Key takeaways:<\/p>\n
Since June, the world’s largest social network Facebook has been under constant barrage of criticism from advertisers, with a slew of major advertisers announcing they will boycott the company. The reason behind such hostile attitudes toward Facebook lies in the media platform\u2019s unsatisfactory content moderation policies.<\/p>\n
This conflict apparently testifies to the vulnerability of centralized social networks to political pressure. Forklog took a deeper dive into the situation to investigate how the fight for equality can potentially violate one of the main liberal values\u2014freedom of speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s send Facebook a powerful message: Your profits will never be worth promoting hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and violence.\u201d<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
With this announcement, an array of social justice organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Color of Change, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Free Press, Common Sense and Sleeping Giants, launched the Stop Hate for Profit<\/a> campaign.<\/p>\n They argue that Facebook has long been facilitating the spread of disinformation and hate speech.<\/p>\n To combat Facebook\u2019s reluctance to censor, activists behind the initiative called on large companies to suspend advertising on the social network as advertising revenue supposedly accounts for the greatest share of Facebook’s revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have been continually disappointed and stunned by Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s commitment to protecting white supremacy, voter suppression and outright lies on Facebook. As corporations take a stand against racism in our society, they should consider how their advertising dollars support Facebook making Black people less safe online,\u201d<\/i><\/b> said<\/i><\/a> Rashad Robinson, president of Color Of Change.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n Dozens of the world\u2019s leading companies have supported<\/a> the Stop Hate for Profit initiative, with Pepsi, Starbucks, Levi Strauss, Unilever being among them. Even Disney, Facebook’s largest advertiser in the first half of 2020, joined<\/a> the boycott.<\/p>\n However, the social media giant doesn\u2019t seem to change its content moderation policies following the protest.<\/p>\n \u201cWe make policy changes based on principles, not revenue pressures,\u201d<\/i><\/b> a Facebook spokesperson <\/i>stressed<\/i><\/a> in a conversation with Business Insider.<\/i><\/p>\n The boycott campaign was triggered by the protests against police violence, which erupted in the United States and some other countries after a white police officer killed George Floyd, an unarmed 46-year-old black man.<\/p>\n The riots began at the end of May. In response to the civil unrest in Minneapolis, U.S. President Donald Trump mentioned a possibility of using the Military against the protesters.<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/DonaldTrump\/posts\/10164767134275725<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Many saw this as a call to violence. Social media platform Twitter flagged a similar post by Trump as \u201cabusive behavior,\u201d explaining that it violated its rules regarding the \u201cglorification of violence.” Yet the platform decided not to remove it, since it “may be in the public\u2019s interest to remain accessible.”<\/p>\n I can\u2019t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right…..<\/p>\n — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n