Facebook ad boycott organizers met with Zuckerberg. It didn't go well

(CNN Business)Civil rights and activist groups blasted Facebook's leadership on Tuesday after meeting with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives to discuss the demands of a large advertiser boycott that now includes hundreds of brands.

"The meeting we just left was a disappointment," said Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change. "[Facebook] showed up to the meeting expecting an 'A' for attendance."
Free Press, a media activist group and one of the organizers of the #StopHateForProfit campaign to halt ad spending on the social network, said Facebook still has not taken the boycott's calls to action seriously.
"Instead of committing to a timeline to root out hate and disinformation on Facebook, the company's leaders delivered the same old talking points to try to placate us without meeting our demands," said Free Press Co-CEO Jessica Gonzalez. "Facebook approached our meeting today like it was nothing more than a PR exercise."
In a statement, Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said the company has established new policies banning voting and census suppression and removed more than 200 white supremacist organizations from the platform.
"This meeting was an opportunity for us to hear from the campaign organizers and reaffirm our commitment to combating hate on our platform. They want Facebook to be free of hate speech and so do we," the statement said. "We know we will be judged by our actions not by our words and are grateful to these groups and many others for their continued engagement."
A long list of big and small businesses, including household names like The North Face, Pfizer (PFE) and Levi Strauss (LEVI), have joined the pressure campaign over the social network's handling of hate speech and misinformation. The companies participating in the protest have vowed to pull their ads from Facebook and Instagram for at least the month of July.
The protest came after Facebook decided not to take action on a series of controversial posts from President Donald Trump — including one during racial justice protests that said "looting" would lead to "shooting." Facebook and Zuckerberg came under pressure from employees and politicians, but the ad boycott represented a more direct potential threat to the social network's core business.
The meeting on Tuesday lasted for a little over an hour, and was conducted via Zoom, said Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. The meeting included Zuckerberg, COO Sheryl Sandberg, chief product officer Chris Cox, and members of the Facebook policy team, he said.
The campaign had called on participating brands to ask for 10 changes that touch on seemingly every aspect of how Facebook operates, from the ads it allows to run on the platform to the makeup of its leadership team and its content moderation policies.
The list includes demanding that Facebook hire a C-Suite executive with "deep" civil rights experience to assess products and policies for discrimination, bias and hate. The organizers are also calling for Facebook to pledge to do regular, independent audits of hate and misinformation; remove public and private groups focused on hate or violent conspiracies and stop the recommendation and reach of such groups; and give all moderators anti-bias and hate-related training in the next 90 days.
The group also wants Facebook to ban political ads with blatant lies, which the company has faced criticism for allowing in the past. Facebook has previously defended the policy, saying it does not want to censor political speech.
Greenblatt said the groups methodically outlined their demands in the meeting, such as the call for a new civil rights executive position at Facebook, but got no commitments or timeframes for change.
"We had 10 demands and literally, we went through the 10, and didn't get commitments or timeframes or clear outcomes," said Greenblatt. Zuckerberg came to the meeting expressing appreciation for the opportunity to hear the nuances of the groups' position, Greenblatt added. "And we said: 'There is no nuance in white nationalism.'"
Many of the organizations expressed disappointment with what they said were repeated dialogues with few results.
"For over 2 years, NAACP has entered into dialogue," said Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP. "We've watched the conversation blossom into nothingness."
Gonzalez told CNN Business she is "really tired of the vague promises," and that her organization might not join future meetings with Facebook.
"I don't know that I would sit down again until they've actually made some commitments," she said.
Robinson said his previous meeting with Facebook — along with the apparent futility of the meetings — was what helped to inspire the boycott campaign.
"At the June 1st meeting, I kept saying, 'What are we even doing — Mark, why are we meeting?' It was at that point that I knew we would move into a boycott mode," said Robinson. "Facebook has our demands and recommendations, and so any other meetings need commitments."
In a Facebook post Tuesday morning, Sandberg said the company would release on Wednesday the final report in a two-year-long civil rights audit of the company.
"It has helped us learn a lot about what we could do better, and we have put many recommendations from the auditors and the wider civil rights community into practice," Sandberg wrote. "While we won't be making every change they call for, we will put more of their proposals into practice soon."
Civil rights groups expressed skepticism about the report's likelihood of leading to changes.
"It's only as good as what Facebook ends up doing with the content," said Robinson of Color of Change. "It's like going to a doctor, getting a new set of recommendations about your diet, and not doing anything about it and wondering why you're not any healthier."

Kaya Yurieff contributed to this report.

 

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/07/tech/facebook-civil-rights-meeting/index.html

Facebook Fuels Its Users’ Ignorance With Lies

This article is taken from: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/facebook-ads-politics/

You’d have had to be some kind of evil genius to imagine something as terrible for the world as Facebook. With an estimated 2.6 billion users and $70 billion in annual profits, it is the most effective purveyor in history of right-wing hate, lies, and incitement against vulnerable people and the planet.

