Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Social Media
  3. News

Mark Zuckerberg explains why Facebook didn’t block Trump’s Minnesota post

Add as a preferred source on Google

 

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed criticism Friday about why the social network did not block or remove President Donald Trump’s post about the protests in Minneapolis over the murder of George Floyd — the same post Twitter said it hid because the tweet “glorified violence.”

Recommended Videos

Unlike Twitter, Facebook did not make it a point to preface Trump’s posts with a fact-check label or public interest notice.

Following a bombastic week where Twitter first uncharacteristically flagged the president’s mail-in ballot tweet for misinformation, and then the president, in return, slapped an executive order on all social media platforms, Zuckerberg was called out for saying Facebook would not be “arbiters of truth.”

On Friday, after some deliberation, Zuckerberg wrote that he felt he had a responsibility to explain himself, “not just in my personal capacity but as the leader of an institution committed to free expression.”

trump versus mark zuckerberg
Getty Images/Digital Trends Graphic

Zuckerberg addressed Trump’s post on Facebook about the Minneapolis protests. where he wrote, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

“Although the post had a troubling historical reference, we decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force,” he wrote. “Our policy around incitement of violence allows discussion around state use of force, although I think today’s situation raises important questions about what potential limits of that discussion should be.”

Zuckerberg also pointed out Trump’s eventual clarification to the post, saying: “The President later posted again, saying that the original post was warning about the possibility that looting could lead to violence.”

Because of that clarification, Zuckerberg said the post did not ultimately violate Facebook’s community guidelines.

“We decided that this post, which explicitly discouraged violence, also does not violate our policies and is important for people to see,” he said.

The tech exec also made it a point to address Facebook’s decision toward the president’s rhetoric as opposed to Twitter’s.

“Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician,” he wrote.

“These are difficult decisions and, just like today, the content we leave up, I often find deeply offensive,” Zuckerberg added.

Zuckerberg’s comments, although unsurprising in nature, came just hours after The Verge reported that Facebook employees urged the company to remove Trump’s post. One employee reportedly said, “If we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly.”

Friday’s post seems to contradict earlier statements Zuckerberg made in a congressional hearing to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

"If anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause, that is calling for violence or could risk imminent physical harm…. we will take that content down."

Zuckerberg told @AOC a few months ago.https://t.co/jANwJdhgmz pic.twitter.com/sbq4gw86n7

— Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) May 29, 2020

“If anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause, that is calling for violence or could risk imminent physical harm […], we will take that content down.”

Zuckerberg concluded his Friday post by saying, “I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately, accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.”

Meira Gebel
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Meira Gebel is a freelance reporter based in Portland. She writes about tech, social media, and internet culture for Digital…
Instagram scammers are holding creators’ accounts hostage with copyright strikes
Meta’s copyright system is being weaponized against the creators it’s supposed to protect
A person holding a phone with the Instagram app open on it.

Imagine waking up to find your Instagram account suspended because someone claims you stole their content. You might know that the claim is false, but appealing it could take weeks. If you're a content creator, each day offline could cost you money. Meanwhile, the person behind the complaint offers to make the problem disappear for just a few hundred dollars.

According to a new BBC investigation, Instagram creators are being hit with this new online racket. Scammers are filing bogus copyright complaints and demanding payment to withdraw them, exploiting the fact that repeated claims can put an account at risk of suspension. The account owner may still have their password and login credentials, but that does little good when their content or account has been taken offline.

Read more
Social media users in Australia might get freedom from algorithms. I want it for us all.
Big Tech may soon have to give Australians more say over what lands in their feeds.
iPhone showing social media apps

Australians might soon get to hit the off switch on the algorithm running their social media feed. According to a BBC report, draft legislation set to land this week would force platforms to hand users that choice, and honestly, I believe every country deserves this option.

Why is the government pushing this now?

Read more
Instagram will limit reach for AI influencers who skip AI-generated label on their profile
Instagram tightens AI influencer disclosure rules with a clearer profile label
instagram-ai-generated-profiles

Instagram just drew a hard line around AI influencers pretending to be real people. The platform is renaming its old AI creator label to AI-generated profile, and this time it comes with penalties too. Accounts featuring a fully AI-generated person will see their reach cut if they skip the label, meaning your feed is about to get a lot more honest about who is actually behind the account.

So what counts as an AI-generated profile?

Read more