Is Facebook a global public utility? A for-profit business? A necessity of modern life? A vile and dangerous entity? Some combination of the above? Whatever it is (or isn’t), Facebook does grow, evolve, and respond to all manner of changing conditions and events. Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg explains two new policy statements in this March 2015 post to his public page.
Read it here: Zuckerberg, "About Community Standards”
- Zuckerberg’s statement addresses both the Global Government Requests Report and the Community Standards policy statement that had been released earlier that day. To which of these items does Zuckerberg give more attention? Should he have focused more on the other document? Why or why not?
- Zuckerberg mentions that Facebook has had interactions with various national governments, but he doesn’t provide any specific examples. Why might he have chosen to omit them? Would his argument have been strengthened if he had included specific examples? Why or why not?
- Read (or re-read) Gladstone & Neufeld’s essay in Chapter 17 of your text, and pay particular attention to their discussions of homophily and incestuous amplification. Would they consider Facebook to be an example of one or both of those concepts? Why or why not? Reload the page with Zuckerberg’s statement several times, and pay attention to the ads that accompany the page. How well do they align with your personal interests and characteristics? Compare ad lists with several classmates: what are the similarities and differences between your lists? How easily can you explain the comparisons?
- Facebook’s goal, as Zuckerberg states, is to “give the most voice to the most people,” and he adds that threats of violence and bullying are examples “where one person exercising their voice may unfairly limit the voices of many others.” Do you agree with this explanation of why threats and bullying are problematic? Write an essay in which you elaborate on the effects of cyberbullying and threats of violence, and discuss how, if at all, the problem should be handled. Use Zuckerberg as your They Say, and support your argument with one or more relevant examples.
They Say I Blog 
Zuckerberg focused a lot more of his attention to the Community Standards policy over the Global Government Requests Report. I do not believe he should have focused more on the Global Government Requests Report because i believe it does not apply to us, civilians. Zuckerberg probibly ommitted the other governments at thier request and i do not believe it would have strengthend his argument.
LikeLike
Because Zuckerberg has a limit to give the people with Facebook accounts, I agree with his opinion on how Facebook shoud allow citizens to still have a voice. Facebook, a social network which gives plenty of information, fiction and non-fiction, should serve as an opportunity to give civilians a voice- whether it’s offensive or not. I believe citizens should have the right to voice their opinion or give any information and it should be their decision to what degree it’s taken to. Since there are restrictions to what can be said or posted, it’s not making the community connected nor open because true feelings may not have been said. For example, there’s ONE idea and two people that have opposing ideas- even though conflict or annomosity may occur, there is a possibilty of one understanding the other or both having an idea of where the other person is coming from. However, cyberbullying is common and in order to prevent that, Zuckerberg follows the government’s regulations. Which is something I could eventually come to realize how that’s important, but for the time being, it’s irrelevat. Even though that may seem a little harsh, there is reasoning behind it. If people are able to visually offend people by posting drugs, bi-sexual, or straight ppl, etc. then why is written offense being less successful on the internet?
Question 2: Since Zuckerberg didn’t mention any of the national governments he has had associations with, it does weaken his argument. If he would’ve included the names of the national govenments, he could’ve had more support because people go with the group that they favor. Therefore, including that specific group the people would’ve favored him. Just like politics, it’s less likely for a democrat to take sides with a republican versus them taking sides with someone that has something in common with them. of course there are more political parties but that’s just an example
LikeLike
I believe that Facebook is a voice for everybody. Zukerburg not cliaming their interactions proves that the interactions were not substantial. I do agree with Zukerburg that the amount of bullying on facebook does overlap and hide the voices of the smaller person. Facebook is supposed to be a tool and can be used as one, but has turned to something else. Though Facebook ha had interactions with other national governments, they stil do not play a big part. Facebook only give a voice to the bigger man. Like SZukerburg states, the voice is only given to most men The most men are the people who ate usually the bully or the famous person. Most people are not able to always get their views across with a lot of backlash from the bigger voice.
LikeLike
Facebook is an open website which is free for all users. People use Facebook to share their thoughts and ideas on various things in their day to day lives. I agree with Zuckerburg as I believe everyone should be allowed to have a medium to share their voice, whether negative or positive. If Facebook is open to all people without any restrictions, people can openly post their thoughts without any hesitation of being punished for their comments. Although I understand cyber bullying has become a huge problem these days, social media is out there to allow for people’s opinions to be expressed.In any argument, there are always two sides and these two sides can be seen as either the right or wrong side, depending on the viewer’s point of view. The same way on Facebook also when someone may right an “offensive” comment for some, others may see it as a positive comment adding to the discussion. I believe that Facebook is an important globally available tool which can help us learn from other people’s thinking.
LikeLike
*write
LikeLike
The purpose of Facebook is to connect people around the world when it is physically impossible to do so. That way, people can still express their thoughts and beliefs on different ideas and current events. I agree with Mark Zuckerberg in his main focus and principle of giving a voice to everyone everywhere. The company chooses not to take down controversial ideas and issues because it sparks awareness and draws people in to express themselves on the topic. The developing connections then furthers various aspects of society. The limit to this, however, is when someone exercises their voice to the point of limiting the voices of other people around them, such as threats. Zuckerberg and his team effectively continue to remove this type of negativity as there is a difference between having a voice and abusing it.