He is sorry and that Facebook will try to do better

Is Facebook’s malevolence driven by a thirst for profit or politics? As with Fox News, alas, that’s a false choice, as the two reinforce each other. Facebook makes its money—as newspapers used to—by selling eyeballs to advertisers. But before local news started collapsing, thanks partly to the advertiser exodus to Facebook and Google, newspapers used this model to fulfill their responsibilities to educate readers and hold those in power to account. Facebook does the opposite: It narrows its users’ interests and fuels their ignorance with lies and misinformation.

Every so often, Mark Zuckerberg will issue a statement that implies he is sorry and that Facebook will try to do better. Of course, it never does. According to a study reported by the watchdog website Popular Information, during the first 10 months of 2019, “politically relevant disinformation was found to have reached over 158 million estimated views, enough to reach every reported registered voter in the US at least once.” That pace was accelerating, and guess what: “Most negative misinformation (62%) was about Democrats or liberals.” The incitement of violence remains on Facebook and on the company’s other apps as well. Just recently, BuzzFeed News reported that an ad on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, showed clips from action movies of cops being killed and invited people to “join the militia, fight the state,” to a soundtrack of “We ain’t scared of no police / We got guns too.”

Amplifying lies and selling dangerous targeting

This is no accident. Yaël Eisenstat, Facebook’s former head of global elections integrity, explained in The Washington Post that the company “profits partly by amplifying lies and selling dangerous targeting tools that allow political operatives to engage in a new level of information warfare. Its business model exploits our data to let advertisers custom-target people, show us each a different version of the truth and manipulate us with hyper-customized ads.”

Facebook refuse

Ask yourself: Why does Facebook refuse to apply its gentle fact-checking apparatus to political advertisements?

Why does it include the racist, sexist, anti-Semitic Breitbart as one of its “trusted” news sources?

Why does it continue to allow Holocaust deniers onto its site, and why does Zuckerberg choose to define their poison as mere opinion?

Why did Facebook create a “newsworthiness” category in 2016 when dealing with President Donald Trump’s lies, racism, and hate speech?

Why did Zuckerberg tell employees that a possible Elizabeth Warren presidency represented an “existential” threat to the company? And what will that mean if Joe Biden picks her as his running mate?

Why in May 2019 did Facebook refuse to take down an obviously doctored video that falsely portrayed Nancy Pelosi as acting like a drunk?

“And why, of all things,” asked Bill McKibben in The New Yorker, “did the company recently decide to exempt a climate-denial post from its fact-checking process?”

Unregulated power over elections

Here’s one reason offered by Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School: “Facebook can, by tinkering with its rules for political ads, give itself a special, unregulated power over elections. Just that possibility gives Facebook political leverage and politicians reasons to want leverage over Facebook.” David Thiel, a former Facebook security engineer quoted in the Post, said, “The value of being in favor with people in power outweighs almost every other concern for Facebook.”

Deploying their traditional working-the-refs playbook, Trump and the Republicans have turned truth on its head by casting themselves as victims of the site’s biases. “Facebook was always anti-Trump,” the president has whined, and congressional Republicans and the Department of Justice have threatened legal action to continue this campaign of Orwellian doublespeak.

Facebook’s desire to kowtow to Republicans has been evident at least since 2011, when it hired GOP operative Joel Kaplan as its vice president for global public policy, along with Katie Harbath, a former aide to Rudy Giuliani, and Kevin Martin, a former Republican-appointed FCC chairman, to support Kaplan’s efforts. Kaplan declined to intervene in Facebook’s decision to invite politicians to lie in their paid advertisements. And he has stood in the way of efforts designed to police misinformation because, according to anonymous sources quoted in the Post, he correctly perceived that it would “disproportionately affect conservatives.” Zuckerberg also attended a secret dinner with Trump, Jared Kushner, and the right-wing entrepreneur and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel.

The social sanction is helpful

In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and thanks to efforts by the NAACP, Color of Change, and the Anti-Defamation League, we’ve seen a Facebook advertising pause by more than 970 companies, including Unilever, Coca-Cola, Pfizer, and Starbucks.

The social sanction is helpful. It may inspire employees to try to change policy from within, and as Trump sounds more malignant by the day, it also puts pressure on those at the top to protect their reputations from the poison of his presidency.

Still, the company’s top 100 advertisers provide only 6 percent of its income, while small businesses account for more than 70 percent. And they do not have nearly as many alternatives. Most people I know, myself included, do not want to quit Facebook, especially during a socially isolating pandemic.

So here’s my idea: Let’s just boycott the ads. Don’t click on them. That way, even the small advertisers will have to find new outlets unless Facebook changes its policies. Spread the word… via Facebook.

This article is taken from: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/facebook-ads-politics/

Page 1 of 2

| Creare Site Scoala Gimnaziala | Realizare Site Scoala Gimnaziala | Realizare Site Gradinita | Realizare Site Primarie | Realizare Site primarie si institutii |