Introduction: Tuesday morning, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a video conference with 25000 employees. This meeting is mainly to resolve the differences between Facebook and the public in the past week: how to deal with the controversial posts posted by President Donald Trump on Facebook.
Background: In recent days, Facebook employees have publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Zuckerberg to an unprecedented extent. They criticized Zuckerberg's decision not to delete or review Trump's recent posts. In his post, Trump mentioned the continuous protests against racial discrimination and police brutality in the United States, saying that "if you dare to rob, you dare to shoot". Previously, the President had also published posts spreading false information about postal votes. For these posts, the company also decided not to check the facts. Employees are also very dissatisfied.
In the nearly one and a half hour meeting on Tuesday, Zuckerberg first explained the reason and logic for keeping these posts. For example, he said that he did not think that Trump's analogy of the apartheid police in the civil rights era was "sending secret signals (" whistling dogs ") to civilian supporters to incite them to maintain justice by violence". In the subsequent Q&A session, employees put pressure on Zuckerberg to ask him how he came to such a conclusion and whether the company's top management was sufficiently diversified. At a critical juncture in American history, in the face of sharp criticism from so many employees, this dialogue allows us to understand the views of the most influential leader on democracy, speech, racial equality and other issues.
The following is a complete text version of the video conference:
What was your initial decision-making process on how to deal with Trump's controversial posts?
Zuckerberg: First of all, I want to say that this is not a black or white decision, even though I believe that the basic principles on the platform and our policies and evidence really play an important role in making this decision.
However, this is not an easy decision. However, I will quickly review the decision-making process, because I know that many people have questions about this process. Then I will also explain some factors we weigh in the decision-making process. I will sort it out as soon as possible, because I actually said this question briefly on Friday, and other people have also answered it. I also wrote articles specifically for it.
So, at the beginning, President Trump released his post early on Friday morning, when I was still asleep. When the policy team saw it, they began to work with the teams on the East Coast and London to summarize the information and send it to my mailbox. When I wake up in the morning, I can see these analysis contents. Therefore, I can see the team's analysis of the posts and suggestions according to the policy. Then, when I woke up around 7:30 in the morning, I did see this email. The letter lists three possible interpretations of the post and the consequences it will lead to.
The first interpretation is that this is a discussion about the use of force by the states, and we do not prohibit such discussions. In many cases, legally, the states have the right to use force, and the discussion of this and even the discussion of related threats are within the scope of our policy. In addition, the team believes that this is the most possible interpretation and the most reasonable interpretation.
The second is the prediction of future violence. If someone says, "If this happens, that will happen", this does not necessarily mean that the person is trying to encourage or appeal for something to happen. Of course, this is also within the scope of our service terms. Then, the team believes that this is the second possible way of interpretation.
Finally, there is the third interpretation, that is, inciting violence, that is, directly calling for violence. Of course, you also know that if we define it as inciting violence, then we will not hesitate to delete the post. And I want to make it clear that we follow the policy of zero tolerance with regard to the content of incitement to violence, without any exception of news value or political figures. We will explain this in detail later. But there is a very important nuance here, because if someone calls for violence, then - keep the content, but mark it - whether it is the right measure remains to be explored.
In fact, if someone really tries to incite violence, I think, generally speaking, people will want to delete posts. Moreover, our policy of inciting violence does have some obvious precedents when people must call for violence or target specific individuals. Globally, there are many examples of government officials. In these examples, we have deleted posts. For example, some legislators called on the police to intervene, remove and kill the protesters to restore social order. This is clearly inciting and calling for violence. We deleted posts. There are similar examples in India. For example, someone said, "If the police don't care about this, our supporters will step in and clean up the streets." This is to encourage supporters to take direct action, and we also deleted posts. Therefore, we have precedents to follow in this regard.
By the way, we have deleted Trump's posts before. Personally, I think many people have deliberately ignored this point. But at the beginning of the year, Trump - or his campaign team - put a lot of advertisements, and we thought there was wrong information in them, so we deleted them. Therefore, obviously, we did not allow him to say what he wanted, nor did we allow government officials or legislators to say what they wanted. We also have rules on how to characterize and incite violent speech. We fully considered various factors, and finally thought that these rules did not fully apply to this post.
