The most voice to the most people: Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook’s goals

Is Facebook a global public utility? A for-profit business? A necessity of modern life? A vile and dangerous entity? Some combination of the above? Whatever it is (or isn’t), Facebook does grow, evolve, and respond to all manner of changing conditions and events. Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg explains two new policy statements in this March 2015 post to his public page.

Read it here: Zuckerberg, "About Community Standards”

 

1. Zuckerberg’s statement addresses both the Global Government Requests Report and the Community Standards policy statement that had been released earlier that day. To which of these items does Zuckerberg give more attention? Should he have focused more on the other document? Why or why not?
2. Zuckerberg mentions that Facebook has had interactions with various national governments, but he doesn’t provide any specific examples. Why might he have chosen to omit them? Would his argument have been strengthened if he had included specific examples? Why or why not?
3. Read (or re-read) Gladstone & Neufeld’s essay in Chapter 17 of your text, and pay particular attention to their discussions of homophily and incestuous amplification. Would they consider Facebook to be an example of one or both of those concepts? Why or why not? Reload the page with Zuckerberg’s statement several times, and pay attention to the ads that accompany the page. How well do they align with your personal interests and characteristics? Compare ad lists with several classmates: what are the similarities and differences between your lists? How easily can you explain the comparisons?
4. Facebook’s goal, as Zuckerberg states, is to “give the most voice to the most people,” and he adds that threats of violence and bullying are examples “where one person exercising their voice may unfairly limit the voices of many others.” Do you agree with this explanation of why threats and bullying are problematic? Write an essay in which you elaborate on the effects of cyberbullying and threats of violence, and discuss how, if at all, the problem should be handled. Use Zuckerberg as your They Say, and support your argument with one or more relevant examples.

Comments

[maree]

Zuckerberg focused a lot more of his attention to the Community Standards policy over the Global Government Requests Report. I do not believe he should have focused more on the Global Government Requests Report because i believe it does not apply to us, civilians. Zuckerberg probibly ommitted the other governments at thier request and i do not believe it would have strengthend his argument.

[Cat Allen]

Because Zuckerberg has a limit to give the people with Facebook accounts, I agree with his opinion on how Facebook shoud allow citizens to still have a voice. Facebook, a social network which gives plenty of information, fiction and non-fiction, should serve as an opportunity to give civilians a voice- whether it's offensive or not. I believe citizens should have the right to voice their opinion or give any information and it should be their decision to what degree it's taken to. Since there are restrictions to what can be said or posted, it's not making the community connected nor open because true feelings may not have been said. For example, there's ONE idea and two people that have opposing ideas- even though conflict or annomosity may occur, there is a possibilty of one understanding the other or both having an idea of where the other person is coming from. However, cyberbullying is common and in order to prevent that, Zuckerberg follows the government's regulations. Which is something I could eventually come to realize how that's important, but for the time being, it's irrelevat. Even though that may seem a little harsh, there is reasoning behind it. If people are able to visually offend people by posting drugs, bi-sexual, or straight ppl, etc. then why is written offense being less successful on the internet?

Question 2: Since Zuckerberg didn't mention any of the national governments he has had associations with, it does weaken his argument. If he would've included the names of the national govenments, he could've had more support because people go with the group that they favor. Therefore, including that specific group the people would've favored him. Just like politics, it's less likely for a democrat to take sides with a republican versus them taking sides with someone that has something in common with them. of course there are more political parties but that's just an example

[Jose Cevas`]

I believe that Facebook is a voice for everybody. Zukerburg not cliaming their interactions proves that the interactions were not substantial. I do agree with Zukerburg that the amount of bullying on facebook does overlap and hide the voices of the smaller person. Facebook is supposed to be a tool and can be used as one, but has turned to something else. Though Facebook ha had interactions with other national governments, they stil do not play a big part. Facebook only give a voice to the bigger man. Like SZukerburg states, the voice is only given to most men The most men are the people who ate usually the bully or the famous person. Most people are not able to always get their views across with a lot of backlash from the bigger voice.

