Mark Zuckerberg argued this week that breaking up Facebook would make it harder for them to crack down on offensive content.
When Facebook says offensive content they mean “conservative” content.
Facebook has suspended Human Events editor-in-chief Raheem Kassam over an 11 YEAR OLD post.
Yes, seriously.https://t.co/vNHA6NgoR9
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) May 23, 2019
Facebook continues to ban, censor and shadowban conservatives while it allows violent leftists and terrorists to run free on the platform.
After the 2016 election Facebook eliminated traffic to the most influential pro-Trump websites.
Mark Zuckerberg does not want to give this power up.
Fortune Magazine:
Government officials and some business people, including a former co-founder, are increasingly calling for Facebook to be broken up. Critics claim the company has too much power and is threatening democracy.
But on Thursday, Zuckerberg, unsurprisingly, argued that breaking up the company solves nothing. He called any suggestion that Facebook is the dominant player in its space is “a little stretch,” never mind that the company dominates social media. Instead, Zuckerberg said that Facebook accounts for less than 10% of the global online ad market. On that basis, Facebook is merely a piker, or at least, that’s what he wants the world to believe.
Zuckerberg then mentioned that breaking up Facebook would only make fighting misinformation and harmful content more difficult. Any smaller company spawned from the breakup, he suggested, would spend less on policing its service, implying that its leader would inevitably choose profits over corporate responsibility.
“The success of this company has allowed us to fund these efforts at a massive level,” Zuckerberg said. “We’re able to do things that are just not possible for other folks to do.”