Why do you think Trump's "dare to rob and shoot" against the protesters has not been interpreted as the history of "whistling dogs to civil violence"?
Zuckerberg: So after basically getting to know the situation, I spent the rest of the day communicating with the team, communicating with different people, understanding the opinions of different people, including convening different people in the company, and considering many different opinions in the initial policy analysis. We will talk about this later.
However, in this discussion, even in the initial evaluation, we also believe that the posts should not be deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to answer these questions: "What is the most likely debate about why this belongs to the content of inciting violence?" So we studied the history of comments on "dare to rob, dare to shoot", and then we found that this is undoubtedly a disturbing historical rhetoric and quotation, whether it involves inciting supporters to take violent acts or not. Then after our research, we think that after I read all the content and communicated with different people, this quotation obviously involves radical public security maintenance - even excessive public security maintenance - but there is no historical theory that can be interpreted as sending a secret signal ("whistling dogs") to civilian supporters to incite them to maintain justice by violence. But I did spend a lot of time discussing all the different arguments, such as why this might go beyond the boundary. Then I thought deeply and found that there was a great risk in this issue. And I also know that if we decide to keep the post, many people will be very disappointed.
But after some ideological struggle, I still can't make the decision to delete posts. I can't do this, even though I personally dislike the content, even though I know many employees will oppose it. In my opinion, the principles on our platform, the guidelines on our management platform, our policies, etc., all indicate that the correct measure we should take is to retain posts.
Policies on adjusting Facebook
Zuckerberg: Since we mentioned this question, are these policies correct? How can we deal with this situation in the future? Also, one thing I found is that many other people's first reaction is "Why must it be black or white?" Isn't it? Why must I choose between "deleting posts" and "keeping posts"? In fact, I don't think anyone has deleted this post. Twitter No posts were deleted. I don't think most people will think it is necessary to delete posts.
About discussing your decision with Trump
Zuckerberg: Sorry, in this decision-making process, there is a very important point to be clear to everyone, that is, there are many rumors and media reports that we have contact with the White House. Then I want to clarify what happened. The fact is that early that morning, our policy team contacted the White House, hoping to confirm that the White House understood our policies and tell them our concerns about the post and whether it violated our policies. What happened next was that they attached great importance to it. Later that day, after we had almost decided how to deal with the content, the President called me. I took this opportunity to make sure that he understood my views on the content. I think the content of this post is divisive, provocative and not beneficial. But I still want to make sure that the details of the decision-making process are frank and sincere, and I am willing to explain it again.
What will you do in the future?
Zuckerberg: Let me talk about what I think we should do in the future. I know that there are many discussions about this, so don't take what I'm saying as the final result. I just want to take this opportunity to share my views on how our systems and processes can be improved and in what areas.
First of all, I want to say something that I think can be improved. First, it is specifically about this decision. Second, how can we improve overall decision-making. Third, we should focus on the positive work we can do on racial equality and citizens' right to speak. Let me start with strategic matters related to policies.
Facebook's policy on the use of force against states
Zuckerberg: I know that there is a real problem that needs to be solved in our policy. That is, I just mentioned that the discussion on the use of force by states is within the scope of our policy. I know that there are many good reasons. But what we are seeing now is that the excessive use of force by the police, in particular, accounts for a large part of the problem. What I want to make sure is that we do not want to create an environment where our policy, on the one hand, allows discussion and allows the police to intervene to take law enforcement actions, and on the other hand, prohibits people from discussing the negative side of things.
I also hope that we can keep a balance on the topic of the use of force by the states, because obviously not all the forces used by the states are legal. I think we need to ensure that there are relevant policies for this, especially in the period when domestic unrest may last for a long time, so that we can look ahead and formulate a complete policy that can reflect the current situation of our country.
How to explain the new challenges brought by the epidemic to the election that Facebook's voter suppression policy is not ready?
Zuckerberg: This is another policy issue. The related fact is that our current situation is different from the months before the outbreak. Since the outbreak of the epidemic, murder and protest, everything has been different. And this issue, unlike violence, involves another controversial post about voting and elections.
I think at the moment, it is clear that we are still in the epidemic period, and this November's general election is bound to be slightly different from previous years. But since 2016, we have done a lot of work on elections and election integrity, which has led to better performance.
