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...
Why can the media endorse a candidate, but not other corporations?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Zuck's job is to maximize shareholder value and therefore it would be wise not to. It might just be Trump voters he pisses off and they might be mad enough to quit. Maybe they move on to something else at some point, which is dangerous because those people are the product Facebook sells.
And it's not going to just be about Trump once they set the precedent. Facebook could just decide who it wants to see promoted on their site and silence dissent. That should be far more concerning to you if you're an investor. And if you're a user, I doubt that trust may ever come back.
If Facebook did work to defeat Trump, could that be seen as In Kind contribution to his opponents?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No, no, no and I don't understand the question.
They are a social networking company it really shouldn't make them that much diffrence what people talk about.
But I don't think they should continue on this path of mass manipulation regardless of whether its legal or not.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
No matter how big your company is, directly interfering in a nation's politics is not a long term winning strategy.
Riiiight. Directly interfering with a nation's politics has had such a detrimental effect on Oil, Pharma, and Banking.
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
Not being a troll, but I figured people were dropping off. I used FB for several years, then finally got tired of hearing how fantastic everyone was and how I should stop the abuse of toasters by signing yet another petition. Besides my two teenagers have zero interest in FB. For them it is all about snapchat, oovoo and a little bit of Twitter.
I'm surprised they have influence enough to make this an issue.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
You know what, I have to second that notion. They're the reason I don't bother to vote for political offices anymore. I'll vote for the referendum issues, i.e. legalize cannabis, the signal to noise on the political offices is polluted by low information voters so bad, it's just not worth bothering.
An example of low information: Most of the anti-Trump crusade thinks he makes racist statements all the time. I don't know whether or not the man is racist, but I personally haven't seen him make any comments that come off to me as racist.
Most commonly cited is stopping Muslims from entering the country; not only do I like Scott Adam's take on it (see this for reference) but Islam isn't a race, and talking down or otherwise disparaging their religious views isn't anymore racist than doing the same thing to a Scientologist or a Christian (something that seems PC to do, in spite of being decidedly un-PC when done to a Muslim.) The exception I take to that is it goes directly against the first amendment, which is unacceptable, but it's not in any way shape or form racist.
Second most common is stopping illegal immigration. Mexico not being a race notwithstanding (hell, as far as I know I'm pure Caucasian, yet half of the Mexicans I know have lighter skin than I do) there have been many a politician who have called for the same thing and haven't been accused of being racist.
You have to have a somewhat low or at least loose standard for what qualifies as "racist" in order to say that (think PC Principal on South Park.)
Now that doesn't mean I endorse Trump; I think his economic ideas are boneheaded and he'll make a terrible chief diplomat. And to be honest, I'm also not particularly interested in a single person that is running for president.
Handing out bribes to voters is not the only way to influence elections. Every election billions are spent to influence the election without significant number of bribes being handed out, I am sure Facebook - or their employees - can manage to figure this one out.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
The obvious answer is "None."
Facebook should not interfere with the political process. It has no responsibility to be a political entity.
If you don't like Trump, then it is YOU that has the responsibility to do something about it. Not a private corporation.
How is Facebook going to "prevent" a Trump Presidency? Censorship? Biased coverage? Free political ads for his opponent?
Facebook as a company should stay out of it and let the democratic process work. Everyone who supports a losing Presidential candidate has to accept the will of their fellow voters, whether he's an odious, obnoxious boor or not.
If you, as a person, don't like Trump, volunteer for the campaigns of his opponents and vote against him. Don't leverage your status as a Facebook employee to suppress democracy.
I'm pretty sure Godwin had Fascism in mind too when "fashioning" his law.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That is just saying you can't buy votes with something of value. which is not the only way to influence an election.
The remedy for bad speech is not no speech, it's more speech.
Instead of focusing on Trump specifically, they ought to take a position of opposing all candidates. By that I mean make an effort to debunk the bullshit from each candidate. Don't censor the stories about politicians, instead go deeper and make sure that whenever someone gets a story in their feed about a candidate, any claims from that candidate get linked to a "debunker."