[Priya Pohani]

Facebook is an open website which is free for all users. People use Facebook to share their thoughts and ideas on various things in their day to day lives. I agree with Zuckerburg as I believe everyone should be allowed to have a medium to share their voice, whether negative or positive. If Facebook is open to all people without any restrictions, people can openly post their thoughts without any hesitation of being punished for their comments. Although I understand cyber bullying has become a huge problem these days, social media is out there to allow for people's opinions to be expressed.In any argument, there are always two sides and these two sides can be seen as either the right or wrong side, depending on the viewer's point of view. The same way on Facebook also when someone may right an "offensive" comment for some, others may see it as a positive comment adding to the discussion. I believe that Facebook is an important globally available tool which can help us learn from other people's thinking.

[Priya Pohani]

*write

[Alexandra Ro]

The purpose of Facebook is to connect people around the world when it is physically impossible to do so. That way, people can still express their thoughts and beliefs on different ideas and current events. I agree with Mark Zuckerberg in his main focus and principle of giving a voice to everyone everywhere. The company chooses not to take down controversial ideas and issues because it sparks awareness and draws people in to express themselves on the topic. The developing connections then furthers various aspects of society. The limit to this, however, is when someone exercises their voice to the point of limiting the voices of other people around them, such as threats. Zuckerberg and his team effectively continue to remove this type of negativity as there is a difference between having a voice and abusing it.

Facebook must also adapt to the many different legal and cultural environments in which they operate. If a certain government orders Facebook to block material that would be prohibited in that area, the company should comply because there is also a chance that the governments may end up blocking the company entirely. This would end up blocking the people's voices in that country as well. Therefore, it would be better to just block the specified material, create new connections between people, and leave it unblocked for everyone else around the world. Although there are both positive and negative features to Facebook, enabling people to gain a voice in modern society surpasses all the obstacles they may face.

[Lakiah McBride]

I believe that Zuckerburg is doing a positive thing for the users on Facebook. His philosophy about giving people a voice to connect to the world and paying close attention to make sure there's no online bullying is a good thing,but Facebook is a widely known social site that many people use on a daily basis, and people post whatever they want legal or illegal, negative or positive. It's they're voice,but belittling people is not what Zuckerburg made site for, all he's trying to do is let everyone everywhere have a voice.

[Joshua Natividad]

Everyone needs a voice. Zuckerburg appeals the the statement as he talks about the Global Government Requests Report and the Community Standards policy. I believe that societies thrive the more open the citizens are when it comes to expressing their ideas. A voice expresses the ideas that people contain. Facebook allows people from all over the world to create a voice and share it all over the world. A voice makes people unique with varying ideas that benefit the world. Its the government requests and community standards that put a slight funnel into the ideas people create. Ideas help thrive a community but for good and bad. By applying the these "funnels" people get to learn the better side, the appropriate side. Various countries differ in what funnels they want. Some get rid of a certain idea, topic, or get rid of Facebook altogether. Everyone need a voice. Facebook helps that voice.

[Sam Williamson]

Facebook exists as a major entity in today's society. It is a toll where any person could create an account, meet people, and present their self to the world. It has created a major impact on how people respond to events, since the access of knowledge and voice is right at their fingertips. I do agree with Facebook in their decision to allow anyone to voice their own opinion, as it connects people with contemporary issues, and beliefs. Unfortunately, though, some people see the power of written words as a way to express negative thoughts onto others, possibly affecting those who see it. However, I don't think trying censor negativity would help or remove the that issue.

In my eyes, the idea of bringing in negativity means that that person's thoughts don't agree with the majority, and add to the discussion of a debate. If a government were to censor the idea of negative thought, it would remove possible knowledge to be added towards the debate. Also, it would shut off people from finding out about these issues, which would not allow the rest of the world to connect with each other. Instead, Facebook should try to find alternatives in communication, or maybe the countries that try to censor Facebook should find other ways as well.