In the face of this election, I think we have done a good job in preparation. But the epidemic has also changed a lot. This means that there will be many new changes in the way people vote, as well as many fears and uncertainties. But what I hope is that our voter suppression policy is in line with the new developments in the real world, so that we can ensure that our policy covers all things that may harm or suppress voting during this extraordinary period. So this is the second aspect.
For Facebook, the controversial posts issued by global leaders such as Trump can be labeled as "non alternative"
Zuckerberg: The third thing we often talk about is exploring the possibility of labeling content as "non alternative". I carefully analyzed why this is not the right way for me. But I know there is a lot of discussion within the company. I know many smart guys are thinking about this, that is, whether we can try some new ideas that we have never tried before. For me, this is at least a signal, and I hope to hear these new ideas. I also hope to have the opportunity to communicate with them, understand your ideas, and see if there are different solutions to this in the future.
Then I want to make it clear that I don't want to make too many commitments here, because I really think our current position is reasonable and principled. But I also know that there are many smart people using their brains. This is an area worthy of further follow-up.
About improving decision making
Zuckerberg: I have heard a lot of suggestions on improving decision-making. I think we can try to improve more later. The second is transparency, ensuring that the decision-making process and process are transparent and open. It's better to know what different issues are included in the email I received, and what different teams are involved. I think that if most people in the company understand our decision-making process, they should be satisfied. We are also trying to integrate various views and functions into it. And I often do it myself, but these are included in this process. I just hope that normalization and higher transparency will be more helpful.
About what you could have done better
Zuckerberg: For example, if I could do it again, I would like to send a short email to everyone last Friday morning, telling everyone that we are studying this matter, and they can learn my decision in five to six hours, because I need a lot of time to think about this matter, to ensure that I have considered various reasons, I have fully read various historical backgrounds and received suggestions from different people, such as external civil rights consultants. Therefore, I believe that higher transparency can help people better understand the fairness of our decision-making process.
On listening to different opinions in the decision-making process
Zuckerberg: The next one is broader than a certain decision. The content is that, in my opinion, in terms of inclusiveness, it is more important to have the right structure, so as to ensure that you can know when the precedent occurs, whether you have the right diversity, and that everyone is involved in setting the precedent. In this way, when you need to make a decision, it is not only about listening to different opinions on the decision, but also about our hope to have correct opinions before making every decision.
So this is what I want to follow up. We may need to make some organizational adjustments to this. Improve our work on inclusiveness, and ensure that everyone is actively involved not only in decision-making, but also in more other things.
Once again, from the perspective of process, I think we have done a good job in the process at present. But I also believe that there are still some areas that need to be improved, and the organizational structure needs to be adjusted to slightly improve our inclusiveness.
Employees ask: How can employees trust your leadership on these issues?
Facebook employee: The internal PR told us that you only talked to Trump after the news, not before the question and answer on Friday. The most important thing is that public relations posts, Mark's posts and so on all say that you will listen to our opinions, but at the same time, you have not taken corresponding action. More importantly, you don't understand that this is not only about the events that happened last week, but also about the daily life of colored people inside and outside the company. A simple example: Shirley [Sandberg] said that the meeting with civil rights organizations went well, while the other party said that the meeting was terrible, and Facebook did not seem to understand the current situation.
A public director tried to prove to people that it is a positive thing for Facebook to show billions of African Americans killed by the police on our platform. Black activists' legitimate posts were incorrectly tagged by Facebook. My question is, if you lack transparency and do not understand the world outside your own class, how can we trust Facebook's leadership?
Response to employees' trust issues
Zuckerberg: Yes, I understand that. I mean, I want to emphasize three things. One is that we are trying to be as transparent as possible. We made a decision on Friday, which was a difficult process, so I spent a whole day on it. Then we made a decision, carried out thorough communication, recorded the specific explanation, and let the staff discuss before Friday afternoon. So I think that although we try to take action as soon as possible, it is a difficult decision. At the same time, we also need to convey our ideas as soon as possible. There is tension between the two. I think we can do better. I could have understood more clearly what we are doing, and I could have announced this news to you in just a few hours. However, we did.
Many of our executives are trying to do Q&A. Schroepfer [Facebook Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer] did a Q&A yesterday, and today it's my turn. I believe we will continue our discussion.
