Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says he does not think it would be OK for an organization to censor politicians or democracy news. He was speaking in Washington DC after weeks of criticism for his firm decision not to ban false political ads. He also added that he has considered eliminating all political ads on his platform.
He, however, said he believes the move will go in favor of incoming politicians and the media who would like to be covered. And Mr Zuckerberg said that although he supports the idea, it is not clear where his firm will draw the line. Instead, he said, he decided that the company “should be wrong in terms of greater expression.” “We’ve come to another intersection,” he said. “We can either stand for free expression, understand the glut of it, but believe that the long journey toward greater progress requires our ideas to be challenged or we can conclude that the expenditure is only temporary.
“The future depends on us all,” he added.
“And whether you like it or not, I think we should recognize what is at stake, and we have come together to stand up for voice and free expression at this critical moment.” Mr. Zuckerberg cited the imprisonment of Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham jail in Alabama as an example of his previous reaction to free speech. The comparison, however, comes in the wake of criticism of the daughter of the late civil rights campaigner, who said that the chaos sparked by politicians led to her father’s murder.
The speech was given at Georgetown University in Washington DC, after which the audience was invited to ask questions. The Q&A section, however, was not broadcast live to the public. During his talk, Mr Zuckerberg also took the opportunity to look at Chinese rival Tiktak, which he said was censoring news of political protests. And he suggested that his failed attempt to bring Facebook and Instagram back to China in the mainland has worked the most.
“I wanted our services in China because I believed in connecting the whole world and I thought maybe we could help build a more open society,” he explained. “But we can never agree on what it will take for us to work there, and they never allow us to enter. we have more freedom to speak up & stand up for the values we believe in and fight for free expression.
It came three days after the incident was revealed that since July, Facebook’s chief executive hosted a private dinner in several of his homes where he invited conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican politician. These social events claimed that the firm showed prejudice against rights.
The top two candidates recently attacked Facebook on the left in the race to be the Democratic Party’s candidate for the 2014 presidential election. Last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren paid for deliberate misleading advertising on her platform claiming that Zuckerberg personally supported Donald Trump for re-election. He said that he did so in protest of the firm’s decision to allow politicians to run ads containing “known lies”.
“When it comes to defending democracy, Facebook likes profit,” he claimed.
“It is unacceptable for any social media organization to intentionally allow misleading material to corrupt its platform,” Mr Biden’s press secretary said.
Mr Zuckerberg has faced some criticism from his Silicon Valley counterparts. On Wednesday, Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff called Facebook “the new cigarette – it’s addictive, bad for us, and our kids are being attracted”. He also said not to collect so much information on the public so that the company should be disbanded.
“Why can’t they say that our highest value of confidence is higher than mine,” he added.
Apple’s Tim Cook has also criticized Facebook in the past. He claims that it allows people to patch and use personal data together and against them, and suggests that its cryptocurrency plans may go beyond the limits of where private companies can operate.
But he did so without mentioning the social media firm by name.
There was a time, of course, when we thought that Mr. Zuckerberg had regarded himself as the future president. But if he no longer leads the United States, he probably sees the opportunity to take the lead on a defining issue