Uncharted Territory


RSS     Archives



FacebookのザッカーバーグCEOがワシントンDCの大学で表現の自由を持ち出してFacebookの立場を擁護するスピーチをしました。基本叩かれまくっていますが「表現の自由」という誰も文句の言えそうもないものを持ち出すようになったら終わりだというNew Yorkerの記事が端的にディスっていると思います。

By Andrew Marantz5:00 A.M.

When a public figure spends too much time repeating a particular platitude, strenuously pledging to be for that which no one could possibly be against, it’s a sign that the public figure is being evasive, disingenuous, or worse.



会社の命運をかけたスピーチでしょうから練りに練っているもの。例えば彼が重要と考えるポイントをgive people voice, and bring people togetherとコンパクトに言い切る部分など真似したいですね。

Since then, I've focused on building services to do two things: give people voice, and bring people together. 


That brings us back to the cross-roads we all find ourselves at today. Will we continue fighting to give more people a voice to be heard, or will we pull back from free expression?

I see three major threats ahead:

The first is legal.

The second challenge to expression is the platforms themselves

The third challenge to expression is the hardest because it comes from our culture.


One clear difference is that a lot more people now have a voice -- almost half the world. That's dramatically empowering for all the reasons I've mentioned. But inevitably some people will use their voice to organize violence, undermine elections or hurt others, and we have a responsibility to address these risks. When you're serving billions of people, even if a very small percent cause harm, that can still be a lot of harm.

We build specific systems to address each type of harmful content -- from incitement of violence to child exploitation to other harms like intellectual property violations -- about 20 categories in total. We judge ourselves by the prevalence of harmful content and what percent we find proactively before anyone reports it to us. For example, our AI systems identify 99% of the terrorist content we take down before anyone even sees it. This is a massive investment. We now have over 35,000 people working on security, and our security budget today is greater than the entire revenue of our company at the time of our IPO earlier this decade.


More broadly though, we've found a different strategy works best: focusing on the authenticity of the speaker rather than the content itself. Much of the content the Russian accounts shared was distasteful but would have been considered permissible political discourse if it were shared by Americans -- the real issue was that it was posted by fake accounts coordinating together and pretending to be someone else. We've seen a similar issue with these groups that pump out misinformation like spam just to make money.

The solution is to verify the identities of accounts getting wide distribution and get better at removing fake accounts. We now require you to provide a government ID and prove your location if you want to run political ads or a large page. You can still say controversial things, but you have to stand behind them with your real identity and face accountability. Our AI systems have also gotten more advanced at detecting clusters of fake accounts that aren't behaving like humans. We now remove billions of fake accounts a year -- most within minutes of registering and before they do much. Focusing on authenticity and verifying accounts is a much better solution than an ever-expanding definition of what speech is harmful.


I know many people disagree, but, in general, I don't think it's right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy. And we're not an outlier here. The other major internet platforms and the vast majority of media also run these same ads.


Given the sensitivity around political ads, I've considered whether we should stop allowing them altogether. From a business perspective, the controversy certainly isn't worth the small part of our business they make up. But political ads are an important part of voice -- especially for local candidates, up-and-coming challengers, and advocacy groups that may not get much media attention otherwise. Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media covers.

Even if we wanted to ban political ads, it's not clear where we'd draw the line. There are many more ads about issues than there are directly about elections. Would we ban all ads about healthcare or immigration or women's empowerment? If we banned candidates' ads but not these, would that really make sense to give everyone else a voice in political debates except the candidates themselves? There are issues any way you cut this, and when it's not absolutely clear what to do, I believe we should err on the side of greater expression.

Or take hate speech, which we define as someone directly attacking a person or group based on a characteristic like race, gender or religion. We take down content that could lead to real world violence. In countries at risk of conflict, that includes anything that could lead to imminent violence or genocide. And we know from history that dehumanizing people is the first step towards inciting violence. If you say immigrants are vermin, or all Muslims are terrorists -- that makes others feel they can escalate and attack that group without consequences. So we don't allow that. I take this incredibly seriously, and we work hard to get this off our platform.

American free speech tradition recognizes that some speech can have the effect of restricting others' right to speak. While American law doesn't recognize "hate speech" as a category, it does prohibit racial harassment and sexual harassment. We still have a strong culture of free expression even while our laws prohibit discrimination.

「表現の自由」を持ち出す違和感をうまく指摘しているのはこの動画のコメンテーターの言葉。複雑な問題をEither you're with us or against us.と単純化して切り抜けようとするClassic politician ployというのです。

Wireの記事でも似たような指摘をしています。If you disagree with him on speech, he implied, you’re siding with the forces of censorship and elitism.とかrejecting his point of view will align you with the oppressive overlords of China!とか。

The Facebook CEO didn't announce new initiatives in a highly promoted speech, but reaffirmed his view that the company makes the world a better place.

Zuckerberg’s highly promoted speech introduced no new Facebook features or initiatives, but was a defiant reply to critics of Facebook’s destructive effects on global society—manipulating voters, fomenting division, and even aiding genocide. He doubled down on Facebook’s handling of the treacherous business of implementing free expression at an unprecedented global scale. Despite considerable evidence that the approach has often fallen short, Zuckerberg still professes optimism: Giving people a voice and connecting the world, he believes, are transformationally positive actions. Essentially, he’s saying—as he always has—that Facebook is essentially positive.

What’s more, he was claiming high ground for Facebook’s values. If you disagree with him on speech, he implied, you’re siding with the forces of censorship and elitism. He described a “countertrend … to pull back on free expression.” His foes, he implied, are the same kind of people who wanted Eugene Debs in prison, who wanted Vietnam protesters stopped. But the people whose Facebook presence is more disturbing include the likes of Alex Jones (whom Facebook ultimately banned) or … Donald Trump. The speech didn’t really take on those kinds of choices.

Furthermore, rejecting his point of view will align you with the oppressive overlords of China! He pointedly noted that his dreams of taking Facebook to that country have been stalemated by that country’s demands on data and censorship. While Facebook’s encrypted WhatsApp service is a boon to protesters, he says, the Chinese TikTok app censors mentions of protests even for users in the US.

ザッカーバーグが演説始めにElijah Cummingsを持ち出すところからしていやらしい感じがしたのですが、この違和感は否定しずらいないものを持ち出して自分を正当化するという方法だったんですね。

Before we get started, I want to acknowledge that today we lost an icon, Elijah Cummings. He was a powerful voice for equality, social progress and bringing people together.

もしElijah Cummingsのことを大切に考えているならFOX Newsのインタビューしか受けないのは変ですから。まあこのような否定できない大切な価値観を持ち出して自分を正当化するのはオバマ大統領のスピーチの常套手段だったのでザッカーバーグが飛び抜けてずるい訳ではないですが、あたかも黒人の側に立っているような振りをするのは納得がいかないので怒りがこみ上げています。彼のスピーチを聞いて、原稿もじっくり読んで損したというのが本音です。