top | item 24868110

(no title)

PeekPoke | 5 years ago

Appalling interference in the election by yet another Tech giant. Why isn't this regulated?

discuss

I don't see how this is interference but certainly could be considered an in-kind donation, which does carry with it certain regulatory obligations.

avik1002|5 years ago

So would it be fine if zuckerberg sent out mass message to vote for biden on facebook, instagram, or whatsapp right in your inbox? Blatant misuse of company data.

dbbk|5 years ago

Is this sarcasm or a genuine question? Endorsements aren't interference.

Grustaf|5 years ago

I don't agree with his alarmism and think it was stupid to send it, but why would it be regulated?

I think this is very different from Facebook or Twitter skew feeds in favour of some political cause.

First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal.

Secondly they do it without people's knowledge. David Barret's embarrassing email is completely honest and open.

ahpearce|5 years ago

Seems like a lot of people screaming about this sort of thing are the same people that support Citizens United. I don't see how they're much different. Free speech is free speech, whether or not you have access to an email list of 10m.

rektide|5 years ago

> First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal.

Hard no. There is no legal nor moral basis for this. Absolutely not.

UncleMeat|5 years ago

Is it interference? Where are the free speech absolutists to defend this case?

DerpyBaby123|5 years ago

Tech giant? Ive never seen a reference to FAANGE

biolurker1|5 years ago

Total annihilation is possible for the first time ever if Trump remains. Seriously. That's why scientific American, NY times and many others for the first time in history took sides.

polka_haunts_us|5 years ago

You have a point, but you should really look for examples more interesting than a paper that has endorsed every D running for President since the 60s.

mixedCase|5 years ago

[deleted]

HappySweeney|5 years ago

"Interference" in this context is generally reserved for foreign actors. Isn't this CEO American? If so, how is this not a simple exercise of free political speech?

That being asked, while I agree with the message, I don't believe sending it was a good idea. It likely won't move the needle at all (most everyone has made up their mind), and potentially alienates Trump-supporting customers.