Facebook must also adapt to the many different legal and cultural environments in which they operate. If a certain government orders Facebook to block material that would be prohibited in that area, the company should comply because there is also a chance that the governments may end up blocking the company entirely. This would end up blocking the people’s voices in that country as well. Therefore, it would be better to just block the specified material, create new connections between people, and leave it unblocked for everyone else around the world. Although there are both positive and negative features to Facebook, enabling people to gain a voice in modern society surpasses all the obstacles they may face.
LikeLike
I believe that Zuckerburg is doing a positive thing for the users on Facebook. His philosophy about giving people a voice to connect to the world and paying close attention to make sure there’s no online bullying is a good thing,but Facebook is a widely known social site that many people use on a daily basis, and people post whatever they want legal or illegal, negative or positive. It’s they’re voice,but belittling people is not what Zuckerburg made site for, all he’s trying to do is let everyone everywhere have a voice.
LikeLike
Everyone needs a voice. Zuckerburg appeals the the statement as he talks about the Global Government Requests Report and the Community Standards policy. I believe that societies thrive the more open the citizens are when it comes to expressing their ideas. A voice expresses the ideas that people contain. Facebook allows people from all over the world to create a voice and share it all over the world. A voice makes people unique with varying ideas that benefit the world. Its the government requests and community standards that put a slight funnel into the ideas people create. Ideas help thrive a community but for good and bad. By applying the these “funnels” people get to learn the better side, the appropriate side. Various countries differ in what funnels they want. Some get rid of a certain idea, topic, or get rid of Facebook altogether. Everyone need a voice. Facebook helps that voice.
LikeLike
Facebook exists as a major entity in today’s society. It is a toll where any person could create an account, meet people, and present their self to the world. It has created a major impact on how people respond to events, since the access of knowledge and voice is right at their fingertips. I do agree with Facebook in their decision to allow anyone to voice their own opinion, as it connects people with contemporary issues, and beliefs. Unfortunately, though, some people see the power of written words as a way to express negative thoughts onto others, possibly affecting those who see it. However, I don’t think trying censor negativity would help or remove the that issue.
In my eyes, the idea of bringing in negativity means that that person’s thoughts don’t agree with the majority, and add to the discussion of a debate. If a government were to censor the idea of negative thought, it would remove possible knowledge to be added towards the debate. Also, it would shut off people from finding out about these issues, which would not allow the rest of the world to connect with each other. Instead, Facebook should try to find alternatives in communication, or maybe the countries that try to censor Facebook should find other ways as well.
LikeLike
It is both a good and bad thing to give everyone a voice. That means both the outspoken socially minded citizen who wants to make the world a better place and the angry idiot who wants to stir up hate. Invariably there will be those who will take the word of each as gospel. But what voice ultimately provides is opportunity. Opportunity that can be used or abused. Opportunity to learn the views, opinions, and ideas of others, so that we can create a better world together. The benefits of giving everyone voice outweigh the risks, so let vocal freedom ring from the flags of Tiananmen square to the impoverished streets of Mexico city. But alas, things are not this simple. The voice is a powerful, expensive weapon, and as most of the like it resides in the hands of only a few. Voices can build or destroy nations, and governments even more so. All government with sense fear the people, and some are afraid they would meet their judgement day if ever their people united and spoke with one voice. And then there are those people who cannot afford to buy their next meal, let alone internet service so that they can have an ideological, intangible “voice”. There are many issues we must tackle before we liberate the voice, and keeping the voices peaceful is one of them. The French revolution shows us that people with empty stomachs speak with their fists closed. But I believe that these issues can be resolved. I believe that the world will be a better place with freedom of voice for everyone. LET IT RING!!!!
LikeLike
Facebook is a place that people generally use to get in touch with old friends, or stay close to current friends, or even make new friends. Most generally it allows for freedom of speech, when it doesn’t harm anyone.
Yet, that is not all it is used for. Facebook is a business, and to run a business, you need money. How Facebook gets the money it needs to sustain itself is through scattering advertisements all throughout, and uses our information to assist the people who advertise throughout Facebook.
Not that this is a bad thing, but people must recognize that Facebook isn’t just a place where people express their ideas freely, but it is a place that people make a living off of. Because of this, Facebook has no not only appease the wants and needs of the people who express themselves through the site, and the people who pay to advertise on their site, or even the governments who can choose to block
Zuckerberg understands this completely. Whenever he makes changes for a site, he does something that will please all three parties. And if it can’t please all three, then he tries to explain it in the best way that he can, like he did in his statement “About Community Standards”. He knows that without the happiness of the people who advertise on his site, and without the governments being content with the amount of censorship on the site, we would not be able to have a site where we can express what we want whenever we want.
