San Francisco – Facebook Inc’s
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Zuckerberg has been on the defensive for weeks over revelations that Russian agents bought ads on Facebook and created fake accounts to inflame political tensions in the United States ahead of the 2016 presidential vote.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday Zuckerberg said both Trump and liberals were upset about ideas and content on Facebook during the campaign.
“That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like,” Zuckerberg said on Wednesday.
Zuckerburg noted that the 2016 campaign was the first in the United States where the internet was a primary way candidates communicated and said the ability of candidates and voters to interact was a good thing.
He also pointed to “get out the vote” efforts that had spurred almost 2 million people to register to vote.
In the same post, Zuckerberg said he regretted saying after the election that it was “crazy” to think that misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election, adding that the comment was “dismissive.”
Earlier on Wednesday, Trump’s tweet criticized Facebook as “anti-Trump” and suggested the company could have colluded with other media outlets that opposed him.
Facebook is part of investigations both houses of Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller are conducting into Russian influence in the 2016 election.
Facebook on Wednesday was asked to testify before two separate Congressional committees. It is not clear whether Zuckerberg or other executives will appear.
While I don’t remember the details, I remember several years ago there was a case in court when one candidate in the campaign period of some election accused the other candidate of deliberately spreading false information, and actually proved his case. He wanted the court to grant an injuction to stop the rival from continuing those actions. The court ruled, tough on you. No such an idea exists in law, and his only recourse would be to sue the rival after the election is over.
I will complain again, why is the investigation only about Russian influence, particularly where social media is involved. Why is there investigation in what, say, Mexicans (among others) had been doing on social media during the election campaign?