About Face(book)
Mark Zuckerberg may seem like an unlikely symbol for free speech. He is not particularly articulate or eloquent, his social awkwardness and occasional flop sweat long ago predestined a career in front of a computer, not in front of a camera.
But over the past several years, as Facebook grew from a vanity social networking platform for Millennial voyeurs to the most dominant media company in the history of the world, Mark Zuckerberg has been forced to stand up for the very essence of what Facebook stands for: a global platform for people to say and share with others, freely and liberally.
It is then profoundly disappointing to see the debate over free speech play out in the context of Donald Trump’s recent tweet:
“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!”
The above tweet was hidden by a notice from Twitter — but is and was still viewable behind the notification. “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible,” says the notice.
A statement from the official Twitter Communications account explained that the tweet had been flagged “based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today.”
On Facebook, where the tweet was cross-posted, no such warning or commentary was given.
There is some historical context to the last line, but Donald Trump is not one to consult the history books (or any book) as inspiration for his tweets.
You can read his last line as a prediction or a portent, a warning or, in a particularly strained reading, a call to arms.
For those who read and still remember their American history, from Boston Common in 1770 to the draft riots of 1863 to the uprising of 1968 and “Burn, baby! Burn”… when the looting starts the shooting starts.
It is proverb and prophecy. It is also speech worthy of protection.
When we cede to Twitter the power to determine what we see and how we should interpret it, by virtue of its editorializing, if not outright censorship, we the people lose something. We lose the power of viewing the words ourselves and coming to our own conclusions, seeing the opinions of others and perhaps, even changing our own opinion.
These are not mere contrivances, they are the essence of free speech critical to a functioning democracy. In a few months’ time, the citizens of this country will go into a voting booth and will have to make a decision for themselves, by themselves.
Of course, applying a liberal and expansive view toward social media speech means we will have to tolerate a great deal of stupidity and intolerance, not to mention cat pictures, but this is the price we pay for a platform that is absolutely free and increasingly vital.
We can log off anytime, hide our posts from others, and friend (or unfriend) at will. But we don’t. Because as much as we curse the intrusion of the Internet into every aspect of our personal and professional lives, we can’t live without it.
Without Facebook, we might never find out who is the Tiger King or be able to keep up with the Kardashians.
We also might not be able to see with the same clarity and insight the pain of police brutality as seen through the eyes of someone who looks a lot different from ourselves or what sexual harassment feels like from the perspective of a classmate or co-worker.
Our world has shrunk down to a few inches of a glass screen, but it has also gotten a lot bigger and wider. We have Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to thank for some of this change.
Last Friday, Mark Zuckerberg explained, in reference to the tweet, that he had “a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric,” but reaffirmed Facebook’s “position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause an imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies.”
The media played up the virtual walkout and some critical comments by some Facebook employees about Facebook’s decision, but in a company with 45,000 employees, there is bound to be some dissent to every decision, especially one as fraught with political, public relations and economic implications as this.
“My goal for this next decade isn’t to be liked, but to be understood,” Zuckerberg said last January. “In order to be trusted, people need to know what you stand for.”
This week Facebook stood up for free speech. It is not an easy stand to take. Free speech means something only when it is under threat — whether from an angry mob or a virtual one.
Mark Zuckerberg deserves praise, at this particularly difficult moment, for reminding us what Facebook stands for and why we need it now more than ever.