LikeLike
Could one make a well-forged argument without specific examples as support? I believe that with enough support with other rhetorical devices and a focus on overarching and more general ideas, very specific examples are not absolutely needed–whether they are a real necessity depends on the subject matter and the rest of the argument. In his statements on Facebook’s community standards, Mark Zuckerberg discusses wide concepts, such as the ethics of community guidelines and curbing completely free speech and the importance of having a voice and connecting with the world around you. With his focus in the writing revolving more around general ideas and establishing ethos for Facebook and their dedication to protecting free speech, the company’s interaction with global governments was only a detail when he described the obstacles they faced in providing a global platform for peoples’ voices. While first giving examples might add a bit more credibility to his argument, it doesn’t really stand as something necessary that would impact his point. In addition, mentioning the particular names of the countries faces polarization as an effect. His message is one for people who use the website all over the world and choosing to reveal the governments that had conflicted with Facebook’s ideals of free speech could very well offend people and cause controversies. In this case, including specific examples would not add much to what Zuckerberg is trying to convey other than the possibility of anger and hurt among world audiences. The safer option would be to omit them, which is exactly what Zuckerberg did.
LikeLike
In a modern world centered around technology, Facebook is a unifying force whose hands our future lies in. As Mark Zuckerberg stated it, Facebook is key to global development. His thoroughly thought out decisions are very appropriate given the circumstances at hand. By making Facebook more accessible to people around the world and controversially enough, allowing regulation of its usage, he is changing lives everywhere for the better. It creates an environment for ideas to be brewed and more importantly, gives individuals freedom of expression.
It is evident that in this new age, one of the easiest ways to connect with others is through social media. News, television, newspapers, and magazines are overshadowed by social networking, in particular Facebook. It is easily one of the most convenient ways to interact with others and share everything from family photos to radical beliefs. Consequently, Zuckerberg utilizes the power of Facebook to grant a voice to those who do not have them. It is righteous of him to grant those in restricted positions the ability to speak to the world. By broadening the window of Internet accessibility, he is allowing for those who generally do not have the luxury themselves to finally attain it. This way, more people will be able to connect with the rest of the world. Millions of lives will be changed.
In terms of legal barriers to expression, Zuckerberg also does a fantastic job at making decisions in the best interest of those people. By disregarding government orders, he only increases the risk of banning Facebook. This will only impede his goal to create a more connected global community. However, by respecting different legal and cultural environments around the world, he is actually preventing arbitrary censorship. It is a smart decision to comply to government demands minimally, only when necessary. Using these methods, he is fighting against the barriers placed in front of individuals globally, and freeing their voices.
Moreover, his applications of Facebook are brilliant and revolutionary. While some view Facebook as creating a new generation of problems- from bullying to virtual dangers to invasion of privacy- the reality is, it will tremendously benefit our community to come. People all over the world can share their stories and develop relationships. This will advocate for world peace and unity. It steers away from differences and hatred, eliminating misinterpretations and conflict. It creates an atmosphere of acceptance, and more importantly, awareness. Global problems that many are oblivious of can finally be revealed in the realest of manners, one story at a time.
Not only does social media such as Facebook string the world together, but it also allows for ideas to spread. We can grow as a society. With diverse ideas, skill sets, and outlooks, people around the world can innovate more than ever before. In this new age of technology, it is only inevitable for us to build off one another’s ideas through social networking. It is only with collaboration that growth can occur. Through Zuckerberg’s Facebook, the world will meet a new era of problem-solving and sharing.
LikeLike
After reading and re-reading Mark Zuckerberg’s post to Facebook, about the Global Government Requests Report and the updated Community Standards, I am left wondering what aspect is more important. Without a doubt the Global Government Requests Report is an issue that can affect us all with the ever growing results of globalization. However, perhaps just as equally important, are the Community Standards that all Facebook users should and ultimately have to abide by, in order to survive in the Facebook family.
Zuckerberg stresses that he wants to give the most voice to the most people. That is all well and good, but is it perhaps a bit naïve? I agree with Zuckerberg when he says, “When you do not live in fear of social isolation or violence if you express yourself, you have more voice.” However, even with the great magnitude of globalization, he has to realize that not every country in the world is going to accept the United States’ culture and views. Whether democratic or not, there are still countries in our world that can incarcerate a citizen if they were to criticize a government official. There are countries where men and women can still be stoned to death for having certain sexual experiences or sexual orientation. Whether or not we think that is right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is that every country has its own cultural and religious views, and the modern internet and social media sites like Facebook, can alter a person’s personal views for good or bad. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Zuckerberg and Facebook should make the Global Government Requests Report public so that we all may get a sense of other countries’ views to better our understanding of others in our now “Global Community”.
In regards to Community Standards, all users must agree to follow rather strict rules, in order to be a member of Facebook. I am of the opinion that the Community Standards are a good start, but far from perfect. Zuckerberg himself wrote, “As difficult questions arise about the limits of what people can share, we have a single guiding principle: We want to give the most voice to the most people.” I am all for giving people a voice, but to what end? Almost weekly there is a new story of a teenager in America seriously hurting themselves or others, reportedly after being subjected to bullying and ridicule through social media sites. Also, after reading Zuckerberg’s article, I did a quick search and found quite a few postings of Facebook members complaining about pedophilia on the site. Is that something we want so that everyone’s voice is heard? I can say an emphatic no, as both a parent and a decent human being.
