George Soros: Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook

George Soros: Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/soros-facebook-zuckerberg.html

Brief excerpt from above link:

At a dinner last week in Davos, Switzerland, I was asked if I thought Facebook was behaving more responsibly today than it did during the 2016 presidential election.

“Not at all,” I answered. “Facebook helped Trump to get elected and I am afraid that it will do the same in 2020.” I explained that there is a longstanding law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — that protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims. Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them.

I went on to say that there appears to be “an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook” in which Facebook will help President Trump to get re-elected and Mr. Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media.

“This is just plain wrong,” a Facebook spokesman told Business Insider.

I disagree. I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, realize that their interests are aligned — the president’s in winning elections, Mr. Zuckerberg’s in making money.

===================================================

Sounds like Soros' POV is particularly relevant in this election season.  

What is the answer to this problem of whether FB is a publisher or a mere platform?

Off the top of my head, I would prefer FB as a platform.




You mean there's been a falling out within the International Jewish Conspiracy?


nohero said:

You mean there's been a falling out within the International Jewish Conspiracy?

 Reprint of the headline and a brief excerpt from The New York Times opinion piece by George Soros.  Make of it what you will.  I am NOT the publisher.

PS Do you really believe what you post (namely, falling out within the International Jewish Conspiracy - which I take as a horrendous attempt at sarcasm, or perhaps for shock value) by you (nohero)?

PPS What do you think Soros' motive was in penning this opinion piece?



Facebook refutes Soros claim of a 'special relationship' between Trump and Zuckerberg
PUBLISHED FRI, JAN 31 20202:17 PM ESTUPDATED FRI, JAN 31 20206:34 PM EST
Salvador Rodriguez

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/facebook-refutes-soros-claim-of-trump-zuckerberg-special-relationship.html

Brief excerpt from above link:

Facebook on Friday issued a statement renouncing recent allegations by liberal financier George Soros that there is a "special relationship" forming between the social media company and President Donald Trump.

"While we respect Mr. Soros' right to voice his opinion, he's wrong," a spokesman for Facebook said. "The notion that we are aligned with any one political figure or party runs counter to our values and the facts. We continue making unprecedented investments to keep our platform safe, fight foreign interference in elections around the world, and combat misinformation."

The tech company issued the statement following recent comments by Soros alleging that the there is "an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook." Soros made the comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, and he followed them up on Friday in an opinion piece on the New York Times.

Soros wrote, "Brad Parscale, the digital director of Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign and now his campaign manager for 2020, said that Facebook helped Mr. Trump and gave him the edge. This seems to have marked the beginning of a special relationship."

He continued, "Facebook will help President Trump to get re-elected and Mr. Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media."

In his piece, Soros highlighted a September 2019 White House meeting between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump. Soros also wrote that neither Zuckerberg nor Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg should be left in control of the social media company.

"They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences," Soros wrote.


here's a good piece on why Facebook is wrong.

=========================================================

We Shouldn’t Have to Beg Mark Zuckerberg to Respect Democracy

Beat the Press – Center for Economic and...by Dean Baker

(This post originally appeared on my Patreon page.) Last month George Soros had a New York Times column arguing that Mark Zuckerberg should not be running Facebook. (Does the NYT reserve space on its opinion page for billionaires?) The gist of Soros’ piece is that Zuckerberg has made a deal with Trump. He will allow all manner of outrageous lies to be spread on Facebook to benefit Trump’s re-election campaign. In exchange, Trump will defend Zuckerberg from efforts to regulate Facebook.

Soros is of course right. Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will not attempt to verify the accuracy of the political ads that it runs. This is a greenlight for any sleazebag to push the most outrageous claims that they want in order to further the election of their favored candidate.

This will almost certainly benefit Donald Trump’s re-election, since the one area where he can legitimately take credit is in pushing outlandish lies. No one has pushed more lies more effectively than Donald Trump. The free rein promised by Zuckerberg is a re-election campaign contribution of enormous value.

While Soros is right on the substance of the issue, he is wrong to focus on the personality of Mark Zuckerberg. It would be good if we had a responsible forward-thinking person, who cared about the future of democracy, running Facebook, but that is not the normal course of things in a capitalist economy.