We are trying to be as transparent as possible, although I know there are still many problems. In terms of the decision-making process, I think this is one of the things we want to continue to follow up to ensure that the content of the policy briefing is highly transparent. Whose opinion does the decision come from? Who was there when I made a decision? We want to be transparent to our employees about such things.
I usually think that when we provide more transparency, there will be better results. Of course, this does not mean that there is no place for improvement, but I think people may feel good about some of these processes, even if the results are not what they really want. Um... I'm sorry.
So the question you asked me is actually, how can employees trust leaders' decision-making intentions. I mean, on this issue, I know many people will disagree with the decision itself. I think I can understand.
You know, not everyone will agree with this decision, and I am not disappointed with this fact. I think people have different ways of doing things, and they can also reasonably give completely different evaluation results on something.
I think this is a good thing, allowing for many different views. I also know that this result will not be completely one-sided, and many people will agree with this decision. Even if they don't want to express their opinions loudly inside the company now.
As far as the leader's decision-making intention is concerned, I mean, I really think this is an important thing. As you can see, the CEOs of all enterprises in the United States now stand up and say, "Well, yes, the life of black people is important. We stand with the black community." I mean, I think it's important to say these words and remind people to say them, but I don't think it takes any special courage to say these words, especially in the event of a major crisis.
I think what I hope people can see is that we began to pay attention to these issues before I and other leaders were concerned by the news media, and from the day I shouted "Chan Zuckerberg Initiative". We have always believed that justice and opportunity are the cornerstone of the country. In terms of racial justice, I believe that the interaction with the criminal justice system is one of the areas where racism has the greatest differential impact, which is also a key issue that needs to be addressed urgently. This problem involves many aspects.
I really think these views are reasonable. In fact, this is something that I have discussed with many people inside and outside the company for a long time. We have had many conversations. This decision is not the first policy decision we made around this issue. I think the overall atmosphere of our company is quite positive, because it gives those marginalized groups a voice. I think we should create a context for people to feel that I am not a stranger. Although I am not as familiar with some things as those who live here every day, I am not new here and know nothing about everything. That's part of what people think about leadership and how you think about it.
Then it is about how you view your company, the values of your company, and the overall moral impact of corporate culture on employee behavior. I think there are many people who want to push us to do more in different directions, but the reality is that we are a very important communication platform.
The motivation of almost all communities is to push us to work as hard as possible for charity. This is very good, and they should do the same, which is reasonable. However, this "push" has led us into such a state that it is difficult for us to do everything that anyone, any political party, wants. So basically, in the end, all the teams were very dissatisfied with us on various issues. Because of this, they are more likely to publicize the negative things that we have not done, rather than applaud the good things we have done.
I think we have witnessed a living example this week, and I have mentioned it several times here. That is to say, this discussion is overwhelming. It is all about whether we should lower the power of Trump's blog. I know this matter is very important for the whole world. I also know that it is very important for our employees and many people in the community to know who we stand with. They take this matter as a signal, although I don't think this matter should be interpreted in this way.
In fact, I think the video of the murder was released through Facebook because our service gives people the right to speak, which has had a huge impact. I just want to say that I hope people don't just look at the moral impact of what we do from the perspective of mitigating harm. Of course, reducing injuries is also a very important part of what we must do. I am not ignoring this. We have spent a lot of resources on this matter. Thousands of people are working for this goal, and we also spend billions of dollars every year on it.
However, we should also give people an unprecedented way to understand and discuss events, so that the voice of pain can be heard. I think this is also very important. I think this is my view on all these things.
Employee question: How many black and other colored employees participated in the decision to take action against Trump's blog that criticized the protesters as "thugs" and hinted that they would be "shot"?
Zuckerberg: I don't know the exact number. But I can tell you that this is only a preliminary policy briefing. I know that there are several black employees in the team who focus on ensuring that we have diversity in the process of generating ideas. Then, when I get people together, it becomes a small team, because we have to have fruitful conversations with eight or nine people.
Mark Xin [Mark Xin, Head of Facebook Global Diversification Department· Williams (Maxine Williams)] We stayed there for several hours, and we have been working hard. Personally, I am very concerned about her opinions and what she has heard, so I personally called her to make sure she knows that I have such opinions. At the same time, we also received briefings from external civil rights consultants and similar people, as well as comments from many people via email, including some people of color. So, I don't know the exact number, but there may be ways to further improve this matter. But in fact, I think that if you can understand this process, they will not be depressed about this part of the work.