So this all brings me back to my original question, what aspect is more important, the Global Government Requests Report or updated Community Standards? While I agree that both points are extremely important, I think that the Community Standards policy should be addressed aggressively so that all voices can remain to be heard without threats of violence, just like Zuckerberg yearns for.
LikeLike
As Zuckerberg states, Facebook’s goal is to “give the most voice to the most people”, and ideally, every person should express themselves “freely and safely.” However, sometimes, one’s language can hurt or disturb another. This is where the problem of cyberbullying emerges. I believe that an individual should be able to freely express themselves, good or bad, but they must be responsible.
I strongly believe in the freedom of speech. In the United States, the freedom of expression is engraved in our culture and in our Constitution. Facebook serves as a medium for the transfer of ideas and information, no different than books, television, and verbal communication. Yes, cyberbullying is a big problem in the technological, modern society, but if Facebook and the Internet never existed, people will express the same ideas on other mediums. It is in human nature to presents one’s ideas to a larger group of people, this is why we developed language – written and spoken; it is a characteristic of civilization. Today, people hold Facebook as the preferable source because of its efficiency.
Using Facebook, people defend and convey their ideas. The world today holds a population of seven billion. In this population, opinions and ideas of all shapes, forms, and fashions exist. In fact, many of these ideas commonly clash. An example is the religion of Islam and Judaism. They beliefs have contradicted one another for thousands of years. Even sects inside Islam – Sunni and Shia — often clash, causing the modern problems in the Middle East. What is beneficial to one regularly harms another. Also, people define threat differently. Thus, there are no ideal and perfect way to prevent cyberbullying because we cannot protect every belief. We can only offer support to victims of such bullying.
LikeLike
It has become common today to dismiss the reality that not all people are fortunate enough to have access to the Internet and even when people do they are not able to completely share their opinions and have a voice. Zuckerberg focuses on the fact that many people do not feel safe to express how they feel on the Internet because they think that they may get bullied for their opinions or that there are laws holding them back. I agree with Zuckerberg that every person, not only in the United States, but everywhere is entitled to speak their minds freely and be able to have their own voice without having fear of being rejected or scared. I agree that there is a lot of work to be done, but I also believe that in time people will feel more comfortable expressing themselves and their opinions to others all across the world.
LikeLike
Common sense seems to dictate that our posts online should be regulated by some degree, and they are, but Mark Zuckerberg looks to change that. I agree with Zuckerberg in the fact that people should be able to express themselves freely and what they post is their own. People should have the freedom to post what they wish without getting punished, have it removed, or have people go against it. I also do believe that some content shouldn’t be showed to everyone. Although I think people should be able to post whatever they want, if it goes against someone else’s beliefs it should not be shown to them. There needs to be some type of regulation so people don’t hate each other. But by sharing whatever people please they could discover new things from other people and they way people are connected could change.
LikeLike
In my opinion, I believe that Zuckerberg is doing a good thing for the future of Facebook. I agree with him that people should be able to post whatever they want, to a point. People should have the freedom to post anything, as long as it doesn’t cause harm to anyone else. With these new regulations, the connections and posts between people on Facebook could change completely.
LikeLike
When it comes to the topic of opinions, most of us will readily agree that we should be able to give our own, including Zuckerberg. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of cyber bullying. Zuckerberg feels that people should be able to freely express themselves without having to feel threatened or uncomfortable, and I agree. The problem is that some cannot stand being disagreed with, or even handle the thought of it. People need to learn that not everyone will think like them, and not turn to violence as their first response.
LikeLike
According to Zuckerburgs address, he and his company work to connect the world, not his business, despite what certain critics have said. To me this sounds like company image control, but the message he promotes (while likely not the company’s main drive) would seem probable. And I would be far out of line to deny them the benefit f a doubt that connecting the world is a contributing factor to their expansion efforts. And I was able to easily glean this information because (albeit in a fancy form) Zuckerburg used a template for his press release.
LikeLike
According to Zuckerburg, everyone in the world should have the power to express their opinions and have a voice without having anyone to stop them, so they are creating an organization that will allow people all over the world to have this power. Many agree and say that this will give everyone the ability to connect with others and say their thoughts without the government, or anyone else censoring their posts. On the other hand, some people believe that this will be a problem for cyber bullying and other posts that can have a potential of harming someone. I agree that this can cause a problem but I also think that people should have the ability to voice their opinion without having anyone stopping them. There should be organizations that allow this to happen but they should still be censored to some point.
LikeLike
Many people assume that our post online are just posts that don’t mean much. Zuckerberg explains in the article that whenever you go online you have a voice and posting on any type of sharing website gives you an even bigger and louder voice. Facebook has always been the social media hub for people all over the world. Many people all over log on everyday to use the website but what most people don’t notice are the people that don’t even have internet to log on to or the voice that Zuckerberg was mentioning in his article. You would think that it is hard to imagine a lifetime or even a day without internet but that’s what these people are going through. Zuckerberg wants to fix that but some countries ban the use of Facebook. He doesn’t go much into detail about why it would be banned but it may be for the good of the community in those countries. I myself believe that Facebook is a very powerful and valuable website and to be a part of it is a big thing. But this voice that it gives you doesn’t always translate to good. In the article Zuckerberg mentions cyber bullying and threats that people saw. This is an unfair use of that voice but since you are free to say anything you want initially, whatever someone wants to say is said. Facebook may be used negatively or positively but either way it is the most powerful way to interact with people around the world and after reading the article, that is the concept that Zuckerberg indicated in the article.