For example, in a story that reports on Trump saying mexicans are drug runners and rapists, that line should be linked to a story that analyzes that claim and reports the actual crime rate for legal and illegal mexican immigrants (which in this case is lower than for the native-born population).
Make it an official policy to do that sort of debunking for all candidates and the end result is a more informed electorate. That sort of policy could be expanded beyond just politicians to things like pro-ISIS messaging. For example, every time some ISIS recruiter sends a message about how great it is to live in their 'caliphate' facebook could add a link to a story from ISIS defectors about how shitty it was to live there.
Rarely is an issue black-and-white and any policy of debunking claims will inevitably embody some biases. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. Better to inject some amount of counterpoint with ethical guidelines that are fully public than to apply censorship or even do nothing. For better or worse, facebook is a middleman, they should use that position to increase speech, not reduce it.
This should be modded up "funny"! You had me going, but saying "long term winning strategy" was just too much! Zuckerberg will diversify long before the fortunes of Facebook affect his vast wealth, just as Bill Gates did.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
So I rarely post anything and mostly browse through photos, events, and articles posted by my friends...because I only care about myself?
It's a tool. It is a way to connect with others. You can use it in a shitty way, or you can use it in a positive way. The only downside I see is that it gives the shitty people a lot more reach. Those people were shitty and obnoxious before they had facebook accounts...it was just that you only saw it if you were in the same room as them. Now you can see their dumb thoughts in comment sections across the globe!
Bottles.
I'll be deleting my account. It's supposed to be the vote of the people, not a bunch of Cliton supporters pushing their views on their popular website to swing the vote.
Well both of those actually are perfect examples of racism. But beyond that:
*His company has been sued by the Justice department on multiple ocassions for not renting to minorities, the first time in 1973
*His comments calling illegal immigrants rapists. Even if you want them out of here, the number of them that are violent criminals is a vanishingly small percent. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. Theyâ(TM)re bringing drugs. Theyâ(TM)re bringing crime. Theyâ(TM)re rapists."
*His constant references to "the blacks", "the muslims", "the hispanics".
And yes, the anti-muslim hate is racist. Its discriminatory to a large diverse group of people- that's what racism is. Not to mention that when Americans think of muslims they do associate it with an ethnic group- Arabs.
*He's a birther, which is just a dog whistle for not wanting a black man in the white house.
*He refused to denounce the KKK. I can't blame a man for who decides to endorse him, but when directly asked he refused to denounce them.
*Other quotes by Trump:
"âoeThe only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yamakas every day.â
âoeLaziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it.â (this is hearsay, but given that
*I'd list out the various sexist quotes by Trump to match, but I'm not sure slashdot has enough storage.
This is what I can find off the top of my head and with the top link in google, I'm not even digging. If you honestly think Trump isn't racist you have your head in the ground.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Obligated? No. Allowed to? Yes.
Believe it or not, some people might want a fascist state. Some might want more than we have now but not complete fascism.
So I guess the question might be "are others obligated to think like you or me"? A lot probably do to some degree but none are obligated.
Remember, everything that the President of the US does is explicitly or implicitly supported by the US Congress. They are the ones who authorize money being spent. So in the grand scheme of things, the POTUS election isn't as important as the congressional elections.
227-3517
And yes, the anti-muslim hate is racist
No, it isn't. Looking down on a group of people that base their beliefs on a system of hate and sexual discrimination is hardly what I would call racist.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
but sure, stop Trump from running in 2017, if you must.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
didn't stop Koch Industries or Goldman Sachs.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I think you may be hung up on the term "racist". If you talk about the things Trump says that people object to think "bigoted" rather than "racist". Bigoted encompasses racism, sexism, religious discrimination, etc.
And this story proves that only a fool would work for Facebook.