In fact, I think the part that we can do better is that there are obviously a series of precedents and decisions that lead to the right approach in this case. Although I believe that there must be black employees and people representing the interests of diversified institutions involved in the decision-making process, all these things emphasize that we need to strengthen the importance of corporate diversification rights and interests, and ensure that this part really participates in all kinds of decision-making. In this way, you will not only solve specific problems when you encounter them, but you have established the infrastructure framework. All these include inclusiveness at an appropriate level, because as I said, giving people a chance to speak is our primary task and principle, as well as for every employee. This is very important, and we attach great importance to it.
Questions about future Trump blog labels and who participated in the decision-making process
Facebook employee: You have roughly answered my question, but why can we only choose between binary opposites, and there is no middle ground between the two. So before continuing our discussion, I want to make sure that you have considered how to deal with these blogs and views, such as labeling some blogs with violent remarks on Facebook.
Zuckerberg: Yes, and I need to clarify. So far, I know that many thoughtful people are doing this. I'm going to take some time to finish these. I don't mean that I have sat down and studied all the coping methods and views, because I haven't had the opportunity to do so. Now, what I want to say is that many people are paying attention to this problem. I think it is a reasonable problem. Many smart people are paying attention to it. Therefore, I want to learn from them, and their ideas and opinions deserve my in-depth consideration.
Facebook employee: Great. So my next question is related to how you make decisions. It is also related to the previous question. I still think you are a little vague about who participated in the decision and whether you are the final decision maker. Therefore, I would like you to tell me exactly which senior executives participated in these meetings, which small circles were formed by which teams, which teams were the people who participated in the decision-making, who they represented, and their voting position on this issue, because I really want to know who participated in this matter at the end. As you said, increasing transparency is good for the decision-making process, so I think employees will be happy to hear this.
Zuckerberg: Yes, of course. Well, I think these people are basically the ones you expect, and I'll make sure I don't mistake anyone. If I miss someone, I will continue to follow up. This is what you expect: Shirley [Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer], Nick [Nick Clegg, Facebook's global affairs director], Marco Xin, and Joel [Joel Kaplan, Facebook's senior vice president]. On some sensitive issues to employees, there is Laurie; On some legally sensitive issues, there is Jennifer [Jennifer Newstead, Facebook's general counsel]. I'm not sure if I missed any other members. Oh, Monika Bickert, who is the team leader responsible for developing content strategies.
Facebook employee: I don't know exactly. If I'm wrong, correct me. Except Maxine, all the people you listed above are white, right?
Zuckerberg: Yes, that's right.
Facebook employees: In these decision-making circles, there is only one black woman, that's all. In addition, you also launched a very good plan. I am proud of my work. This is the integrity team, which is responsible for voter repression, social violence and
Zuckerberg: I'm sorry. I believe that Guy [Guy Rosen, Vice President of Integrity] is also among them. Sorry, I think that's all.
Facebook employee: So I joined Guy's Q&A this morning.
Zuckerberg: Maybe he isn't. Actually, I'm not sure if he is.
Facebook employee: So I don't think we know whether the Vice President of Integrity has participated in a decision on an issue involving voter repression and social violence. This may not be good, right?
Zuckerberg: Well, yes, I think you should make sure that you consider the views of others on this issue. I think I should say his opinion that his role may be more about enforcement, such as establishing these systems to ensure that we can perform well, rather than specifically weighing content strategy decisions. But what I mean is that Guy is a very considerate person. He is definitely a person I want to ensure that I listened to him in this process.
Facebook staff: OK, so in the future, with the escalation of such events, will Guy or my team representatives more participate in the decisions that directly affect this event?
Zuckerberg: Yes, although what I want to say is that I think it is Monica Bicott's team who does policy analysis. Sorry, I just missed you. I don't know if you are still here. But Monica Bicott's team is mainly responsible for formulating content policies to measure different rights and interests, give people a voice, and avoid harm, so as to ensure that we can serve everyone. So that voice must exist, and then she will listen to opinions from different people, just like Shirley and other people, when we discuss this issue, listen to their opinions.
So I think I can hear all the different views. You know, I would say back, well, we really didn't guarantee the correctness of the process. If so, if someone puts forward some background or questions after I make a decision, I will think, "Hey, I haven't thought about this problem before" or, "Wow, if I think about it, maybe our decision will be different".
