UN Inside Mark Zuckerberg's private meetings with conservative pundits - The lengthy, off-the-record gatherings were held at one of the Facebook founder’s homes in California. They come as the social-media giant fends off accusations of liberal bias.


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to talk about issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.

The dinners, which began in July, are part of Zuckerberg’s broader effort to cultivate friends on the right amid outrage by President Donald Trump and his allies over alleged “bias” against conservatives at Facebook and other major social media companies. "I’m under no illusions that he’s a conservative but I think he does care about some of our concerns,” said one person familiar with the gatherings, which multiple sources have confirmed.

News of the outreach is likely to further fuel suspicions on the left that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the White House and stay out of Trump’s crosshairs. The president threatened to sue Facebook and Google in June and has in the past pressured the Justice Department to take action against his perceived foes.

“The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company,” said one cybersecurity researcher and former government official based in Silicon Valley. “So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda.”

Facebook has been criticized in recent days, including by Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, for its ad policy, which exempts politicians from third-party fact-checking and arguably facilitates the spread of disinformation.


When asked about the gatherings, a senior Trump administration official said “the White House is looking for meaningful steps from Facebook on a number of fronts,” including “competition, free speech for everybody including conservatives, and privacy.”

“Nominal outreach won’t cut it,” the official added.

As part of the series, Zuckerberg met earlier this year with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who insinuated that Facebook had become a monopoly during a congressional hearing last year; Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has fingered Zuckerberg as contributing to “the death of free speech in America”; and conservative radio talk host Hugh Hewitt, who has cautioned against a DOJ enforcement action but has called for a “new regulatory regime” to minimize “big tech bias” against conservatives.

CNN commentator Mary Katharine Ham, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, AEI fellow and former Washington Free Beacon editor Matt Continetti, Town Hall editor and Fox News contributor Guy Benson, and Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell have also attended the dinners, according to the person familiar with the gatherings. Washington Examiner chief political correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York also confirmed his attendance but declined to disclose the contents of the dinner because there was a prior agreement that it was off-the-record.

A spokesman for Graham confirmed that the South Carolina senator has spoken with Zuckerberg. Carlson, Continetti, Benson, Bozell and Hewitt declined to comment. Ham and Shapiro did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Facebook, noting Zuckerberg's recent meetings in Washington with Democrats, said in a statement, “For years, Mark Zuckerberg has met with elected officials and thought leaders all across the political spectrum.”

Each dinner has been hosted at one of Zuckerberg’s homes in California, and at least one lasted around two-and-a-half to three hours. The conversations center around “free expression, unfair treatment of conservatives, the appeals process for real or perceived unfair treatment, fact checking, partnerships, and privacy,” the source familiar with the meetings said.

"My perception of him was more positive than I anticipated,” this person added, referring to Zuckerberg. “He was receptive and thoughtful.”

“I’ve always thought that he wanted to make things right by conservatives,” said another person familiar with the dinners. “I think he’s been genuine in hoping that might happen. Sometimes I think the headwinds are so strong in Palo Alto that I don’t think even he can succeed.”

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has engaged in similar outreach to conservatives in an attempt to gain their trust, and hosted a private dinner in Washington, D.C. with GOP political operatives and commentators in July 2018, according to the Washington Post.

Facebook changed its policies following Russia’s election interference in 2016 in an attempt to halt the spread of false news and foreign-bought ads. But the company has also been working to minimize and correct the appearance of bias in those policies ever since it was reported that the company’s employees may have suppressed stories from right-leaning publications and authors in its “Trending Topics” section.

As part of those efforts, the company launched a yearlong “conservative bias audit” in 2018, which was conducted by former Sen. Jon Kyl and a team from his law firm Covington and Burling.

Kyl interviewed 133 conservative lawmakers and groups for the audit, which ended in August and resulted in changes to its advertising policies. It’s unclear whether the Zuckerberg dinners are another facet of that project.