Which employee was this
Probably not the ones Zuckerberg has threatened to "investigate" for surreptitiously crossing out BLM slogans.
And the answer is sure, go ahead and make it Facebook policy to "stop Trump." Trump would love another chunk of red meat to dominate the news cycle through next Tuesday.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"Well both of those actually are perfect examples of racism. But beyond that:"
No you fucking tool, neither of those statements are racist. Muslim is not a race. Mexican is not a race. You are exactly what is being discussed when someone says "low information voter". You think you're a knowledgeable voter but all you know is the soundbites from the news/entertainment sources you tune into to hear what you already want to hear.
Every bigot in the history of time has had a rationalization for why their bigotry is actually justified. A rationalization that serves to gives them permission to be bigotted but is really just an a circular expression of their bigotry. Your choice to characterize all muslims that way is just another example in that tradition.
It's especially telling that your rationalization is completely distinct from Trump's rationalization. Even if you were right it still wouldn't make Trump any less bigotted.
At the same time Europeans are facing fines for disparaging remarks about the massive amounts of refugees we've been getting for the past six months or so, under racism laws. The courts have declared in no uncertain terms that it is racist to spit at these refugees as they're marching up the highway.
Racism in America started with 'your' slaves, yes. That is your original definition of racism. But like many things the meaning has evolved and shifted to now encompass "People coming from different cultural backgrounds than myself" - and let's face it, that includes muslims. Or moslems, or whatever the proper spelling is in English.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Well considering that the muslims we're referring to would be emigrating from counties that have made that type of discrimination part of their code of laws, I fail to see how this isn't justified.
But I get it, we have to be tolerant of intolerance.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
i hope trump wins.
As an individual citizen, yes, as an employee, no. Facebook employees are looking to magnify their political power by leveraging their corporation. That is absolutely wrong.
Good-bye
It'll cause a huge backlash and increase support for Trump. Facebook, stay out of this. Actually, stay out of as much as possible - you're a messenger, not a dictator.
Trump did denounce the KKK. He just didn't know what people were talking about at first. A bigger question is why Hillary and Obama associated with former KKK leader Robert Byrd.
I've seen plenty of suspicions with regards to Ted Cruz's status (born in Canada). The birther sentiment isn't limited to race.
Halting immigration from countries with known terror problems is perfectly reasonable. Jimmy Carter did it during the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis. Trump wanted a temporary halt until our immigration system is fixed.
Almost everything you've listed lacks context. I don't know about the Justice Department thing. The only thing I could find was that he didn't want to rent to welfare recipients (disproportionately ethnic minorities) who might end up trashing the places.
My immediate reaction is, "No, as a company they should not try to interfere in the political process."
However, there are so many *other* companies that are already doing just that, going so far as to crease fabricated 'grassroots' organizations to push specific candidates, that I want to say, "You know what? Screw it. Go ahead. At least you're being honest about it."
If you saw Fascism rising in your country, would you obligated to try to stop it?
Considering Feinstein still has a Facebook page, I am guessing they do not feel that obligation.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Not to mention did you actually LOOK at any of the things you accuse trump of?
Sexist for his campaign manager "attacking" a woman - did you WATCH the video ? No such thing happened.
Calling for DB of muslims ? Did you WATCH the video ? No such thing happens.
Calling for enforcing illegal immigration because illegal immigrants clearly aren't the best ? Obvious. I know far too many professional foreigners that WON'T break US Law, but do want to immigrate. I promise fence jumpers willing to break US Law are not better people.
Did you actually look up his actions re: do looking into racist company dealings ? No actual evidence.
It just goes on. All I've learned from this election cycle is I hate anti trumpers far more than I hate trump.
Perhaps they're emigrating from said countries because they think those laws are bullshit too.
Halting immigration from countries with known terror problems is perfectly reasonable
He didn't say that. He said halting immigration from Muslims, regardless of country of origin.
In stark contrast to posting on Slashdot to get people to spend mod-points on your comment....
