A Looming Decision
As Facebook’s Oversight Board’s decision about upholding the ban on Donald Trump nears, Mark Zuckerberg is growing nervous. After a night of fitful sleep, he decides to send the Board the email note below:
Dear Oversight Board,
I know I’m not supposed to try to influence your proceedings. But, well, you know how it is…. I didn’t create Facebook to step back and pretend that I don’t have strong views about its policies. I am writing this confidential letter to urge you to lift Facebook’s ban on Donald Trump. In a speech at the secular university known as Georgetown, in October 2019, I made my views about Facebook’s philosophy crystal clear. These views are exactly why I would be pleased if you lifted the ban. Once again, please do keep this email confidential.
Here are some important excerpts; you can also read my whole speech here.
“We’re at another cross-roads. We can continue to stand for free expression, understanding its messiness, but believing that the long journey towards greater progress requires confronting ideas that challenge us. Or we can decide the cost is simply too great. I believe we must continue to stand for free expression. We’re at a moment of particular tension here and around the world — and we’re seeing the impulse to restrict speech and enforce new norms around what people can say. Increasingly, we’re seeing people try to define more speech as dangerous because it may lead to political outcomes they see as unacceptable. Some hold the view that since the stakes are so high, they can no longer trust their fellow citizens with the power to communicate and decide what to believe for themselves.
I personally believe this is more dangerous for democracy over the long term than almost any speech. Democracy depends on the idea that we hold each others’ right to express ourselves and be heard above our own desire to always get the outcomes we want. You can’t impose tolerance top-down. It has to come from people opening up, sharing experiences, and developing a shared story for society that we all feel we’re a part of. That’s how we make progress together.”
Thanks for listening! Your friend, Mark
Back in the day of putting pen to paper, Zuckerberg’s views might never had seen the light of day. Yet as is too often the case with email, Zuckerberg mistakenly cc’s Twitter’s Jack Dorsey in the letter. Thus, when Dorsey turns on his laptop, he is pleasantly surprised to find a welcome excuse to send a letter of his own to the Board. Taking delight in his rivals’s mistake, he deliberately cc’s Zuckerberg.
Dear Oversight Board,
I am delighted to see that your boss, Mark Z., has acted honorably and included me in his message. I certainly understand what he is saying. As I have pointed out about Twitter’s decision to ban Trump permanently, we did not take this decision lightly.
“Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.”
Nonetheless, as you can see from all of my tweets here, there are times when platforms like Twitter have no choice but to take such difficult steps. In fact, what’s at stake here is not only a matter of preventing violence. It’s a matter of staying true to the democratic and humanitarian principles that we have sought to uphold in flagging Trump’s tweets in the past. See our “hateful content policy” here. Indeed, Trump’s actions represent a blatant violation of Facebook’s list of “Community Standards.” Thus, I urge you to uphold Facebook’s wise decision to ban Trump.
Very sincerely yours, Jack Dorsey
.
The Oversight Board faces a difficult choice. Which side should the Board support, restoring Trump’s privileges or continuing the ban?
Please respond to this question by taking a firm and unequivocal stand in favor of one position over the other. Your argument should be based squarely on the basic principles that are at stake in the Oversight Board’s review. These principles are important because they provide guidelines for similar decisions down the road. For this reason, you should not focus on extraneous issues, such as Trump’s thinking, the fact that he is no longer President, the consistency of Facebook’s policies, Facebook’s pursuit of profits, etc.
Your essay should be no more than four (4) double-spaced pages. Because this is a short essay on a very large topic, you should concentrate on being concise and to the point.
Cite your readings. Provide evidence for your claims. Choose a strong title for your essay. Feel free to use your imagination.
In preparing your essay, be sure to re-read my Google document Tips for Great Writing. Please adhere to my guidelines. In particular, “On the other hand,” does not mean “In contrast”! You should also reread my comments on your previous essay and paragraphs. By following my guidelines and suggestions, you will give me even more time to think about this essay. To quote one of the founders of modern sociology: you have nothing to lose—and a world to gain!
As always, I will be willing to comment on the first paragraph of the initial draft of your essay. Please make sure you make your request at least a couple days before the due date so that I have time to respond.
Your essay is due by 5:00 pm, Tuesday, April 27. You should submit it to your Google document submission folder.
Remember: My expectations are not unreasonable. I merely expect you to write the best paper you have ever written.
Good luck!