Allegations that Facebook censors conservatives, however, have gone largely unsubstantiated—conservative publications including Fox, Breitbart, and Shapiro’s Daily Wire were among the top publishers on Facebook as of this past May, according to data from the social media tracking firm Newswhip.

Trump’s 2016 campaign also took advantage of Facebook’s offer to embed employees, who acted as political operatives and provided critical support to the campaign’s social media operations, according to a study released in November 2017. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign declined a similar offer.)

Facebook’s critics on the left have argued that the company is overcorrecting and trying to curry favor with the Trump administration as it faces increasing scrutiny over its sloppy privacy practices and potential monopoly in social media. “Facebook made a grave mistake in allowing external political actors to direct an assessment of company policy and practices,” Henry Fernandez, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said after the “conservative bias” audit was completed in August.

The ongoing talks between Zuckerberg and prominent conservatives have attracted the attention of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which conducts oversight on issues related to telecommunications and consumer protection and is “aware” of allegations that conservatives “are trying to work the refs” ahead of 2020, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

The committee’s Democrats sent a previously unreported letter to Facebook in June, after a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went viral on the platform, asking what the company was doing to address “the spreading of political disinformation by real accounts.”

“We are concerned that you and your company are not taking these occurrences seriously and are grossly unprepared for the 2020 election,” they wrote. “Specifically, we are concerned that there may be a potential conflict of interest between Facebook’s bottom line and immediately addressing political disinformation on your platform.”

Facebook’s vice president of U.S. public policy, Kevin Martin, responded three weeks later in a letter, also obtained by POLITICO. In it, he said the company has been working with third-party fact checkers to “remove fake accounts, disrupt the financial incentives behind propagating false and misleading information,” and letting users know “when they are reading or sharing information (excluding satire and opinion) that has been disputed or debunked.”

“Leading up to 2020 we know that combating misinformation is one of the most important things we can do,” Martin wrote.

But the social media giant has come under fire recently for its ad policy, which considers politicians’ claims—if made directly on their Facebook page, in an ad or on their website—to be “direct speech and ineligible for our third-party fact checking program.” In keeping with that policy, Facebook has allowed a Trump campaign ad making false claims about Joe Biden’s ties to Ukraine to remain on the platform.

Warren, who has proposed breaking up Facebook, Amazon, and other tech giants, tested the limits of that policy last week by releasing an ad making the deliberately false claim that Zuckerberg and Facebook had endorsed Trump’s re-election.

“If Trump tries to lie in a TV ad, most networks will refuse to air it,” said the Warren ad. “But Facebook just cashes Trump’s checks. Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once. Now, they’re deliberately allowing a candidate to intentionally lie to the American people. It’s time to hold Mark Zuckerberg accountable — add your name if you agree.”

Facebook hit back on Saturday night, likening the company’s policies on candidate speech to that of the Federal Communications Commission.

“The FCC doesn’t want broadcast companies censoring candidates’ speech,” the company tweeted. “We agree it’s better to let voters—not companies—decide.”

Zuckerberg held a closed-door meeting with half a dozen senators last month to discuss what Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) described at the time as an opportunity for lawmakers to air their concerns about Facebook’s role in American democracy directly with the company’s founder. On that same trip to Washington, Zuckerberg also met with Trump, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and White House social media director Dan Scavino.

He is due in Washington next week to testify before the House Financial Services Committee, where he’s expected to discuss Facebook’s controversial cryptocurrency plans.

After this story was published, Zuckerberg posted on Facebook: "There's some press today discussing dinners I've had with conservative politicians, media and thinkers. To be clear, I have dinners with lots of people across the spectrum on lots of different issues all the time. Meeting new people and hearing from a wide range of viewpoints is part of learning. If you haven't tried it, I suggest you do!"

=====Article End=====


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has met with prominent conservatives in recent months seeking their perspectives on how his platform polices content.


Zuckerberg has met with a number of journalists, commentators, and at least one lawmaker over a number of "off the record" dinners and meetups. Zuckerberg is reportedly attempting to build relationships in Republican circles to help fend off potential pressure from President Trump’s Department of Justice.