LikeLike
Zuckerberg makes a great point in this article. He explains how through the use of his technology, Facebook, many people across the world have started to be able to express their feelings and opinions to others that otherwise would have never been able to before. He thinks that it is almost a necessity that everyone be able to use the internet and tools such as Facebook to show how they feel “freely”. However, one thing that is never tolerated is cyber-bullying, which is definitely a major problem with the introduction of the internet and social media such as Facebook. One thing that does jump out at me though after reading the article is how much Zuckerberg exaggerated how important Facebook is for the world to be able to connect together. He even went as far as to say that it is their main goal to give everyone in the world the ability to express themselves. I honestly do not believe him when he says this, I feel it is more of a stunt to try to get more people to support Facebook. However, Zuckerberg does make a good point when he says that people deserve the freedom of expression, especially in a world that is coming ever closer together through the internet.
LikeLike
Although Zuckerburg does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that the ideal internet world for everybody will never exist because there will always be issues. Zuckerburg’s idea for Facebook was to connect various groups of people and the different ways they use to express themselves; all the while determining what content is appropiate and which is not. He even says, “We have a of work to do before every person in the world will have the voice they should have”. My whole life I have heard it said that we are lucky to have a country with freedom, one being expression. Zuckerburg probably didnt name specific governments because he didn’t want to start anything with them if Facebook was banned there. He wants to create an environment where everybody can voice their opinions and still be safe.
LikeLike
In discussions of online freedom of speech, one viewpoint is that the freedom to say whatever people choose is an important liberty to have. On the other hand, there are many laws that attempt to prevent people from saying anything that is not consistent with the general beliefs held by the government. While some see that freedom of internet speech is an almost obvious right, others are inclined to back the laws that prevent it. While personally I feel that freedom of speech appears to be a necessary benefit from internet use, I am sad to have to say that it is a privilege abused by many. Bullying, violence and spread of hatred is an unfortunate application of this freedom. While a government should never have to step in and prevent some actions, it is quite sad that some feel the need to. This is not to say that it is okay for a governing body to prevent people from expressing views different than those of itself. The difficult truth for some is simply that there are plenty of things one really should not say in the public domain of the internet. Hopefully, in the future, people can learn to filter themselves and their publicly announced views such that freedom of internet speech is a respected and widely held freedom of our modern world that need not be controlled by any one body, but instead each and every internet user of themselves.
LikeLike
In his post, “About Community Standards”, Mark Zuckerberg gives online sharing and connectivity a new idea. Throughout the article, he often refers to people’s ability to share in an online community a “voice”. He expresses his belief that what people share has value and importance, and that everyone should be given the right to share what they believe and what is important to them. While some may feel that what is posted on social media and other platforms has little to no value, Zuckerberg recognizes the significance the ability to share may hold to others, and sympathizes with them. Having read his article, I agree with him and believe that everybody should be granted the freedom of expression through the Internet, where others may not have it outside of an online platform. Had I not read the article, I may not have thought of Internet access and the ability to share as important and valuable as it truly is.
LikeLike
The Internet and the amount of information that we put on the Internet is still a controversial issue to this day. You would think that the terms for what can and cannot put on the Internet is laid out in terms of black and white but, it’s not as simple as that. In many underdeveloped countries, Internet does not exist. The Internet is a luxury that we regularly take for granted. It has become so common today to dismiss that some billions of people are being denied access to Internet based on the laws of their country. Zuckerberg is doing a genuinely good thing by trying to provide Internet access to people all around the world. With that much responsibility though, there is also a price. When have people overexercised their right to free speech at the expense of others and when should they be silenced? These are concerns that need to be expressed and they might not be able to be laid out in black and white. There are always people that are going to push the boundaries but, you have to remember that they are there for a reason.
LikeLike
When it comes to the topic of social media, most of us will freely agree that it is a great way for people to express themselves and we should not let the government have any limits. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of if people will take advantage of it or not. Whereas some are convinced that it is necessary for the government to keep media under control, others maintain that people just take expressing themselves to a whole new level. I agree with Zuckerberg that social media is a great way to connect with others, but safety policies need to be present in order for individuals to feel safe as to what they are posting. People should not disregard government policies to prevent cyber bullying on the Internet. While the internet is used for great entertainment, some people use it to harass individuals. If internet users do not respect government policies, privileges can be taken away forever. It is better to follow safety rules in the first place, there is a valid reason for their existence.
LikeLike
In this article, Zuckerberg expresses on how facebook is a very powerful website. I couldn’t do anything more than agree with him in making this case. Facebook is a very effective and powerful website because so many people are on it. Anyone can make an account on Facebook, and by doing so, you can become in contact with all people around the world and reach out to groups and organizations. You can spread awareness on whatever topic that you feel necessary and through Facebook you can also sell your ideas. Facebook doesn’t stop on just a personal level, but through facebook you can even get ads and make money. Facebook is such a social advancement that we take for granted today when you look at it. One case that Zuckerberg brings up in the article is how cyber bullying is a huge factor in facebook, and that is only one of the small things that is wrong with it. Yet again, when you are giving people of all different ages and sets of beliefs a platform to share their ideas, there is going to be hurt. These are things to be expected, it will just take time for our world as a society to not be perfect but continue to grow adhesively.
LikeLike
Zuckerburg focuses more on the Community Standards statement more than Global Government Requests. I don’t believe he should focus on the Global Government requests because that does not apply to us as citizens. He should have focused more on the Community Standards statement because it pertains to us as civilians. Due to Zuckerburg not including the names of the government he associates with it does weaken his argument, if he we were to include the governments then he would gain the support of the people who are supportive to their group of government. It is just like politics because if you had a Republican you would not gain the support of the Democrats because they would not support someone in which they do not believe in their philosophies.
LikeLike
Zuckerburg talks about the internet in this article as if it should be worshiped, he thinks everyone should have access to it. Which I have to say I agree with him. I also agree with him too that everyone deserves a voice. He wants Facebook to allow people to have the most voice possible which he explains that sometimes others don’t agree with because of what they may post. But I think that people should be able to post whatever they want and have the biggest voice possible as Zuckerburg states in his Facebook post. Not everyone is going to agree with what you say and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, for this reason I feel as though you should just be able to post whatever you want despite different opinions that others may have. All in all I believe that Zuckerburg is only making Facebook better and more useful by giving a greater voice to the people.
LikeLike
Zuckerberg does make a good point in saying that the internet should be the voice of how people express themselves. The reality of it all is that, not everyone has access to internet like we do. Internet.org is a great way of providing everyone with the access they should have. A lot of countries who restrict the things being said over the internet isn’t giving us the freedom we should be having, to be able to speak what we want. I do agree with Zuckerberg when he says we shouldn’t ignore government orders. Many people do rely on facebook to come into contact with family far away or in different countries. There is a lot of to work on with the community standards of facebook, and we’ll just have to wait for a time to be more open and connected.
LikeLike
When it comes to the topic of discussion of online speech, most of us will reading agree that we should all have the obligation to be able to post whatever we want. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of should we really be able to post whatever we want, or fix it to what people want to see? whereas some are convinced that yes, its your social media account and you should be able to post whatever you are feeling or doing, other maintain that you should monitor what you post and only post things that are appropriate. In my opinion I think it should be a little bit of both. Yes, you should be able to post what you want, but you should make those things, what I would like to call “Internet friendly”. You never know who is looking at your social media accounts. You should never post something that you think you will regret in the future. I try to keep my private life private when it comes to social media. Some things are sacred and should be kept sacred.
LikeLike
I find this passage very helpful as a reader. Although Mark does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that people don’t use Facebook properly. In Mark Zuckerberg’s message to the readers I’ve learned that his idea of developing Facebook wasn’t just for people to use this media and to waste their time on playing games and texting people and use this media as of it’s not a helpful tool for them. The main overall reason why Mark Zuckerberg came out with such an idea is for people to actually be able to interact with the world in a positive way such as being able to learn new things and built strong connections within each other. In hope Mark and over all as a community we still hope that Facebook and medias alike would be used as a good reference for people in order to make it point full and have a reason to use technology instead of wasting out times.
LikeLike
When it comes to the topic of the Facebook mission on giving the most voice to the most people, most of us will readily agree that this will enable people from all over the world to connect to everyone around the globe and share their stories, and opinions. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of people who need a voice not being able to have it, due to government regulations. Whereas some are convinced that Facebook gives people the power of voice, and affects them positively, others maintain that it is also a digital portal for cyber bullying where other people can get hurt, resulting in negative consequences. However, despite all, I think that Facebook is making the world more connected and making life better, like Zuckerberg mentions. I hope that one day their mission will be fulfilled.
LikeLike
In the article, Mark Zuckerberg makes the point of everyone in the world should have access to the internet and have their own voice. I do believe in what he says, but in reality, not everyone will have access to the internet. Some are too poor or simply not allowed in some nations. Some also swear against it and will never use it. No matter for what the reason is, it realistically will never be done unless it is way in the future well beyond our lifetimes. Another fact of the matter is is that the world today is so sensitive that people that are brutally honest or want to voice their unpopular opinion can’t because their thoughts would be frowned upon and probably deleted. The more we progress, the more sensitive we seem to become. It’s hard to give an honest truth or opinion on the internet today anyway because of all these “guidelines” to keep everyone “safe” and from being “offended”. In my eyes, you shouldn’t be at all offended by what someone else thinks. You do you, I do me.
