Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have responded to dozens of scientists who criticized Facebook for not censoring President Donald Trump’s comments.
More than 160 researchers, who receive funding through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), sent a letter to the couple on Sunday, asking them to reconsider policies regarding people who post misinformation and ‘incendiary language.’
They claimed the current guidelines oppose the Initiative’s goals of using technology to eradicate diseases, improve childhood education and reform the criminal justice system.
In a reply, Zuckerberg and Chan said they were ‘deeply shaken and disgusted by President Trump’s divisive and incendiary rhetoric’ on Facebook.
However, they added the social media platform operates independently from their organization and has its own moderation policies.
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan responded to a letter criticizing Facebook’s moderation policies regarding President Trump. Pictured: Chan and Zuckerberg attend the 2020 Breakthrough Prize Ceremony in Mountain View, California, November 2019
The couple said in a reply that they are ‘deeply shaken and disgusted by President Trump’s divisive and incendiary rhetoric’ (pictured)
‘We take your concerns seriously and to heart,’ the letter, which was shared by Recode reporter Teddy Schleifer, reads.
‘And personally, like you, we are deeply shaken and disgusted by President Trump’s divisive and incendiary rhetoric at a time when our nation so desperately needs unity.
‘Although CZI and Facebook are entirely separate and independent organizations with different missions and teams, we do share the same co-leader. And in this moment, we understand that CZI’s relationship with Facebook is not an easy tension to bridge.’
CZI’s original letter argued that by not censoring Trump’s posts, Facebook was spreading deliberate misinformation
They said that Facebook’s policies are ‘directly antithetical’ to the Initiative’s goal: ‘To find new ways to leverage technology, community-driven solutions, and collaboration to accelerate progress in Science, Education, and within our Justice & Opportunity work.’
They wrote: ‘The spread of deliberate misinformation and divisive language is directly antithetical to this goal, and we are therefore deeply concerned at the stance Facebook has taken.’
Scientists specifically referenced Trump’s May 29 Facebook post in which he wrote ‘when the looting starts, the shooting starts,’ referencing a Miami police chief’s quote from 1967.
When the president posted that very same message on Twitter it was flagged and placed behind a warning due to claims that it ‘glorified violence.’
Facebook, on the other hand, did no such thing and does not have a system in place to flag potentially incendiary posts.
The letter said the post could have easily been flagged as a violation of Facebook’s community standards.
Shortly after the post, Zuckerberg explained his reasoning for leaving it alone.
‘I know many people are upset that we’ve left the President’s posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies,’ he wrote.
Zuckerberg and Facebook have been heavily criticized for not flagging Trump’s posts like Twitter has done in the past. Pictured: Trump hosts a roundtable at Gateway Church Dallas Campus in Dallas, Texas, June 11
Trump’s tweet described looters as ‘thugs’ and warned that the federal government would ‘assume control’ with ‘shooting’ if necessary after protesters set fire to a police precinct
Twitter added a warning to the tweet with a comment that it ‘glorifies violence,’ but Facebook didn’t do the same for the post shared on its platform
In the letter with Chan, the billionaire pledged to “redouble” efforts at CZI to address racial injustice and inequities.
Some Facebook employees have publicly objected to Zuckerberg’s refusal to take down or label misleading or explosive posts by Trump and other politicians.
In fact, on June 1, dozens of employees staged a virtual walkout.
But Zuckerberg – who controls a majority of voting shares in the company – has so far refused.
Last Friday, Zuckerberg said in a post that he would review ‘potential options for handling violating or partially-violating content aside from the binary leave-it-up or take-it-down decisions’
‘I know many of you think we should have labeled the President’s posts in some way last week,’ he wrote.
‘Our current policy is that if content is actually inciting violence, then the right mitigation is to take that content down – not let people continue seeing it behind a flag. There is no exception to this policy for politicians or newsworthiness.’