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yamakas every day.
So he keeps his money at the ... First Zion Bank of the Gnomes of Zurich?
Start a fight that big and that blatant and you must expect the same treatment if you do not win. Even if you do win it is a hollow victory because all you have proven is that democracy in the USA is an illusion that can be manipulated. So what exactly are you fighting for?
It pre-judges many, identified via superficial attributes, based on the actions of a few. You're right that the term isn't racism, mainly because that's not the term you use when going up against religion.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Well both of those actually are perfect examples of racism.
Islam isn't a race. Imbecile.
Theyâ(TM)re bringing crime. Theyâ(TM)re rapists."
Imbecile.
*He refused to denounce the KKK. I can't blame a man for who decides to endorse him, but when directly asked he refused to denounce them.
So you're either too stupid to use google, or you're just flat out dishonest.
As for the rest of your comment: [citation needed]
For the record, I despise Trump.
Who the hell has to ask their boss what they should do? I am told what to do in the course of my work. If it is not immoral I do it. If I don't like it I can work elsewhere. I sure as shit don't need corporate input about politics or anything else in my private life.
It seem Hillary is the establishments choice, but she carries enough baggage to sink a battleship.
Yes, she is in the script to win. It could not be more obvious, but good on you, a lot of people have missed this.
Trump is a loose cannon (a combination of Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer whom Australians will know well), so why is he so popular?
Because Americans all think they're starring in their own personal movie. Trump supporters think that someone did something bad to them and kept them from succeeding, and that Trump will help them succeed. There's merit to the first part, but not the second; Trump and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution.
I think the average American is sick of seeing their government bully the rest of the world just so the military industrial complex can make a buck for the 1%.
Yes, that does appear to be true.
I think they are tired of politicians being bought by lobbyists.
Well, they think they are, but they don't even know what the hell they are talking about.
I think they have had a gut full of their jobs being exported overseas, and their standard of living declining every decade.
Yeah, but anyone supporting Trump on that basis is a total dumbshit, because his clothing line is made overseas for example.
So Trump is a protest vote in the hope it might blow up the system and cause a reset.
No. A thousand times no. You were doing great until here. Most of these people really do think that Trump will be good for the nation. They really think that putting the nation further into the hands of business will make their lives better, because they masturbated to Atlas Shrugged one too many times.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not a Trump fan, but Facebook is perceived as infrastructure by its users, yet has all the underpinnings to skew the users access to information without them ever noticing.
It is really an Orwellian level of power in the hands of just one company. That they now could get triggered to use it for political influence is unsettling.
"Writing in the New Republic in 2014, Jonathan Zittrain, professor of international law at Harvard University, pointed out that, given the massive amount of information it has collected about its users, Facebook could easily send such messages only to people who support one particular party or candidate, and that doing so could easily flip a close election – with no one knowing that this has occurred. And because advertisements, like search rankings, are ephemeral, manipulating an election in this way would leave no paper trail."
"Are there laws prohibiting Facebook from sending out ads selectively to certain users? Absolutely not; in fact, targeted advertising is how Facebook makes its money. Is Facebook currently manipulating elections in this way? No one knows..."
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts
Now we know.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
> Every bigot in the history of time has had a rationalization for why their bigotry is actually justified.
That has absolutely no relevance.
Islam is a religion. It cuts across all racial boundaries. It has nothing to do with race. Hating on muslims simply does not satisfy the definition of the word racism.
You don't get to redefine words to suit your political agenda or because you are to FUCKING LAZY to use the right term.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Every bigot in the history of time has had a rationalization for why their bigotry is actually justified.
Try for a second to see the logical disconnect. He isn't trying to justify it, it's just stupid to apply the word "racism" to anything and everything that you don't like.