LikeLike
I have always believed that cyberbullying was a major problem on the Internet and social media. As Zuckerberg says “We want to give the most voice to the most people,” and he realizes that with this voice, it opens the door to cyberbullying. These people abuse this privilege of being able to speak their mind and use it to drown the voice of others. I agree with Zuckerberg that this is an increasing problem on the Internet. Cyberbullying limits what the people have to say by intimidating them with threats, leaving them to remain quiet, in hopes that they are left unnoticed and thus are not the subject of cyberbullying. Finding a way of dealing with cyberbullying is also problematic. When you consider Zuckerberg’s way of dealing with it, where threats and bullying are not permitted, you also have to keep in mind that some will take this as unjust. You are taking away their right to have a voice, even if that voice is being abused. Cyberbullies either do not care if they are hurtful or intend to be hurtful. They believe that it is their right, and they can say whatever they want. The only way to stop this is to teach these people the consequence of their actions. By taking away their voice in order to stop cyberbullying, they will only protest, saying that this is unjust.
LikeLike
Everyone can agree Facebook is a powerful worldwide organization. Founder Mark Zuckerburg has acknowledged how popular this worldwide tool is. He states, “our mission is to give the power to share and to make the world more open and connected.” He explains following this statement, “we exist to give you a voice to share what matters to you.” He gave the tool to show your voice and the rest is up to yourself. Facebook has over 1.5 billion, monthly active users which is over 1/7 of the whole world. The industry is truly so huge and vast. On Facebook you can find someone from just about anywhere in the world and I find this truly remarkable. It is not only people too, it’s huge for marketing businesses. It has connected the world as a whole more than any other tool that has ever existed. Also basically anyone can use this tool, as the ages range from 10-90. Zuckerburg seeks to grasp the number of 4 billion users which is almost unthinkable. He is just trying to connect the world as much as he can and nobody can not say he has not done an outstanding job.
LikeLike
Facebook’s policy written by Mark Zuckerberg is a policy that every website, internet based company, or app should follow; the power to give everyone a voice, the power to share and build relationships, and to make the world a more social and connected place. Although Zuckerberg talks about the controversy behind taking down “controversial topics and ideas” I think that Facebook shouldn’t be able to do that. Being able to post on Facebook gives everyone a voice and an opinion about current events, government, or anything across those lines,therefore they should stay true to their mission statement and let people freely exhibit their opinions. Overall Zuckerberg is trying to let people all over the world have an equal voice and letting them post freely without being afraid of their government or reactions from other people.
LikeLike
It has become common today that we use social media sites like Facebook almost everyday. We take all these things like being able to talk to someone on the other side of the country with a click of few buttons for granted. But what we don’t realize is that more people don’t have internet compared to those who do. When it comes to the topic of social media sites, Facebook is probably one of the most used ones. Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to have a voice and he has almost succeeded, because his website has connected millions of people. Although he gave millions of people this voice, there are still a lot that don’t have the opportunity. I believe that Zuckerberg is doing something good by allowing people to communicate with each other easier and faster.
LikeLike
It is often said that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”. In fact, we have all heard it in our childhood and on in some way shape or form. However, that is the farthest from correct, as we should now know. Words, as simplistic and meaningless as they seem can and do have huge adverse effects on ones mental and emotional state. Harsh comments, tweets and posts are very easy to compose, then post on social networks for all of your followers or friends to see on their device. Since they are not there in person, it makes it that more effortless to do so. Cyber-bullying is a incredibly prevalent in all social networks in some way, shape or form. Regulating it in your own mind, between the brain to finger connection is quite difficult, but it is a skill that we must master. For those who don’t, the problem becomes the social networks issue. For example, Zuckerburg’s network, Facebook, has a variety of issues with not only individual people to people interaction, but with governments as well. In discussions of cyber-bullying, one controversial issue has been to find out where the best place to stop it is. One one hand, the chopping it at its root with correct parenting and learning of a child at a young age with repetition of lessons that show the horrible psychological effects that cyber-bullying has a way. On the other, Facebook itself could continue to deal with it, and take down the posts themselves. My own personal view on how to deal with it is to stop it at its root.
LikeLike
IN this article Zuckerburg describes how important a voice can be. So many people around the world use Facebook to talk, also share opinions they have about what’s going on in their life or exciting experience’s. He explains how people all over the world use facebook as their voice. I can understand what he means by voice because when your connected to and in contact with your” friends ” you can speak whatever you want. weather it be good or not the people you allow to read it will see what you have you posted. I know of stories from across the country because of people have reposted and commented on these amazing /concerning events in attempt to help others gain more awareness. on the other hand as i had mentioned above Facebook can also be used to hurt others as in cyber bulling. I don’t agree with this factor of being able to have a voice , because being mean to others is not a good thing to do. it can cause people to go over the edge and do something that is regretful, and or just make a person depressed. this is not a good side to being able to have a voice. i believe if you are given a opportunity to have a voice in this big world you don’t misuse it.
LikeLike
In the world of growing technology, the internet is another voice for the citizens of the earth. Instead of back in the 1500’s Galileo was house arrested for his support in the helio-centric universe, he had no voice. Would he have taken advantage of his voice if the internet was around? In the 21st century, Mark Zuckerburg recognizes the people’s freedom of speech with the internet. Everyone in this world needs a voice in order to evolve has a successful race of humans. On the other hand, there are a handful that take advantage and abuse this so called human right. I believe violence has evolved with the internet, things like Cyber-bullying and using the internet to send someone threats is a threat to our freedom. With these problems, I think there could be various solutions to the problem, and as a human race, we will evolve.