[Brandon Morgan]

It is both a good and bad thing to give everyone a voice. That means both the outspoken socially minded citizen who wants to make the world a better place and the angry idiot who wants to stir up hate. Invariably there will be those who will take the word of each as gospel. But what voice ultimately provides is opportunity. Opportunity that can be used or abused. Opportunity to learn the views, opinions, and ideas of others, so that we can create a better world together. The benefits of giving everyone voice outweigh the risks, so let vocal freedom ring from the flags of Tiananmen square to the impoverished streets of Mexico city. But alas, things are not this simple. The voice is a powerful, expensive weapon, and as most of the like it resides in the hands of only a few. Voices can build or destroy nations, and governments even more so. All government with sense fear the people, and some are afraid they would meet their judgement day if ever their people united and spoke with one voice. And then there are those people who cannot afford to buy their next meal, let alone internet service so that they can have an ideological, intangible "voice". There are many issues we must tackle before we liberate the voice, and keeping the voices peaceful is one of them. The French revolution shows us that people with empty stomachs speak with their fists closed. But I believe that these issues can be resolved. I believe that the world will be a better place with freedom of voice for everyone. LET IT RING!!!!

[Summer Melrose]

Facebook is a place that people generally use to get in touch with old friends, or stay close to current friends, or even make new friends. Most generally it allows for freedom of speech, when it doesn't harm anyone.

Yet, that is not all it is used for. Facebook is a business, and to run a business, you need money. How Facebook gets the money it needs to sustain itself is through scattering advertisements all throughout, and uses our information to assist the people who advertise throughout Facebook.

Not that this is a bad thing, but people must recognize that Facebook isn't just a place where people express their ideas freely, but it is a place that people make a living off of. Because of this, Facebook has no not only appease the wants and needs of the people who express themselves through the site, and the people who pay to advertise on their site, or even the governments who can choose to block

Zuckerberg understands this completely. Whenever he makes changes for a site, he does something that will please all three parties. And if it can't please all three, then he tries to explain it in the best way that he can, like he did in his statement "About Community Standards". He knows that without the happiness of the people who advertise on his site, and without the governments being content with the amount of censorship on the site, we would not be able to have a site where we can express what we want whenever we want.

[CDONG]

Could one make a well-forged argument without specific examples as support? I believe that with enough support with other rhetorical devices and a focus on overarching and more general ideas, very specific examples are not absolutely needed--whether they are a real necessity depends on the subject matter and the rest of the argument. In his statements on Facebook's community standards, Mark Zuckerberg discusses wide concepts, such as the ethics of community guidelines and curbing completely free speech and the importance of having a voice and connecting with the world around you. With his focus in the writing revolving more around general ideas and establishing ethos for Facebook and their dedication to protecting free speech, the company's interaction with global governments was only a detail when he described the obstacles they faced in providing a global platform for peoples' voices. While first giving examples might add a bit more credibility to his argument, it doesn't really stand as something necessary that would impact his point. In addition, mentioning the particular names of the countries faces polarization as an effect. His message is one for people who use the website all over the world and choosing to reveal the governments that had conflicted with Facebook's ideals of free speech could very well offend people and cause controversies. In this case, including specific examples would not add much to what Zuckerberg is trying to convey other than the possibility of anger and hurt among world audiences. The safer option would be to omit them, which is exactly what Zuckerberg did.

[Svea Cheng]

In a modern world centered around technology, Facebook is a unifying force whose hands our future lies in. As Mark Zuckerberg stated it, Facebook is key to global development. His thoroughly thought out decisions are very appropriate given the circumstances at hand. By making Facebook more accessible to people around the world and controversially enough, allowing regulation of its usage, he is changing lives everywhere for the better. It creates an environment for ideas to be brewed and more importantly, gives individuals freedom of expression.