Trump has made overtures about breaking up Zuckerberg’s company on grounds that it is an unfair monopoly, something the social media titan wants to avoid.

“The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company,” one Silicon Valley cybersecurity expert said. “So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda.”

[Read more: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook likely to sue government if Elizabeth Warren wins presidency]


Others familiar with the meetings thought Zuckerberg was making an honest attempt to improve interactions conservatives have with the platform.

"My perception of [Zuckerberg] was more positive than I anticipated," one person said. "He was receptive and thoughtful."

The list of people on the political Right that the Facebook founder has met with includes: Town Hall political editor Guy Benson, Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, American Enterprise Institute fellow Matt Continetti, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, CNN commentator Mary Katharine Ham, talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro, and Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York.

Zuckerberg hosted each meeting at one of his California homes, where the Facebook founder and the attendees talked about “free expression, unfair treatment of conservatives, the appeals process for real or perceived unfair treatment, fact checking, partnerships, and privacy,” according to one person familiar with the discussions.

Zuckerberg is expected to testify in front of Congress on Oct. 23 on his newest venture into cryptocurrency called Libra. His appearance is his second time before Congress since his 2018 testimony over Cambridge Analytica and how his platform handles user data.

Zuckerberg released a statement Monday on Facebook, responding to questions about his dinners with conservative leaders.

"There's some press today discussing dinners I've had with conservative politicians, media and thinkers," Zuckerberg said. "To be clear, I have dinners with lots of people across the spectrum on lots of different issues all the time. Meeting new people and hearing from a wide range of viewpoints is part of learning. If you haven't tried it, I suggest you do!"

 
Pretty strange how everyone who walked out of his house now move strangely, beep and talk in monotone but frankly I see no reason to suspect anything.
 
Zuck is thinking about running in 2024
lmao he floated the idea post-2016 and was universally rejected, and that was before he was dragged in front of Congress looking like an alien. He isn't trying for 2024, he's trying to avoid getting regulated.
 
A curious thing I noticed yesterday is how easily the "masses" are turning on him for trying to have an open dialogue with people who have opposite ideas, whatever his intentions are. They want to cancel him for not being woke enough. Consider that Zuckerberg is often accused of being the one doing the manipulation, this shows that either that's not the case or that the monster has escaped from his hands.

I think it's a combination of both. He is using Facebook to make Internet "safer" rather than "controlled" and he's not completely against free speech, but he never imagined he would be responsible of creating a hateful mob that is now after him.

Maybe this is his wake up call.

Pretty strange how everyone who walked out of his house now move strangely, beep and talk in monotone but frankly I see no reason to suspect anything.

nk.gif
 
A curious thing I noticed yesterday is how easily the "masses" are turning on him for trying to have an open dialogue with people who have opposite ideas, whatever his intentions are. They want to cancel him for not being woke enough. Consider that Zuckerberg is often accused of being the one doing the manipulation, this shows that either that's not the case or that the monster has escaped from his hands.

I think it's a combination of both. He is using Facebook to make Internet "safer" rather than "controlled" and he's not completely against free speech, but he never imagined he would be responsible of creating a hateful mob that is now after him.

Maybe this is his wake up call.



Ver archivo adjunto 973361

Conservatives buy stuff

He wants to sell it to them
 
Guys like Zuck donate to both political parties to hedge their bets. I wouldnt read too much into this story
 
Facebook has never been and will never be a leftist company. Any bias against conservatives on the part of giant media corps are done largely for profit. I always see conservatives whine about unfair treatment from big tech companies but when you get right down to it there's not some communist conspiracy to oppress MAGAtards, they just want to get fucking paid. If they band a conservative its because they've already calculated the potential monetary losses from such a decision and determined that it would make them more money. And any conservatives they do keep around are strictly because they increase the profit margin, same as liberals.

Facebook recently amended a rule about lying in ads to exempt politicians, because Zuck doesn't give a shit about who wins the election as long as he can keep harvesting your data. Literally the only time he even attempts to take a political stance is when someone threatens to break up his company. Of course none of this will prevent people from playing the victim but eh.
 