Businesses are run to make money. And, the bottom line here is that Facebook stands to make much more money spreading outlandish lies that help Trump’s campaign, than screening ads for their veracity. In this context, we should not be surprised that Facebook is taking the lie-spreading route. The problem is not that Zuckerberg is acting like a normal businessperson, the problem is that we made the lie-spreading route profitable.

In this respect it is worth pointing out that we don’t have the same problem with other media outlets. We don’t have to beg CNN, the New York Times, and other major news outlets to not take ads that they know to be false. They won’t do it, perhaps in part out of principle, but also because they could be sued for libel if they spread claims that were false and damaging.

For example, if I wanted to take out an ad asserting that Donald Trump is a rapist (which is likely true), most major news outlets would refuse to run it. Donald Trump could not only sue me for libel, he could also sue any news outlet that carried the ad. If I could not show that the claim was true, the news outlet that published the ad could be forced to pay substantial damages. For this reason, traditional news outlets do try to screen political ads for accuracy, and will not run an ad that they know to be false.

Facebook does not feel the same need to protect against libel because a law passed by Congress exempts it from the same sort of liability faced by traditional media outlets. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, protects Internet intermediaries from the liability rules that apply to traditional media outlets.

The logic that was used to justify this provision is that Internet intermediaries should be treated the same way as common carriers, like a phone company or the mail service. A common carrier does not have control over the content it carries, nor does it profit from specific content, except insofar as it increases demand for its service.

This was arguably an accurate description of Internet intermediaries in the early years of the web. For example, we would not have expected AOL to be responsible for whatever people chose to post in its chatrooms. But the web in general, and Facebook in particular, have evolved hugely in the years since Section 230 was put into law.

Facebook has complete control over content. It allows people to pay to have their posts sent to as many people as they choose. It allows them to target the recipients, based on location, age, education, gender, and any number of other characteristics. It is very hard to see how an outlet like CNN or the NYT can be held responsible for spreading libelous material, but Facebook should be exempt.

Whether or not Section 230 made sense in 1996, it clearly does not in era of Facebook. In effect it gives Facebook, and other Internet outlets, a special privilege that is not available to their broadcast or print competitors.

Of course, Zuckerberg will claim that it is not possible for Facebook to monitor the hundreds of millions of items that get posted every day. But the standard need not be that Facebook prevents libelous material from being posted. Rather, Facebook can be required to remove libelous material after it has been called to its attention. Furthermore, since Facebook’s system allows it to know exactly who has opened a post, it can be required to send a correction to anyone who originally received the libelous material.

Zuckerberg has also argued that they cannot be responsible for preventing false material from being spread through Facebook because they shouldn’t be in the position of determining what is true. Determining truth may seem hard for Zuckerberg, but this is precisely what every traditional media outlet does all the time, both when deciding on editorial content and when making decisions about accepting ads. If Zuckerberg’s team is that much less competent than those at traditional media outlets they can look to hire competent people away from these other outlets.

There really is nothing terribly complicated about Facebook’s situation, nor any grand questions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press that don’t come up all the time with traditional media. The basic story is that Facebook is now gaming a provision of a quarter-century old law to pretend it is a common carrier when that is clearly not the case.

If Facebook wants to be treated like a common carrier, then it should become one. That would mean not profiting from ads and boosted posts. It would also mean not selling personal information from its users. If it wants to be a common carrier then it can simply allow people to post as they please and not try to profit from content or personal information.

However, this is obviously not Facebook in its current form. Facebook is no more a common carrier than any major media outlet. As such it has to be subject to the same rules as other media outlets. That will require much more spending to police its network for false and libelous information, which will mean that Facebook will be much less profitable and Mark Zuckerberg will be much less rich.

But that is Mr. Zuckerberg’s problem. We should not be in the position of begging Zuckerberg to do the right thing as the CEO of Facebook or hoping that a more socially responsible person takes over the company. The law must be adjusted to take away Facebook’s special status. It is a media outlet and it is long past time that it be treated like one.


Soros Letter to FT  Editor published in 02182020 financial Times:

Link:  https://www.ft.com/content/88f6875a-519d-11ea-90ad-25e377c0ee1f

Mark Zuckerberg should stop obfuscating the facts by piously arguing for government regulation (“We need more regulation of Big Tech”, February 17).

Mr Zuckerberg appears to be engaged in some kind of mutual assistance arrangement with Donald Trump that will help him to get re-elected. Facebook does not need to wait for government regulations to stop accepting any political advertising in 2020 until after the elections on November 4. If there is any doubt whether an ad is political, it should err on the side of caution and refuse to publish. It is unlikely that Facebook will follow this course.

Therefore, I repeat my proposal, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should be removed from control of Facebook. (It goes without saying that I support government regulation of social media platforms.)

George Soros

Paris, France


Link:  https://www.ft.com/content/602ec7ec-4f18-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

Brief excerpt from above link to Zuckerberg FT Op-Ed of 02162020:

Mark Zuckerberg 

FEBRUARY 16, 2020

The writer is founder and chief executive of Facebook

Then there are political ads. We believe advertising is more transparent on Facebook than television, print or other online services. We publish details about political and issue ads — including who paid for them, how much was spent, and how many people were reached — in our ads library.

But who decides what counts as political advertising in a democracy? If a non-profit runs an ad about immigration during an election, is it political? Who should decide — private companies, or governments?

Another theme is openness. I’m glad the EU is looking at making data sharing easier, because it enables people to build things that are valuable for society. International agencies use Facebook’s Data for Good programme to figure out which communities need help after natural disasters, and governments use our publicly available population density maps for vaccination campaigns.

Of course, you should always be able to transfer your data between services. But how do we define what counts as your data? If I share something with you, like my birthday, should you be able to take that data to other services, like your calendar app? Is that my data or yours?

We have to balance promoting innovation and research against protecting people’s privacy and security.

Without clear rules on portability, strict privacy laws encourage companies to lock down data, refusing to share with others, to minimise regulatory risks.

Lastly, we need more oversight and accountability. People need to feel that global technology platforms answer to someone, so regulation should hold companies accountable when they make mistakes.

Companies like mine also need better oversight when we make decisions, which is why we’re creating an independent Oversight Board so people can appeal Facebook’s content decisions.

Tech companies should serve society. That includes at the corporate level, so we support the OECD’s efforts to create fair global tax rules for the internet.

I believe good regulation may hurt Facebook’s business in the near term but it will be better for everyone, including us, over the long term.

These are problems that need to be fixed and that affect our industry as a whole. If we don’t create standards that people feel are legitimate, they won’t trust institutions or technology.

Of course, we won’t agree with every proposal. Regulation can have unintended consequences, especially for small businesses that can’t do sophisticated data analysis and marketing on their own. Millions of small businesses rely on companies like ours to do this for them.

If regulation makes it harder for them to share data and use these tools, that could disproportionately hurt them and inadvertently advantage larger companies that can.

Still, rather than relying on individual companies to set their own standards, we’d benefit from a more democratic process. This is why we’re pushing for new legislation, and it’s why we support existing US proposals to prevent election interference like the Honest Ads Act and the Deter Act.

To be clear, this isn’t about passing off responsibility. Facebook is not waiting for regulation; we’re continuing to make progress on these issues ourselves.

But I believe clearer rules would be better for everyone. The internet is a powerful force for social and economic empowerment. Regulation that protects people and supports innovation can ensure it stays that way.


The cartoon seems to want Facebook to shunt all readers onto a path toward Facebook's (and George Soros's? ) idea of right-think.  This is a very odd and dangerous agenda.  So patronizing and noblesse oblige--y to cast readers as "lost" and in need of guidance from George/Facebook toward the one true path.   Yecch. 

I don't want guidance from Soros or Facebook. Soros was good at making money.  Maybe I would listen to his ideas about how to make money, except he seems to have made his money not by making anything or providing a service that commoners need but rather by being clever about stock markets.  So never mind. I don't even what his guidance about how to make money.