It is evident that in this new age, one of the easiest ways to connect with others is through social media. News, television, newspapers, and magazines are overshadowed by social networking, in particular Facebook. It is easily one of the most convenient ways to interact with others and share everything from family photos to radical beliefs. Consequently, Zuckerberg utilizes the power of Facebook to grant a voice to those who do not have them. It is righteous of him to grant those in restricted positions the ability to speak to the world. By broadening the window of Internet accessibility, he is allowing for those who generally do not have the luxury themselves to finally attain it. This way, more people will be able to connect with the rest of the world. Millions of lives will be changed.

In terms of legal barriers to expression, Zuckerberg also does a fantastic job at making decisions in the best interest of those people. By disregarding government orders, he only increases the risk of banning Facebook. This will only impede his goal to create a more connected global community. However, by respecting different legal and cultural environments around the world, he is actually preventing arbitrary censorship. It is a smart decision to comply to government demands minimally, only when necessary. Using these methods, he is fighting against the barriers placed in front of individuals globally, and freeing their voices.

Moreover, his applications of Facebook are brilliant and revolutionary. While some view Facebook as creating a new generation of problems- from bullying to virtual dangers to invasion of privacy- the reality is, it will tremendously benefit our community to come. People all over the world can share their stories and develop relationships. This will advocate for world peace and unity. It steers away from differences and hatred, eliminating misinterpretations and conflict. It creates an atmosphere of acceptance, and more importantly, awareness. Global problems that many are oblivious of can finally be revealed in the realest of manners, one story at a time.

Not only does social media such as Facebook string the world together, but it also allows for ideas to spread. We can grow as a society. With diverse ideas, skill sets, and outlooks, people around the world can innovate more than ever before. In this new age of technology, it is only inevitable for us to build off one another's ideas through social networking. It is only with collaboration that growth can occur. Through Zuckerberg's Facebook, the world will meet a new era of problem-solving and sharing.

[Brian K]

After reading and re-reading Mark Zuckerberg’s post to Facebook, about the Global Government Requests Report and the updated Community Standards, I am left wondering what aspect is more important. Without a doubt the Global Government Requests Report is an issue that can affect us all with the ever growing results of globalization. However, perhaps just as equally important, are the Community Standards that all Facebook users should and ultimately have to abide by, in order to survive in the Facebook family.
Zuckerberg stresses that he wants to give the most voice to the most people. That is all well and good, but is it perhaps a bit naïve? I agree with Zuckerberg when he says, “When you do not live in fear of social isolation or violence if you express yourself, you have more voice.” However, even with the great magnitude of globalization, he has to realize that not every country in the world is going to accept the United States’ culture and views. Whether democratic or not, there are still countries in our world that can incarcerate a citizen if they were to criticize a government official. There are countries where men and women can still be stoned to death for having certain sexual experiences or sexual orientation. Whether or not we think that is right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is that every country has its own cultural and religious views, and the modern internet and social media sites like Facebook, can alter a person’s personal views for good or bad. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Zuckerberg and Facebook should make the Global Government Requests Report public so that we all may get a sense of other countries’ views to better our understanding of others in our now “Global Community”.
In regards to Community Standards, all users must agree to follow rather strict rules, in order to be a member of Facebook. I am of the opinion that the Community Standards are a good start, but far from perfect. Zuckerberg himself wrote, “As difficult questions arise about the limits of what people can share, we have a single guiding principle: We want to give the most voice to the most people.” I am all for giving people a voice, but to what end? Almost weekly there is a new story of a teenager in America seriously hurting themselves or others, reportedly after being subjected to bullying and ridicule through social media sites. Also, after reading Zuckerberg’s article, I did a quick search and found quite a few postings of Facebook members complaining about pedophilia on the site. Is that something we want so that everyone’s voice is heard? I can say an emphatic no, as both a parent and a decent human being.
So this all brings me back to my original question, what aspect is more important, the Global Government Requests Report or updated Community Standards? While I agree that both points are extremely important, I think that the Community Standards policy should be addressed aggressively so that all voices can remain to be heard without threats of violence, just like Zuckerberg yearns for.