Bigoted doesn't mean racist, does it? Muslim is not a race. Christian is not a race. Buddhist is not a race. Jew, well that might be a race by some folks interpretations. So, we'll skip them. But it's not racist - I'm pretty sure? Since when is there a Muslim race? If there's a Muslim race, then how do the ladies run in it with their heads all covered up? They won't see anything and will smash into all sorts of stuff. It might be fun to watch but that'd make them racers and still not racists.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You don't "contract" a willingness to blow yourself up in support of a cause. Christ, if that's how fucked US thinking is on the matter, you may as well vote Trump now and get it over with. I mean, seriously that has to the the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ever.
/facepalm
That's not what he said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wait, what? They're fining you for disparaging remarks about someone's race?
Look, I hate racism and I hate racists but I'll be damned if I'd sit idly by while the government fines people for speech that incites nothing. What, exactly, are we talking about here? Google is not turning up any examples. I've been busy for a couple of weeks so I might have missed something.
I'm part black and I don't even get pissed when someone says, "Nigger." I have relatives who use the term on a regular basis - but get mad if a white person says it. I'm only about 1/8 black or something but, still. I don't care if someone wants to spout racist gibberish at the top of their lungs. It lets me know who to not bother trying to talk to. I'm mostly Micmac and the "Injun Joe" jokes don't bother me one bit.
They're words people. More often than not, they say more about the person speaking them than they do about the people they're referencing.
They're seriously fining people for saying what, specifically?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Sure, go with the one that has made privacy obsolete. What could go wrong?
:T:R:A:N:S:
I'm already sick of the mainstream media lying and manipulating information about Trump and Sanders. I don't know who I want the next POTUS to be, but what I do know is that I want to make that decision by taking the facts and deciding for myself. As one of the main reasons I use Facebook is as a convenient way to get news about what's going on in the world from sources outside the mainstream, if I found out they were actively manipulating the news, such as regarding politics this election, I think that would be the final straw; I would close my account and go elsewhere for my news aggregation.
You don't get to redefine words to suit your political agenda or because you are to FUCKING LAZY to use the right term.
Right back atchyou beeatch. Like most racists you are hell bent on redefining race to just mean ethnicity. Ironic for someone accusing others of making up definitions.
race:
1.1A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group
example: They sought to weld the country's diverse ethnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms.
Now that you've been schooled, don't repeat that bullshit excuse ever fucking again, capiche?
From the dictionary you quoted, Here is definition 1, the top-level definition.
Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics:
‘people of all races, colours, and creeds’
‘Jews represent a group of people rather than a distinct race or ethnicity.’
This is the definition that educated people use when they are discussing the topic of race.
Here is a copy/paste of the sub-level definition from the dictionary you mis-quoted:
A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group
Anyway, a group of people having just one of those similarities does not constitute a race - you have to have them in aggregate.
Muslims are not a race, Buddhists are not a race, and Christians are not a race any more than "stamp collectors" is a race.
And yes, the anti-muslim hate is racist. Its discriminatory to a large diverse group of people- that's what racism is.
Considering you can't even get this right (and it's hardly a tough concept), I highly recommend that you avoid challenging yourself by trying to think.
http://www.bt.dk/danmark/spytt...
Apologies for the article being in Danish, it happens with things from Denmark. Google Translate should be able to give you the broad idea.
Basically, large group of refugees came marching up the highway back in September. Guy stands on an overpass and is caught on camera spitting down on them. He was convicted earlier this month under the socalled racism paragraph, fined 5000 DKR (approximately 800 USD).
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Okay, I'm genuinely curious. Which races are there to choose from?
Caucasians as a unique race?
Africans as a unique race?
Asians as a unique race?
Arabs as a unique race?
Just a single race; the human race?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Two egomaniacs with too much power in a battle for the public opinion?
Bring me the popcorn. Hopefully, at the end of it all, they will both implode.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Silly neighbour that has the same voting rights as you do is the same problem in direct democracy as it is in representative version. Yet this is not a big problem in itself - in direct democracy people tend to be reasonable and make just decisions. It is the system that is broken.
