Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 9:03:46 GMT
In 2010 I wrote The Social Network and I know you wish I hadn't. You complained that the movie was inaccurate and that Hollywood didn't understand that there are people who create things just for the purpose of making them (yes we understand, it's what we do every day).
I didn't differ on your public accusation that the movie was a lie because I had already given my opinion on the big screen, but you and I know that the script was thoroughly reviewed by a team of studio lawyers who had a client and a target in mind. mind: that Mark Zuckerberg didn't sue us.
It wasn't hard to see the irony when I read excerpts Chile Mobile Number List from your recent speech at Georgetown University, in which you defended — basing your arguments on free speech — Facebook's practice of running ads for political candidates that contain verifiably false data. I admire your deep faith in freedom of expression. I often turn to the first amendment of the American constitution. But most importantly, it is one of the foundations of our democracy and we need to keep it solid.
An injection of wild lies into the water supply that corrupts the most important decisions we make together cannot be a situation that neither you nor I want. They are lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our choices, on our lives, and on the lives of our children.
Don't mention Larry Flynt . Not even Larry Flynt—that champion of pornography and freedom of expression—would mention Larry Flynt. This is not the same as pornography, as people do not depend on it for information. Last year, 40 percent of Americans said Facebook is their main source of news. The problem would undoubtedly be solved if those people turned to a different source of news, or even if you decided to make Facebook a trusted source of public information.
In 2010, the slogan on promotional material for The Social Network read: “You don't make 500 million friends without making some enemies.” Just nine years later, that number sounds quaint because a third of the planet now uses your website.
And right now, on your website, there is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave a billion dollars to Ukraine's attorney general so he wouldn't investigate his son. Every second of that ad is a lie and is supported by your logo. This is not defending freedom of speech, Mark, it is attacking the truth.
You and I want there to be protections for free speech, so that no one ends up in jail or killed for saying or writing something unpopular, not to ensure that the American electorate has unfettered access to lies.
Even after the script for The Social Network met the standards of Sony's legal department, we sent the text—as promised after a handshake—to a group of senior executives at your company and invited them to give us feedback (I They asked if you could change the name of Harvard University to something else and if Facebook had to be called Facebook).
After we shot the movie, we hosted a private screening of an early version for Sheryl Sandberg, your COO. Sandberg stood up halfway through the screening, turned to the producers standing at the back of the room and said, “How can they do this to a boy?” (You were 26 at the time, but, okay, I get it.)
I hope your COO walks into your office, walks up to you, and says, “How can we do this to millions of kids? Are we really going to leave an ad claiming that Kamala Harris ran dogfights in the basement of a pizzeria while Elizabeth Warren destroyed evidence that climate change is a hoax and the deep state sold meth to Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and the Former American football player Colin Kaepernick ?
The law that holds companies that host user-generated internet content responsible for having this type of content—as is the case with movie studios, television networks, and publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers—has not been drafted… yet . . Just ask Peter Thiel , who funded a defamation lawsuit against the Gawker blog that bankrupted the site and forced its closure (you should have Thiel's number in your diary; he was an early investor in Facebook).
Most people don't have the resources to hire a battalion of fact-checkers. However, two weeks ago, when you were testifying in front of a US congressional committee, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked you: “Do you find a potential problem in the complete lack of fact-checking in political ads?” Then, when pressed further, asking whether or not Facebook would remove the lies, you responded: “Congressman, in most cases, in a democracy, I think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians say for themselves. those who are going to vote or not, and judge for themselves their character.
I didn't differ on your public accusation that the movie was a lie because I had already given my opinion on the big screen, but you and I know that the script was thoroughly reviewed by a team of studio lawyers who had a client and a target in mind. mind: that Mark Zuckerberg didn't sue us.
It wasn't hard to see the irony when I read excerpts Chile Mobile Number List from your recent speech at Georgetown University, in which you defended — basing your arguments on free speech — Facebook's practice of running ads for political candidates that contain verifiably false data. I admire your deep faith in freedom of expression. I often turn to the first amendment of the American constitution. But most importantly, it is one of the foundations of our democracy and we need to keep it solid.
An injection of wild lies into the water supply that corrupts the most important decisions we make together cannot be a situation that neither you nor I want. They are lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our choices, on our lives, and on the lives of our children.
Don't mention Larry Flynt . Not even Larry Flynt—that champion of pornography and freedom of expression—would mention Larry Flynt. This is not the same as pornography, as people do not depend on it for information. Last year, 40 percent of Americans said Facebook is their main source of news. The problem would undoubtedly be solved if those people turned to a different source of news, or even if you decided to make Facebook a trusted source of public information.
In 2010, the slogan on promotional material for The Social Network read: “You don't make 500 million friends without making some enemies.” Just nine years later, that number sounds quaint because a third of the planet now uses your website.
And right now, on your website, there is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave a billion dollars to Ukraine's attorney general so he wouldn't investigate his son. Every second of that ad is a lie and is supported by your logo. This is not defending freedom of speech, Mark, it is attacking the truth.
You and I want there to be protections for free speech, so that no one ends up in jail or killed for saying or writing something unpopular, not to ensure that the American electorate has unfettered access to lies.
Even after the script for The Social Network met the standards of Sony's legal department, we sent the text—as promised after a handshake—to a group of senior executives at your company and invited them to give us feedback (I They asked if you could change the name of Harvard University to something else and if Facebook had to be called Facebook).
After we shot the movie, we hosted a private screening of an early version for Sheryl Sandberg, your COO. Sandberg stood up halfway through the screening, turned to the producers standing at the back of the room and said, “How can they do this to a boy?” (You were 26 at the time, but, okay, I get it.)
I hope your COO walks into your office, walks up to you, and says, “How can we do this to millions of kids? Are we really going to leave an ad claiming that Kamala Harris ran dogfights in the basement of a pizzeria while Elizabeth Warren destroyed evidence that climate change is a hoax and the deep state sold meth to Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and the Former American football player Colin Kaepernick ?
The law that holds companies that host user-generated internet content responsible for having this type of content—as is the case with movie studios, television networks, and publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers—has not been drafted… yet . . Just ask Peter Thiel , who funded a defamation lawsuit against the Gawker blog that bankrupted the site and forced its closure (you should have Thiel's number in your diary; he was an early investor in Facebook).
Most people don't have the resources to hire a battalion of fact-checkers. However, two weeks ago, when you were testifying in front of a US congressional committee, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked you: “Do you find a potential problem in the complete lack of fact-checking in political ads?” Then, when pressed further, asking whether or not Facebook would remove the lies, you responded: “Congressman, in most cases, in a democracy, I think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians say for themselves. those who are going to vote or not, and judge for themselves their character.