I certainly don't feel this way when I am here. I think everyone is strict in the whole process. I think all the arguments have been taken into account. I don't think many people will say, "Wow, I really didn't think about this before."
So I think in this case, the decision-making process is quite strict. I think we can do better in transparency and ensure that people have an understanding of the procedures in this regard. But I think this part is different from the judgment people make when they give all the information at the end.
Employees' questions about Facebook's acceptance of national violence rules
Facebook employee: OK. I am very pleased to hear that there is still enough room for us to review and modify this provision, that is, the posts of State actors on State support for the use of force should be retained. I'm very curious about what you think the limit of this regulation should be, and how you view the global impact. For example, the police are state actors, so under the current rules, if the police chief uses their platform, for example, you know, send a team to the black community to shoot black people. So, is this still the use of state force under our rules? Similarly, in Turkey, if Erdogan commands the army to shoot Kurds, is it legitimate to use state force? Will this also be preserved?
So I'm curious. Considering what we have done in Myanmar, we have removed the generals from our platform. What do you think is the difference between these events? Finally, history shows that violence against vulnerable groups - even against soldiers or police officers - by state actors always leads to lynching, because it will lead to a vulnerable group that everyone can take violence against. From the Holocaust, Erdogan, to the genocide in Myanmar. So, my second question is, do you think that the risk to vulnerable groups has been magnified and the rules should be reviewed.
Zuckerberg: Yes, these are good questions. So I think we need to think about it carefully. I must be careful not to (say the wrong thing). I think this is an area that we need to consider carefully, especially considering that many of our current concerns revolve around excessive security management. This reminds me that this is an area we may need. I think there are two reasons why we need to think about where we are now.
The first reason is that people are worried about excessive law enforcement by the police. Second, our policies in different countries are somewhat different. For example, some countries you mentioned are in danger or in conflict.
If we enter a period of long-term civil unrest, we need to formulate different policies. We have a precedent in this regard. For example, the company has deleted the wrong information about COVID-19, because it represents a public health emergency, and excessive law enforcement can also be regarded as an emergency.
So more content will be classified as harmful error information, and we may want to delete these information. I think there may be something similar here, which is an analogy we should consider.
But in view of the current situation, I feel uneasy about changing the policy on Friday. One reason is that the situation is unstable, and the turbulence in the United States is still continuing and escalating. Second, these policies must be formulated.
You mentioned some examples of many countries in the world, where the cultural and historical backgrounds are so different. You want to get opinions from many different groups and international organizations and all these things, but we can't do that for the time being, nor can we put the negative impact greater than the positive impact in the right place.
Therefore, the way we deal with this problem is to make efforts to strictly and continuously update policies. When problems arise, we try to implement them in our framework and infrastructure, constantly reassessing and enhancing what we have.
So, I think this is a long and difficult idea, and I don't know when it will be implemented, but that's why I think it needs to be reconsidered. How can we make changes at this point? I think we are entering a new stage together with the United States.
Sorry, let me clarify. I think the potential and continuous conflict will become a new reality. Unfortunately, I think the excessive use of police force is not a new reality. This is what our policy should do, and I also want to ensure that we can have another kind of thinking.
Facebook employees: Who is eligible to get California votes? This is the catalyst for Trump's controversial post. I will try to be as simple as possible, but because I want to quote some policies, it will be slightly extended. The policy clearly stipulates who can vote, whether the vote should be included, and what information and materials should be submitted when voting. The policy does not allow lying on these issues. In addition, we do not allow distortion of voting methods or voter registration methods.
Trump posted a post on Facebook (I don't know whether he also sent such a message on Twitter), saying that the governor of California sent votes to millions of people, no matter where they live in California, no matter who they are, no matter how they get there, they can get a vote. In my opinion, this description obviously distorts the voting method and deliberately distorts who can vote, because it implies that anyone in California can vote, regardless of the voter registration status.
If I take a wait-and-see attitude towards voter registration, I may not bother to register. After all, Trump claims that anyone can get a vote. As a result, voter registration will be suppressed.
My question is this: Why do the smartest people in the world insist on controlling or distorting our policies, and do not want to offend Trump? We should try to improve social problems, which is the right choice?
