Facebook staff in 'virtual walkout' over Mark Zuckerberg's response to Trump protest posts
Facebook staff protesting Mark Zuckerberg's response to posts by Donald Trump have staged a "virtual walkout" with employees calling in sick and many publicly criticising the company and its chief executive.
Several employees attacked the social network’s refusal to follow Twitter in removing or labelling the US President’s Facebook posts, which called protesters “thugs” and warning that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”.
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has insisted that politicians should be heard, despite saying he finds the messages “deeply offensive”, but staff posting on Twitter attacked the decision and said there was widespread disagreement among employees.
Many staff working from home, due to the coronavirus pandemic, requested time off on Monday and added out-of-office responses to their emails saying they were protesting the company's response.
While Facebook employees often passionately discuss the company’s policies on internal messageboards, it is rare for them to criticise their own company publicly.
"Facebook's inaction in taking down Trump's post inciting violence makes me ashamed to work here. I absolutely disagree with it," wrote software engineer Lauren Tan. "I enjoy the technical parts of my job and working alongside smart/kind people, but this isn't right. Silence is complicity."
Facebook's inaction in taking down Trump's post inciting violence makes me ashamed to work here. I absolutely disagree with it. I enjoy the technical parts of my job and working alongside smart/kind people, but this isn't right. Silence is complicity.
— Lauren Tan ✨😷✨ (@sugarpirate_) May 29, 2020
Ryan Freitas, a director of product design, said: “Mark is wrong, and I will endeavour in the loudest possible way to change his mind.”
Jason Toff, a director of product management, said: “I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up. The majority of coworkers I’ve spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voice heard.”
Brandon Dail, an engineer, said that “Trump's glorification of violence on Facebook is disgusting and it should absolutely be flagged or removed from our platforms. I categorically disagree with any policy that does otherwise.
“Calling this out is literally the bare minimum employees can do; I understand that being an employee makes me complicit, but I'm doing what I can to voice these concerns internally too. I'm sorry to all the people these policies hurt.”
Dozens of employees have tweeted opposition to Facebook’s response, or praise for the response from Twitter, which unlike Facebook added fact-check labels or warning screens to Mr Trump’s posts last week, saying that posts were breaking rules on “glorifying violence”.
Jason Stirman, who works on new products at Facebook, said: “I'm a FB employee that completely disagrees with Mark's decision to do nothing about Trump's recent posts, which clearly incite violence. I'm not alone inside of FB. There isn't a neutral position on racism.”
I don't know what to do, but I know doing nothing is not acceptable. I'm a FB employee that completely disagrees with Mark's decision to do nothing about Trump's recent posts, which clearly incite violence. I'm not alone inside of FB. There isn't a neutral position on racism.
— Stirman (@stirman) May 30, 2020
Mr Zuckerberg said on Friday: “Our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies,” saying Mr Trump’s post did not cross this line. On Sunday night, he said Facebook would donate $10 million (£8 million) to groups working on racial justice.
Last week, Twitter added fact-checking labels to two of Mr Trump’s tweets claiming that postal voting would lead to widespread fraud, and hid a post regarding the protests that said: “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
In response, Mr Trump signed an executive order seeking to strip social media companies of legal protections if they are deemed to have censored free speech.
