- Facebook was embroiled in controversy again this week as employees revolted against its decision not to take action against a post from President Trump about the George Floyd protests.
- Facebook's standpoint is that it should not fact-check or meddle with political speech on its platform to allow for as much free expression as possible.
- But Facebook has come under much scrutiny for such choices, which all tie back to the notion that it blurs the line between being a platform and a publisher.
- Now, Facebook's handling of Trump's activity on the platform are causing internal turmoil as employees are speaking out publicly, have staged a walkout, and resigning publicly in at least one scenario.
- Are you a Facebook insider with insight to share? Contact this reporter via encrypted email (lisaeadicicco@protonmail.com), standard email (leadicicco@businessinsider.com), or Twitter DM (@lisaeadicicco). We can keep sources anonymous. Use a nonwork device to reach out.
- Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Facebook has found itself at the center of yet another controversy this week as employees rallied against the company's policies regarding fact-checking, free speech, and political content.
Some employees staged a virtual walkout on Monday in response to the company's decision not to take action against a post published by President Trump in reference to the George Floyd protests that included the phrase: "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
At least one Facebook employee has publicly resigned over concerns about the company's values, and a group of former Facebook employees have written an open letter to the company urging it to change its policies.
The backlash is culminating in what's shaping up to be a powder-keg moment for Facebook. But it stems from a long-standing view that Zuckerberg and Facebook have held that it should not be an "arbiter of truth" and should therefore allow as much free expression as possible.
The company does have policies in place for cracking down on misinformation, spam, fake accounts, and violent or abusive content. However, it does not fact-check advertisements from politicians, a decision that has resulted in a deluge of concerns and criticisms from lawmakers.
"We don't do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying," Zuckerberg said during a speech at Georgetown University in October. "And if content is newsworthy, we also won't take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards."
Here's a closer look at the backlash that's erupted this week and what's behind it.
Facebook's identity crisis — the ongoing debate about whether it's a platform or publisher
At the center of Facebook's decisions regarding freedom of expression is its view that that the social network is a platform, not a publisher — a debate that has rattled the company for years.
But the dilemma reached a fever pitch in recent years as incidents like the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the revelation that Russian influence reached 126 million people through Facebook ads during the 2016 campaign have demonstrated how the social network's massive platform can be used in nefarious ways.
Facebook has made many moves to be more transparent and give its users more control over their data as well as the amount of political ads they see. But in terms of handling content, including that found in political ads, Facebook considers itself a platform for free expression above all else.
The company has repeatedly said that it does not want to and shouldn't be the "arbiter of truth," which is the standpoint that's driven its decision not to interfere with Trump's controversial post.
When it comes to that particular post, Zuckerberg said it decided to take no action because it interpreted the content as a "warning about state action."
"I disagree strongly with how the President spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open," Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post explaining the company's rationale.
Facebook's position came up yet again in the prior week just before President Trump signed an executive order targeting a federal law that's shielded social media companies for being held liable for posts published on their platforms.
"I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,"Zuckerberg said to Fox News' Dana Perino, largely seen as a jab at Twitter's decision to fact-check Trump's tweets about mail-in ballots. "I think in general, private companies shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that."
Of course, Facebook is a social media website and app, not a news organization. But as the company has grown to become an increasingly important distributor of news and information in recent years, decisions about how it handles content are critical — forcing Facebook to examine these questions more closely than ever.
About two-thirds of Americans get their news from social media, with four in 10 adults in the U.S. turning to Facebook for news, according to data from the Pew Research Center published in 2018.
Facebook has even expressed conflict about whether it considers itself to be a platform or a publisher. Public remarks from company executives indicate that the company thinks of itself as the former. But in 2018, Facebook lawyers argued in court that the company's decisions about the content and data it chooses to publish should be protected like that of a traditional publisher.
Do you work at Facebook? Contact Business Insider reporter Lisa Eadicicco via encrypted email (lisaeadicicco@protonmail.com), standard email (leadicicco@businessinsider.com), or Twitter DM (@lisaeadicicco). We can keep sources anonymous. Use a nonwork device to reach out
The controversy is rooted in Facebook's decision to not fact-check political ads
Facebook's inaction around President Trump's posts regarding the George Floyd protests is far from being the first time the company has come under scrutiny over its handling of political content. Facebook doesn't fact-check political ads because, it says, the public should freely see what politicians are posting.
That policy came to light in October, drawing widespread criticism from employees and lawmakers alike.
It drew ire from the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as Facebook's own employees. Hundreds of Facebook employees petitioned Zuckerberg in October to change the policy, as The New York Times reported; Ocasio-Cortez and Warren backed the petition.
Facebook's decisions around political speech are under a microscope now than ever before as the CEOs of both Twitter and Snapchat parent Snap Inc. have taken action against the president's recent posts. Twitter placed a warning label on Trump's post indicating that it violated the platform's rules about glorifying violence, although the tweet still remains accessible. Snap, meanwhile, has decided not to promote President Trump's account in the Discover section of Snapchat to avoid amplifying "voices who incite racial violence and injustice."
The new revolt inside Facebook
Now, Facebook employees are speaking out louder than ever before against the company's policies. Many employees have spoken out on Twitter about their disapproval of the company's decision over the course of the past week.
"I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we're showing up," Facebook employee Jason Toff tweeted."The majority of coworkers I've spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voices heard."
Dozens of Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout on Monday by taking the day off in protest. Those who participated in the walkout also added a message to their emails saying they were out of the office to take part in the demonstration. As many as 400 employees may have participated in the protest, according to The Verge. Facebook employees also challenged the decision at an internal company meeting on Tuesday, where Zuckerberg stood by the company's decision.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that employees felt the company was being tested by Trump, and failed. A Facebook software engineer even publicly resigned over the company's response.
"Mark always told us that he would draw the line at speech that calls for violence," Timothy J. Aveni, the engineer who resigned, wrote in a post on Facebook. "He showed us on Friday that this was a lie. Facebook will keep moving the goalposts every time Trump escalates, finding excuse after excuse not to act on increasingly dangerous rhetoric."
It's not just current Facebookers that are taking a stand. Several former employees who worked at the company in its early days also wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg urging the social media giant to change its policies, The New York Times reported.
Facebook may not want or intend to be the "arbiter of truth." But what this week's events have shown yet again is that while Facebook may not consider itself a publisher, its size, reach, and influence means it certainly has many of the same responsibilities, decisions, and dilemmas as publishers.
Whatever way Facebook sees itself has shown, time and time again, to be different from the way it's seen by everyone else. Zuckerberg may not care about the distinction, but it's clear his employees are starting to.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Why electric planes haven't taken off yet