I think the current approximation at democracy i.e. representative democracy is outdated. Voting for asshats that can do whatever they want to in the parliament has only one function usually - preventing the worst to get there (that is assuming there is any choice which in USA you seemingly do not have at the moment). You need representatives to make a daily job of deciding on laws (legislative branch) and to do the daily job of sending marines here and there (executive branch) but for main questions that interest the whole nation or big chunks of it you should be able to say yes/no on the clearly asked question. You should also have the possibility to decide on what to ask for and such answers that people, then give should, if valid (enough peopled voted etc), force legislative and executive branch to accept it and modify their actions. This is, it seems, much further advanced in the west of the West (UK and US) than it is in Europe but then I have not heard US citizens deciding on for instance war on drugs other than voting Nixon into office - he is gone and war on drugs goes on.
Your arguments are logical, assuming people genuinely don't like Trump because they think he is racist. More likely people just don't like Trump, full stop. Any excuse will do. They could just as easily claim his fake tan makes him look like an Umpa Lumpa, or his wig freaks them out, but racism seems like the metaphorical mud that will stick the best.
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
If that was the case you'd never see women in Europe, the USA, Australia etc. wearing tents & ninja masks.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV?
Don't know the answer?
Hmm. Successful, isn't it?
- Max Headroom
See you space cowboy
Except that polls of Muslims who have emigrated to other countries shows that the majority favor instituting such discriminatory laws in the countries in which they now reside.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's fascinating to me how many people who purport to believe in democracyare so keen to strip others rights the second the front-runners don't fit their views.
At least the right leaning people seem to admit what they want (less government, less taxes, leave me alone, less intervention). Yet many of the left-leaning "progressives" are in such a state of double-think they don't even realize they are sprouting propaganda.
Just the term "progressive" is propaganda. Being "progressive" about denying others their rights when the views don't align with their own is NOT progressive. It's repressive.
Let's not forget that google has no obligation to return search results which are neutral towards what's actually out there. Actually, Google does return customized results!
Don't you think that skews the result just as much as social networks could?
My Stack Overflow user
Minor point if semantics: being anti-Muslim isn't racist. It's bigotry. (Not that one's any better than the other)
Now... it's entirely possible that Donny T. actually is racist against Arabs, and just doesn't know how to express that properly. If he believes that all Arabs are Muslim, well, that's a bit racist already. But as long as his vitriol is directed toward followers of the religion of Islam and not people born of a particular ethnicity, it's not technically racism.
This signature is false.
Spitting isn't calling someone names. Spitting isn't a "disparaging remark."
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Low information voter complains about people he perceives as low information voters, can't bother to figure it out.
Hilarious.
Well, we can certainly tell where you stand.
And the way the major newspapers structure their websites makes it all but impossible to find any articles older than two days. Gimme a while, I'll find them. In the meantime explain how spitting is racism, though.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I guess they could consider it a hate crime if they were spitting at them because of their race? I'd argue that the spitting, regardless of the reason, is wrong. I'd be right pissed off if a country were to try to fine me for saying racist remarks. Now, of course, I don't actually say racist remarks but I'd certainly think about saying some just to piss off that particular country.
Even hateful speech should be a right that can't be infringed on. I say this as someone's who's absolutely a minority. I'm a bit over 1/2 Amerindian and the rest is a mix of African and European. I look Asian and speak Spanish almost fluently. It really, really screws with people's heads. I'm pretty sure that I'm about as minority as they come. If someone wants to be a racist idiot and say racist things then I think they should be allowed to do so without fear of government intervention.
I took a quick look at Google and I'm not seeing anyone getting fined for disparaging remarks. I could be using the wrong terms.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They bring their rules with them, for their kids to pick up and take to the extreme...
US election law isn't really equiped ti deal with an entitity with FB size and reach working fir or against a candidate
The hold that Facebook has over Americans is nothing compared to the hold that William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer once held!