Zuckerberg: I will take a moment to answer your policy questions. In my opinion, there is a dispute about the postal ballot, but it is so important that this is the real problem, and we need to pay attention to it; It is even more important to mail ballots during the outbreak of the pandemic. If you let the time go back three months, look back at the performance of different people in the past few years, and examine the fairness of the election, do you think it is necessary to argue about postal ballots? I don't think it is necessary to argue, because although different people will interfere in the election, the mailing of votes is not the focus.
Now is the period of pandemic, which is an unprecedented new reality, so we must consider it based on reality. How to vote? Everyone was afraid that they might be infected if they went to the polling place. Therefore, we should explain the policy of voter repression separately. There are two things I pay special attention to, and of course there may be others.
The first point you mentioned. Another point is, what kind of postal ballot policy should be adopted in different states? There are debates around policy issues. From the current situation, different states have different policies. Everyone can have absentee votes. However, how governors send or distribute them and how they operate in different places are different laws in different states around these issues. Now we should pay more attention to policy debate.
You can participate in the argument. If the president or others accuse the governor of doing something wrong (politicians always accuse each other of doing something wrong), we should try not to talk about legislation, such as whether what he said is true, we should not judge by law, nor should we arbitrarily judge whether what the governor did is illegal.
If what we said gives voters the impression that it seems that mailing votes is fraud, should not vote, and does not need registration, which is what we need to care about and worry about. What you said has this tendency.
It is very important to mail ballots and elections. It would be better if there were a set of clear guidelines, such as what are the arguments about policies, where are the appropriate places to mail ballots, and whether they have crossed the line. When someone says, "No, now you are not talking to the governor of California, nor arguing about policies; you are talking to individuals, and your actions may confuse everyone." Doing so is crossing the line.
How to interpret this sentence? From the current situation, it cannot be considered that it wants to influence individual decisions. It does not encourage people not to register or not to vote. It is more biased towards policy decisions, that is, how to mail votes. I think this is what we should consider.
On the issue of voter repression, I also have some concerns. After all, when we are getting closer to the election, some people may only care about health, while others encourage certain people or people in certain regions not to go to the polling places. We can't distinguish these groups.
This is a very difficult problem. It is really difficult to distinguish the two situations at the policy level. I'm worried about that. Different groups in different regions may have discussions, for example, they may say, "Hey, if you come here to vote, you may face a great health risk." The conversation does not explicitly encourage or discourage users to do something, but just speaks out their confusion and fear, which alone has contributed to worry.
In short, we believe that it is the most important to re-examine and think deeply about the policies of a certain place. Voter centers are also very important. We should build some voter centers. We are studying it. It is a bit like the COVID-19 Epidemic Center. There is authoritative information in it. No matter what you say, there is a place you can trust. Here you can find real and accurate information. Here you can know how to register and whether you have successfully registered, Know what you can do. In short, we hope that citizens can participate as much as possible.
Facebook employee: Hello, Mark, thank you for everything. I found that our office area is a bit chaotic now. Some employees stand with you, Sandberg, and M-team. You must make difficult decisions. Employees support these decisions. Colleagues are worried. We hope that colleagues understand that we are not indifferent to their concerns. How can employees express these concerns?
Zuckerberg: That's a good question. At this moment, we should devote ourselves to promoting racial equality. I also hope that everyone thinks that we have done the right thing in terms of expression and balance of rights and interests, and that they deeply feel that this is a safe place. They can express their views. Everyone's voice is valuable and invaluable in the long run.
As time goes by, we will add more and more policies and restrictions. Although every policy is thoughtful and good, and we also clearly described the harm, I still think it is necessary to express and voice, because when everyone says it is good, no one will ask to remove it. When something is controversial, your intuition will tell you: "Let's restrict it more strictly." Then the policy will be more strict, and finally benefit everyone. Thank you. Thank you for talking about this.
Facebook employee: Hello, Mark, this is the last question. When you talk about not hurting and freedom of speech, they will intersect with the polarization of the platform. To be specific, freedom of expression is a goal. Polarization brings about concern. There is conflict between the two. What do you see from it and what do you think about it?