[Shengyi Fu]

As Zuckerberg states, Facebook's goal is to "give the most voice to the most people", and ideally, every person should express themselves "freely and safely." However, sometimes, one's language can hurt or disturb another. This is where the problem of cyberbullying emerges. I believe that an individual should be able to freely express themselves, good or bad, but they must be responsible.

I strongly believe in the freedom of speech. In the United States, the freedom of expression is engraved in our culture and in our Constitution. Facebook serves as a medium for the transfer of ideas and information, no different than books, television, and verbal communication. Yes, cyberbullying is a big problem in the technological, modern society, but if Facebook and the Internet never existed, people will express the same ideas on other mediums. It is in human nature to presents one’s ideas to a larger group of people, this is why we developed language – written and spoken; it is a characteristic of civilization. Today, people hold Facebook as the preferable source because of its efficiency.

Using Facebook, people defend and convey their ideas. The world today holds a population of seven billion. In this population, opinions and ideas of all shapes, forms, and fashions exist. In fact, many of these ideas commonly clash. An example is the religion of Islam and Judaism. They beliefs have contradicted one another for thousands of years. Even sects inside Islam – Sunni and Shia -- often clash, causing the modern problems in the Middle East. What is beneficial to one regularly harms another. Also, people define threat differently. Thus, there are no ideal and perfect way to prevent cyberbullying because we cannot protect every belief. We can only offer support to victims of such bullying.

[O'Brien]

It has become common today to dismiss the reality that not all people are fortunate enough to have access to the Internet and even when people do they are not able to completely share their opinions and have a voice. Zuckerberg focuses on the fact that many people do not feel safe to express how they feel on the Internet because they think that they may get bullied for their opinions or that there are laws holding them back. I agree with Zuckerberg that every person, not only in the United States, but everywhere is entitled to speak their minds freely and be able to have their own voice without having fear of being rejected or scared. I agree that there is a lot of work to be done, but I also believe that in time people will feel more comfortable expressing themselves and their opinions to others all across the world.

[jared_davis3]

Common sense seems to dictate that our posts online should be regulated by some degree, and they are, but Mark Zuckerberg looks to change that. I agree with Zuckerberg in the fact that people should be able to express themselves freely and what they post is their own. People should have the freedom to post what they wish without getting punished, have it removed, or have people go against it. I also do believe that some content shouldn’t be showed to everyone. Although I think people should be able to post whatever they want, if it goes against someone else’s beliefs it should not be shown to them. There needs to be some type of regulation so people don’t hate each other. But by sharing whatever people please they could discover new things from other people and they way people are connected could change.

[Amanda Clark]

In my opinion, I believe that Zuckerberg is doing a good thing for the future of Facebook. I agree with him that people should be able to post whatever they want, to a point. People should have the freedom to post anything, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. With these new regulations, the connections and posts between people on Facebook could change completely.

[Donsk]

When it comes to the topic of opinions, most of us will readily agree that we should be able to give our own, including Zuckerberg. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of cyber bullying. Zuckerberg feels that people should be able to freely express themselves without having to feel threatened or uncomfortable, and I agree. The problem is that some cannot stand being disagreed with, or even handle the thought of it. People need to learn that not everyone will think like them, and not turn to violence as their first response.

[Barry Bernard Boy Of Destiny]

According to Zuckerburgs address, he and his company work to connect the world, not his business, despite what certain critics have said. To me this sounds like company image control, but the message he promotes (while likely not the company's main drive) would seem probable. And I would be far out of line to deny them the benefit f a doubt that connecting the world is a contributing factor to their expansion efforts. And I was able to easily glean this information because (albeit in a fancy form) Zuckerburg used a template for his press release.