LikeLike
Zuckerberg makes his position clear the what he wants to do with face book is “connect the society the people and the whole world where they can all express themselves and share their voices their opinions there pictures and there love to other people”. Zuckerberg wanted to create a source that would be able to do all this and he did with Facebook. it’s primary goal was to connect and give everyone a voice. It was successful and Facebook is found all over the world and is used by billions of people all over the world. In my opinion Facebook is a positive idea with connecting everyone and give everyone a voice. On the other hand Facebook can give out private information that can be invaded and taken. Growing up in a country that is blessed we have many freedoms and we have a big opportunity to share air voice. Zuckerberg says that what they are trying to do in other countries is help the society and provide them with internet access so they can stay connected and share their voice. In reality what we see that happened is Zuckerberg’s ideas came out to be very successful and Facebook is a worldwide thing recognized by most countries. Facebook a mission to connect the population and give everyone a voice is successful.
LikeLike
Zuckerburg says in his article that facebook is a fantastic way for people to express their opinions and communicate through all around the world. I agree with Zuckerburg, that we were given a voice to speak and not keep our thoughts to ourselves, but I also think that our voice is the cause of many problems as well. Being able to freely say what you want on the internet can be catastrophic. Cyber bullying is something that is a consequence of people speaking their minds. So, although its a great way to open up and say what you want people should be careful of what they do say.
LikeLike
In this article Zuckerburg describes how important a voice can be. So many people around the world use Facebook to talk, also share opinions they have about what’s going on in their life or exciting experience. He explains how people all over the world use facebook as their voice. I can understand what he means by voice because when your connected to and in contact with your” friends ” you can speak whatever you want. weather it be good or not the people you allow to read it will see what you have you posted. I know of stories from across the country because of people have reposted and commented on these amazing /concerning events in attempt to help others gain more awareness. on the other hand as i had mentioned above Facebook can also be used to hurt others as in cyber bulling. I don’t agree with this factor of being able to have a voice , because being mean to others is not a good thing to do. it can cause people to go over the edge and do something that is regretful, and or just make a person depressed. this is not a good side to being able to have a voice. i believe if you are given a opportunity to have a voice in this big world you don’t misuse it
LikeLike
In Mark Zuckerberg’s recent post, he stated that he believes Facebook plays a fundamental part in the way people communicate in today’s world, and that the company should not withdraw it services from countries that restrict what its’ citizens can post. On the other hand, civil rights activists argue that Facebook needs vacate its’ services from countries that impose restrictions on what it’s residents can post in order for the government policies to change. I personally agree with Zuckerberg because blocking Facebook in those countries will just silence those users and retard a social uprising that could eventually change the government policies. There are people in those restricted countries who need to communicate with people too, thus Facebook withdrawing its’ services will not solve any problems, but create more.
LikeLike
Zuckerburg talks about the freedom of communicating freely, and saying what you think. Not everyone has this freedom, and Zuckerburg says that media like Facebook allows people to more easily express themselves. There are,of course, those that abuse this right and thus our freedom has to be regulated to some extent. With rights come responsibilities. But when countries or government try to control what people can say, that’s forcing people to not say in what they truly believe in. Zuckerburg mentions that “Every country has laws limiting certain expression, and these are often shaped by culture and history” I realize that although we can say whatever we think about our government and history, many other countries do not. I think that’s it’s important to know this and not abuse the freedoms we have.
LikeLike
In the discussion of Mark Zuckerburg, a controversial issue has been the balance between the rules of facebook and the laws of countries around the world. On one hand, Zuckerberg argues that people around the world use facebook as a voice to speak their minds and connect with their families long distance. On the other hand, Zuckerburg contends with the fact that certain countries prohibit certain things you are allowed to say, post, and do. Others even maintain that the governments shouldn’t have a say in what people post on the internet since the internet is universal and it doesn’t pertain to those countries. My belief is that, people should be able to post what they want under basic conditions and limitations such as, not promoting or condoning, violence, murder, harassment, orientation, abuse, discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, gender or residency ect… In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of the government can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that law should determine what you can and cannot post is contradicted by their claim that people should have freedom speech as long as it does not cross a line of disrespect and common sense.
LikeLike
Facebook, although a great tool that provides everyday people with a voice, can be very dangerous in many ways. The person who decides to express herself or himself in a way that hurts other people makes it that way. It may be a great way for people to express themselves as well as a beneficial way to advertise for a business and stay in contact with friends and family but I do not think it’s worth the pain it causes so many people. Annonymous or not, social media’s such as Facebook provide a comfort for people looking to inflict pain. They hide behind their computer screen whether they’re giving a bad review or attacking someone on a personal level. There are other ways for people to advertise and stay in contact with others without handing them a weapon. Facebook may be a great tool for some but it is used as a weapon too much for it to have a positive impact.
LikeLike