Is "F*!K Zuck" the right way to go?
Last week, a former colleague, who is consulting for a non-profit that is raising awareness of the rise in child abuse during the pandemic quarantine, called me for advice: Should she advise her client to join the boycott against Facebook and stop spending their limited ad dollars there—even though she'd been advised by her media consultant that Facebook and Instagram was by far the most efficient way to spread their message with the limited funds they had available?
My answer was, "Do you care about making a gesture that makes you feel good, or do you care about helping those kids?"
If it's the kids, keep spending.
I am a bleeding heart liberal. I think that President Trump is a despicable human being. I clearly recognize that he regularly and intentionally stokes the fires of divisiveness and hate to gain political advantage. I recognize that as the largest social media platform, Facebook, is the largest place that people spread that hate—and I recognize that they have a responsibility to try to limit hate speech that promotes abuse. I even recognize that the boycott has been effective at pressuring Facebook into taking additional steps to limit hateful content on their platform.
All that said, there is a very, very fine line between limiting hate speech that promotes abuse and censoring free speech of people with different opinions than your own.
Like many of us, I'm connected on Facebook with some people who share my political views, and some people who definitely don't. Some of them are assholes about it. Some of us are too. Then there are those—the ones I appreciate the most—who have the moral compass and strength of character to be able to intelligently and respectfully challenge one another's views.
Like my friend, Ben. I'm not actually sure if Ben is a conservative or simply an independent-minded voter, but he knows I'm a liberal who isn't shy about expressing my opinions. He recently asked me on a Facebook thread, "So, are you ok with people comparing Trump to Hitler?"
That caused me to think. I do think that Trump has embraced tactics of the Facists (I read The Pope and Mussolini and the parallels between Trump's political behavior and Il Duce's are astounding). But, I'm a Jew. My relatives were put into gas chambers and ovens by Hitler. He murdered six million of us and systemically tried to erase us from the planet. So, no, I'm actually not ok with comparing Trump to Hitler. Thank you, Ben, for bringing us closer together.
Perhaps, if I was a conservative and looking at what constitutes hate speech, I'd perceive some liberals comparing Trump to Hitler, implying that anyone who supports him is a Nazi (or white supremacist), I'd find that to be pretty hateful and something Facebook should censor.
Very, very, very fine lines.
It's no secret that Facebook has fucked up a lot in the past. And yes, there is a lot of hate on their platform. But there is a lot of hate on every website on the internet that allows people to type words or upload pictures into a feed, comment form or post.
You have to ask, is Unilever boycotting Facebook because they believe it will make an impact or because they don't want their brands associated with a site that is the focus of controversy?
More to the point, is it right to scapegoat Facebook without also acknowledging the positive contribution they are making to our world?
Last week, I spoke to my friend, Barbara Ross, author of the book "Woke up Blonde" about her experience as a black woman being an executive in corporate America. We talked about the murder of George Floyd and so many others and the ensuing rage sweeping the country and spilling out onto our streets.
I made a comment, "It seems like things have just gotten so much worse since we were in high school."
But Barbara corrected me: "That's ignorant. Things have always been this way."
She was right. The only difference is that today, we all have a camera in our pocket and we all have... yes, Facebook.
If we're going to blame Facebook for allowing hate to fester, we have to credit Facebook for exposing it too. That exposure leads to outrage. That outrage leads to millions of Americans—and thousands of American businesses—saying enough is enough. And where are they saying it? On Facebook. And Instagram. And LinkedIn and Twitter and Reddit and TikTok. And from people shouting that Black Lives Matter in the streets. And is it messy? Absolutely. But it's a 400 year old mess we're cleaning up here. And it has to change.
Change isn't going to come from just one side of the political spectrum. True change is born from truth that transcends. What happened to George Floyd didn't just outrage Democrats. It outraged all good people who saw it. And it will be those good people uniting to transcend divisiveness, making change for the sake of what's right regardless of politics, and demanding it of our leaders that will truly make an impact and bring about change.
Mark Zuckerberg is doing a tightrope walk on that very, very, very fine line. It may feel good in the moment for the angry masses to cast blame and shout for him to fall. But is that what's really going to be effective?
Because, what really matters is that together, we all get to the other side.
Co-founder at Health+ Studio
4 年Thanks Adam for showing that issues of power and privilege?are really thorny?and no matter which side of the line you fall on, there are unintended?consequences that?need to?be considered. I will out myself as the ex-colleague and the unintended consequence?of our decision would mean families that are at high risk for child abuse and neglect will not get to learn about the community talk lines where stressed, worried and scared parents can talk to live volunteers 24/7 and get some relieve and support as they struggle with job loss and putting food on the table in the midst of a global pandemic. There are no right or wrong answers and there is no "one size fits all" here. Each of us need to think about unintended consequences of our voice and actions...especially when they come from our place of power and privilege...and especially when they impact those who have no voice. Adam, thank you for starting this important conversation.?
Advertising Creative/ ACD/Writer /Brand Consultant??
4 年I’ve been given multiple “time outs” for posting things on FB that they claimed were offensive to Trump supporters. So if they are going to limit my free speech, then I have no problem with limiting the other side. The hateful rhetoric he is spreading has caused a spike in hate crimes. Those crimes aren’t being committed by his critics. The boycott isn’t about punishing a multi-billionaire. It’s about using corporate influence for good. If Twitter can put checks on Trump, so can FB.
Brand Strategy | Digital Engagement | Content Marketing | Paid Media
4 年My incomplete thoughts: 1. I can understand—though I don’t agree with—Unilever and Coke as they’re including all platforms in their efforts. To me, that shows they actually do care, whereas the rest who are merely “boycotting” Facebook tells me it’s more a little “look, we’re doing it, too.” Reminds me of BLM and Pride where brands change their logo for a month and then go back to ignoring it for the rest of the year. 2. My job is to provide the resources my community needs to serve the demands of their customers. Being in healthcare, I’m a bit different than most, but my community is still struggling with COVID. Me stopping my ad spend signals “yes, I know you’re struggling and need help, but you’ll have to get it somewhere else.” I don’t think I can do that and risk my community not being able to serve their consumers and provide quality healthcare because I’m trying to prove a point. 3. How many of these brands were planning on cutting spending/budgets and/or are prepping for the next wave of COVID and simply using this to say “hey, look at us. We’re doing it, too” when they would have reduced spending anyhow? 4. Is it really a bold move when Coke, who really doesn’t need Facebook, pulls their spending?