[EKATEPUHA]

According to Zuckerburg, everyone in the world should have the power to express their opinions and have a voice without having anyone to stop them, so they are creating an organization that will allow people all over the world to have this power. Many agree and say that this will give everyone the ability to connect with others and say their thoughts without the government, or anyone else censoring their posts. On the other hand, some people believe that this will be a problem for cyber bullying and other posts that can have a potential of harming someone. I agree that this can cause a problem but I also think that people should have the ability to voice their opinion without having anyone stopping them. There should be organizations that allow this to happen but they should still be censored to some point.

[Gregory Boateng]

Many people assume that our post online are just posts that don't mean much. Zuckerberg explains in the article that whenever you go online you have a voice and posting on any type of sharing website gives you an even bigger and louder voice. Facebook has always been the social media hub for people all over the world. Many people all over log on everyday to use the website but what most people don't notice are the people that don't even have internet to log on to or the voice that Zuckerberg was mentioning in his article. You would think that it is hard to imagine a lifetime or even a day without internet but that's what these people are going through. Zuckerberg wants to fix that but some countries ban the use of Facebook. He doesn't go much into detail about why it would be banned but it may be for the good of the community in those countries. I myself believe that Facebook is a very powerful and valuable website and to be a part of it is a big thing. But this voice that it gives you doesn't always translate to good. In the article Zuckerberg mentions cyber bullying and threats that people saw. This is an unfair use of that voice but since you are free to say anything you want initially, whatever someone wants to say is said. Facebook may be used negatively or positively but either way it is the most powerful way to interact with people around the world and after reading the article, that is the concept that Zuckerberg indicated in the article.

[ljm1400]

Zuckerberg makes a great point in this article. He explains how through the use of his technology, Facebook, many people across the world have started to be able to express their feelings and opinions to others that otherwise would have never been able to before. He thinks that it is almost a necessity that everyone be able to use the internet and tools such as Facebook to show how they feel "freely". However, one thing that is never tolerated is cyber-bullying, which is definitely a major problem with the introduction of the internet and social media such as Facebook. One thing that does jump out at me though after reading the article is how much Zuckerberg exaggerated how important Facebook is for the world to be able to connect together. He even went as far as to say that it is their main goal to give everyone in the world the ability to express themselves. I honestly do not believe him when he says this, I feel it is more of a stunt to try to get more people to support Facebook. However, Zuckerberg does make a good point when he says that people deserve the freedom of expression, especially in a world that is coming ever closer together through the internet.

[Natalie10614]

Although Zuckerburg does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that the ideal internet world for everybody will never exist because there will always be issues. Zuckerburg's idea for Facebook was to connect various groups of people and the different ways they use to express themselves; all the while determining what content is appropiate and which is not. He even says, "We have a of work to do before every person in the world will have the voice they should have". My whole life I have heard it said that we are lucky to have a country with freedom, one being expression. Zuckerburg probably didnt name specific governments because he didn't want to start anything with them if Facebook was banned there. He wants to create an environment where everybody can voice their opinions and still be safe.

[ChrisC]

In discussions of online freedom of speech, one viewpoint is that the freedom to say whatever people choose is an important liberty to have. On the other hand, there are many laws that attempt to prevent people from saying anything that is not consistent with the general beliefs held by the government. While some see that freedom of internet speech is an almost obvious right, others are inclined to back the laws that prevent it. While personally I feel that freedom of speech appears to be a necessary benefit from internet use, I am sad to have to say that it is a privilege abused by many. Bullying, violence and spread of hatred is an unfortunate application of this freedom. While a government should never have to step in and prevent some actions, it is quite sad that some feel the need to. This is not to say that it is okay for a governing body to prevent people from expressing views different than those of itself. The difficult truth for some is simply that there are plenty of things one really should not say in the public domain of the internet. Hopefully, in the future, people can learn to filter themselves and their publicly announced views such that freedom of internet speech is a respected and widely held freedom of our modern world that need not be controlled by any one body, but instead each and every internet user of themselves.