Zuckerberg: Thank you for asking this question. To give everyone a voice is the core part of our mission. Our mission is mainly composed of three parts. Let individuals speak up, let individuals build communities, give them the power and rights to unite a group of people and unite them with what they care about in daily life, so as to make the world more closely connected. In short, our mission is to let everyone build a community and let the world unite more closely.
Let the world unite more closely. This is the third part. What it says is to reduce the degree of polarization. If the people are highly divided and opposed to each other, the world cannot be closer. This is something we care about. We work for this goal. We are working hard. This is the last question. Let me talk more about it.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that many analysts had taken out research reports to prove that our products might exacerbate polarization, and said that we had done nothing about this problem. To be honest, I don't agree with this statement. In order to solve the problem of polarization, we have done a lot of things. I also gave reporters many examples. For example, we adjusted the ranking of NewsFeed. Compared with the connection between users, news can promote polarization. Adjusting the ranking can make the news displayed more credible and reduce the popularity of some news. In addition, we also adjusted group recommendation to ensure that marginal and conspiratorial content is not recommended to users. If it does not violate our policy, you can find such groups, but we will not encourage them to expand.
I can give more examples to prove that we have been working hard. We are very concerned about this issue and will continue to study it. Of course, it does not mean that individual researchers or individual engineers put forward an idea or a problem, or come up with a set of solutions that can alleviate the problem. We should agree with them, feel that this is correct, and should do so. Some schemes are more effective than others, but they have side effects. We must consider priorities. In any case, this question is very important.
Recently we saw some research reports, and I think it is necessary to briefly introduce them. First of all, the report mentioned an important point, that is, the polarization has many different aspects. Some polarization is good, while others are bad. The two extremes of health are good, which is equivalent to a jury arguing and making a decision. At first, there were nine people, each with different views, and then gradually polarized. With different factions, there were many fewer views. Then they argued, hoping to reach a consensus, polarization first, then consensus. This phenomenon is very common in society. When everyone finds consensus, all groups will act in unison.
Many scholars believe that this process is not necessarily bad. What is bad? When the group polarization, began to hate each other, or have negative feelings towards each other, that is a bad thing. Scholars will use the so-called "emotional polarization" to evaluate, that is, one group has negative feelings towards another group. Scholars will use some methods to evaluate, such as asking everyone: "Will you let your children marry someone in Group X? Will you be happy if your children marry someone in Group X?"
I have seen many internal research reports that prove that using social media is beneficial in many aspects, such as making people more tolerant and more comprehensive.
Recently, Stanford researchers also published a report on the polarization of countries. They found that different countries have different polarization trends. For example, in Europe, the degree of polarization in some countries is basically the same, some countries have eased, and the United States has become more serious. In conclusion, the report draws a conclusion that all these countries have social media and the Internet, and their impacts are different. Social media or the Internet are unlikely to be the main reason for polarization.
We are very concerned about this issue. Our mission is to make individuals stronger, let your voice be heard by everyone, let everyone unite, build communities, make society more closely connected, and finally make the world more closely connected. So we are concerned about this problem and will try our best to solve it. We are already taking action. I am convinced that there are some positive effects in our products and some negative effects in some places. We will try our best to reduce the negative effects. We pay close attention to this issue. Even if the overall effect is positive or neutral, we will also care about it. In short, there are still many areas that can be improved.
I don't know if what I said is satisfactory to you. It's really good to talk about our mission, because many people outside the company have doubts about it. To be frank, we have seen some reports and done a lot of work. Many statements from outside have not been supported by the report, and our efforts have been ignored.
Facebook employee: Thank you for answering my question.
Zuckerberg: One and a half hours, thank you for listening. We will continue our discussion. Some problems are deep and will not disappear soon. We did play a very important role. I know that it is impossible for everyone to agree with everything we do. But there are many things we can do.
I hope we can find some ways to let everyone participate in a positive way. Even if every decision is not satisfactory, we can still let everyone inside and outside form a feeling that many things we do have a positive net impact on the world. I am convinced that this is indeed the case.
I am convinced that today we have given many people a chance to speak out, otherwise they would have to remain silent. It is often controversial to let people speak up, because sometimes you have to stand up for those opinions that you disagree with personally. Nevertheless, as time goes by, I believe that this will be beneficial to our community. Thank you all for participating in the dialogue, and we will continue to do so. My heart is filled with all of you. I hope you are safe. Don't wait too long. We will meet soon.
