6 ms·

Appalling interference in the election by yet another Tech giant. Why isn't this regulated?

Grustaf 6y ago
I don't agree with his alarmism and think it was stupid to send it, but why would it be regulated? I think this is very different from Facebook or Twitter skew feeds in favour of some political cause. First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal. Secondly they do it without people's knowledge. David Barret's embarrassing email is completely honest and open.
- ahpearce 6y ago
  Seems like a lot of people screaming about this sort of thing are the same people that support Citizens United. I don't see how they're much different. Free speech is free speech, whether or not you have access to an email list of 10m.
- rektide 6y ago
  > First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal. Hard no. There is no legal nor moral basis for this. Absolutely not.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    There is no legal basis for them NOT to censor? What does that mean?
    - rektide 6y ago
      They are not utilities in any way. They are private entities. They can control speech however they want in their realm. If they want to censor, it's completely in their right.
dbbk 6y ago
Is this sarcasm or a genuine question? Endorsements aren't interference.
DerpyBaby123 6y ago
Tech giant? Ive never seen a reference to FAANGE
HappySweeney 6y ago
"Interference" in this context is generally reserved for foreign actors. Isn't this CEO American? If so, how is this not a simple exercise of free political speech? That being asked, while I agree with the message, I don't believe sending it was a good idea. It likely won't move the needle at all (most everyone has made up their mind), and potentially alienates Trump-supporting customers.
biolurker1 6y ago
Total annihilation is possible for the first time ever if Trump remains. Seriously. That's why scientific American, NY times and many others for the first time in history took sides.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  You have a point, but you should really look for examples more interesting than a paper that has endorsed every D running for President since the 60s.
- mixedCase 6y ago
  Are you threatening a terrorist attack if Trump wins or is there something clear and obvious that makes you say that 4 more years of Trump is a credible likely cause of total annihilation?
  - biolurker1 6y ago
    Trump has made enemies worldwide & ridiculed allies, is delusional as he has lied provenly 20.000 times, is personally responsible for promising the virus will go away when it has killed 200k and will kill more than half a million and is the perfect man to not give a damn about things going on in the mediterranean and other parts of the world that could start a thermonuclear war. If one starts ever, there is a great probability it starts during his second term. He has polarized America and endorsed terrorist & underground groups such as Qanon & white supremacists and can bring total chaos in usa which frankly I don't live in. If after all that you still don't get it I understand, it's how evolution made some humans. My comment will be downvoted but it's directed to you and I hope you read it and reflect.I wonder what made you think I am threatening something that's really interesting btw. You can't deduct this from my comment unless you are totally pro trump.Sorry I have forgotten climate change that will doom us and he opted out from the global effort.
UncleMeat 6y ago
Is it interference? Where are the free speech absolutists to defend this case?
Mountain_Skies 6y ago
I don't see how this is interference but certainly could be considered an in-kind donation, which does carry with it certain regulatory obligations.
- avik1002 6y ago
  So would it be fine if zuckerberg sent out mass message to vote for biden on facebook, instagram, or whatsapp right in your inbox? Blatant misuse of company data.

I don't agree with his alarmism and think it was stupid to send it, but why would it be regulated? I think this is very different from Facebook or Twitter skew feeds in favour of some political cause. First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal. Secondly they do it without people's knowledge. David Barret's embarrassing email is completely honest and open.

ahpearce 6y ago
Seems like a lot of people screaming about this sort of thing are the same people that support Citizens United. I don't see how they're much different. Free speech is free speech, whether or not you have access to an email list of 10m.
rektide 6y ago
> First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal. Hard no. There is no legal nor moral basis for this. Absolutely not.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  There is no legal basis for them NOT to censor? What does that mean?
  - rektide 6y ago
    They are not utilities in any way. They are private entities. They can control speech however they want in their realm. If they want to censor, it's completely in their right.

dbbk 6y ago

Is this sarcasm or a genuine question? Endorsements aren't interference.

DerpyBaby123 6y ago

Tech giant? Ive never seen a reference to FAANGE

HappySweeney 6y ago

"Interference" in this context is generally reserved for foreign actors. Isn't this CEO American? If so, how is this not a simple exercise of free political speech? That being asked, while I agree with the message, I don't believe sending it was a good idea. It likely won't move the needle at all (most everyone has made up their mind), and potentially alienates Trump-supporting customers.

biolurker1 6y ago

Total annihilation is possible for the first time ever if Trump remains. Seriously. That's why scientific American, NY times and many others for the first time in history took sides.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
You have a point, but you should really look for examples more interesting than a paper that has endorsed every D running for President since the 60s.
mixedCase 6y ago
Are you threatening a terrorist attack if Trump wins or is there something clear and obvious that makes you say that 4 more years of Trump is a credible likely cause of total annihilation?
- biolurker1 6y ago
  Trump has made enemies worldwide & ridiculed allies, is delusional as he has lied provenly 20.000 times, is personally responsible for promising the virus will go away when it has killed 200k and will kill more than half a million and is the perfect man to not give a damn about things going on in the mediterranean and other parts of the world that could start a thermonuclear war. If one starts ever, there is a great probability it starts during his second term. He has polarized America and endorsed terrorist & underground groups such as Qanon & white supremacists and can bring total chaos in usa which frankly I don't live in. If after all that you still don't get it I understand, it's how evolution made some humans. My comment will be downvoted but it's directed to you and I hope you read it and reflect.I wonder what made you think I am threatening something that's really interesting btw. You can't deduct this from my comment unless you are totally pro trump.Sorry I have forgotten climate change that will doom us and he opted out from the global effort.

UncleMeat 6y ago

Is it interference? Where are the free speech absolutists to defend this case?

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

I don't see how this is interference but certainly could be considered an in-kind donation, which does carry with it certain regulatory obligations.

avik1002 6y ago
So would it be fine if zuckerberg sent out mass message to vote for biden on facebook, instagram, or whatsapp right in your inbox? Blatant misuse of company data.