Regarding his ideas about the United States, and how he wants media to work in the United States--he seems fundamentally not to get the idea of a public square.  Or of democracy.  I don't understand why his ideas are assigned weight.  Must be his $$$$$$$$$?  He probably buys a lot of ads in newspapers.


brealer said:


I don't want guidance from Soros or Facebook. Soros was good at making money.  Maybe I would listen to his ideas about how to make money, except he seems to have made his money not by making anything or providing a service that commoners need but rather by being clever about stock markets.  So never mind. I don't even what his guidance about how to make money.


Arguing with yourself.  grin  


StanV : I am aware that people assign weight to Soros's ideas and proposals.  I just don't get why.  


brealer said:

StanV : I am aware that people assign weight to Soros's ideas and proposals.  I just don't get why.  

 As the founder and head of the Open Society Institute - a nonprofit focused on democracy and human rights - and as holocaust survivor, and witness to his native country's transition to democracy after the fall of the iron curtain, and it's increasing transition away from democracy now, I think Soros is an interesting voice to listen to.

Now, if all Soros has to his name was what I listed above, and not billions of dollars, would we hear as much about him? I doubt it, and that's a problem. Money talks loudly in the public square. When the internet was young, there was hope the new digital public square would be different -- the old gatekeepers were being thrown down and anyone with a keyboard and something to say could now have an equal voice to anyone else.

It hasn't turned out that way, in large part because of the rise of platforms like Facebook, where ad dollars drive content placement. So now in the brave new digital world, we find that, like before, money talks louder than anyone else. For myself, I find it cheering that at least some of that money is arguing for taking steps to fight that.


Glad he supports democracy and human rights.  But his efforts to control who does / does not get to speak in the town square betray a lack of understanding about what democracy is.  Even non-billionaires get to talk.  Even dumb people.  Even people with wrong ideas.  He is wrong to try to shut them up.  There is lack of humility in this goal.  Yes, he is probably a million times smarter than the ones he doesn't want talking.  But he's not smarter about their lives. They are the experts on that.  He is arrogant not to get that.


brealer said:

Glad he supports democracy and human rights.  But his efforts to control who does / does not get to speak in the town square betray a lack of understanding about what democracy is.  Even non-billionaires get to talk.  Even dumb people.  Even people with wrong ideas.  He is wrong to try to shut them up.  There is lack of humility in this goal.  Yes, he is probably a million times smarter than the ones he doesn't want talking.  But he's not smarter about their lives. They are the experts on that.  He is arrogant not to get that.

Facebook is hardly "the town square". It's a system that monetizes your online behavior for Facebook's profit. Furthermore, it's a system that can promote the most libelous of statements, to which the libeled have no legal recourse.


brealer said:

.  Even non-billionaires get to talk.  Even dumb people.  Even people with wrong ideas.  He is wrong to try to shut them up.

As I understand it, Soros is on your side here -- pushing for changes that make it more possible for everyone to talk. The status quo is that people with more money get a louder voice on FB. Perhaps that's the disagreement -- you see FB as being truly fair and open to all voices equally? If so, I can't agree -- FB algorithms are driven by ad dollars.

And this is not even getting into the deep and extensive surveillance network of which FB is a central node, one that tracks your movements across digital (and increasingly non-digital) space, and then sells it to those very billionaires you're decrying.


"In his piece, Soros highlighted a September 2019 White House meeting between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump. Soros also wrote that neither Zuckerberg nor Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg should be left in control of the social media company.

'They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences,' Soros wrote."

Mr. Soros is blind to his own faults. Most people are.  But they are not multi-billionaires with outsize influence.


brealer said:

"In his piece, Soros highlighted a September 2019 White House meeting between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump. Soros also wrote that neither Zuckerberg nor Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg should be left in control of the social media company.

'They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences,' Soros wrote."

Mr. Soros is blind to his own faults. Most people are.  But they are not multi-billionaires with outsize influence.

 I'm not following how this is an example of Soros being blind to his own faults -- will he somehow benefit financially if Zuckerberg is not in control?

Soros aside, I'd be curious as to your view on FB. Do you believe that it currently is serving as a true public square, open to all? Do you think deep-resourced actors pushing disinformation on FB and other digital platforms is a problem? Any thoughts on how you'd like to see things change?



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.