Facebook has never been and will never be a leftist company. Any bias against conservatives on the part of giant media corps are done largely for profit. I always see conservatives whine about unfair treatment from big tech companies but when you get right down to it there's not some communist conspiracy to oppress MAGAtards, they just want to get fucking paid. If they band a conservative its because they've already calculated the potential monetary losses from such a decision and determined that it would make them more money. And any conservatives they do keep around are strictly because they increase the profit margin, same as liberals.

Facebook recently amended a rule about lying in ads to exempt politicians, because Zuck doesn't give a shit about who wins the election as long as he can keep harvesting your data. Literally the only time he even attempts to take a political stance is when someone threatens to break up his company. Of course none of this will prevent people from playing the victim but eh.

I don't think Facebook's #1 priority is making profit. The idea that monetary loss or gain is their main criteria for making decisions really limits your perspective.
 
I say this because I've actually seen cases of business people or groups who opposed certain candidates harshly, but then they tried to comply with them or make them comply so everybody could get along.
This has been the policy many on Wall Street have taken towards the Democratic Party for years. It is one reason for the existence of Hillary-style corporate Dems, and the reason why the House Banking and Financial Services Committee has traditionally been where the party has placed representatives who need especially large warchests for an upcoming election.
Thus, there is a certain degree of mutual coercion at play, wherein politicians can use the threat of regulatory action to intimidate certain companies/industries into doing what they want. However, those companies/industries can also use campaign expenditures to manipulate those same politicians, with the end result being a sort of corrupt equilibrium.
 
A curious thing I noticed yesterday is how easily the "masses" are turning on him for trying to have an open dialogue with people who have opposite ideas, whatever his intentions are. They want to cancel him for not being woke enough. Consider that Zuckerberg is often accused of being the one doing the manipulation, this shows that either that's not the case or that the monster has escaped from his hands.

I think it's a combination of both. He is using Facebook to make Internet "safer" rather than "controlled" and he's not completely against free speech, but he never imagined he would be responsible of creating a hateful mob that is now after him.

Maybe this is his wake up call.
I'm fairly confident that the top heads in silicon valley - Zuck, Bezos, Brin, etc. - are fairly progressive by objective standards as measured against the country at large, but they are nowhere near as far gone as the middle managers and senior engineers who work under them. They're caught up in a tide they can no longer escape from and have to pander to. And it is ultimately their fault - for two solid decades their growth strategy has been to run their businesses like hedonistic playgrounds. Come work for Facebook! Sure, you get great pay and amazing benefits, but that's just the start. You also get to "live your true life" at the office! Bring in your politics, bring in your moral myopia, bring in your weird fetishes and invented identities! Save the world! Don't be evil! Because it's all celebrated here! No other employer lets you do that, that's why we're the best!

So they fed a beast until it grew too gigantic to cage or leash and now it is so accustomed to a diet of manflesh, it'll take it from anyone it can including the handlers who raised it. Now you have a mob of well-paid, well-connected hipsters living in one of the most posh, clannish, exclusive cities in the world, who by any objective measure would be considered a nation of feudal lords each ruling over a lucrative fief and yet they all consider themselves the poorest of the poor, the most marginalized of the marginalized, and they must feast on anyone they can because they're owed. It's a bad employer who tells you that nothing you do is ever good enough, but Google and Apple and Facebook all figured the best way to retain talent was by telling them nothing they receive is good enough. So now we live in a world where entitled silicon valley shitheads clutch whatever you give them in one hand while holding out the other and asking "but what have you done for us lately?"

As such, Zuckerberg must be the mouthpiece of the woke outrage machine to the best of his abilities or he'll be iced. They got rid of Peter Thiel, right? They'll find a way to get rid of Mark too if they want to. So he's a robot cuck to us, and he's Hitler to his own slobbering mob of hateful monsters. He's in a hell of his own making, yet the world still needs to clean it up and if he does anything to help that, we have to try.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo