Leaked posts show Facebook's decision not to remove Trump's threat of violence is roiling employees, some of whom are calling on execs to reconsider the stance

The Verge 2020-05-31 Casey Newton

Context & Ripple Effects

The employee revolt over Facebook leaving up President Trump's 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' threat is not an isolated flare-up — it echoes the 2018 backlash against Andrew Bosworth's memo, where thousands of comments split between defending the company and sympathizing with critics. The difference this time is the target: not an internal memo but a public moderation call on the sitting president.

Casey Newton's leaked-post reporting lands mid-crisis, and Zuckerberg has already signaled no retreat — days later he told staff on an all-hands that he stands behind the decision ([[a:954295]]). The question the coverage keeps circling is whether leadership can absorb dissent that now recurs with every high-profile moderation call.

First-order effects

Employees are directly challenging executives' authority over content policy, with some publicly calling for the decision to be reconsidered — an unusually direct internal challenge during a national crisis moment.
Zuckerberg must defend a hands-off stance on political speech while his own workforce argues it crosses the line into incitement, putting the 'free expression' brand position under stress from inside the company.

Second-order effects

Internal channels themselves become contested terrain: by January 2021, admins were freezing comment threads where employees discussed removing Trump from the platform ([[a:961778]]) — moderation of the moderators, which deepens rather than resolves the rift.
Rivals like Twitter, which labeled the same class of presidential posts, gain a contrast point that Facebook employees themselves cite — making competitor policy a wedge in Facebook's recruiting and retention arguments.

Third-order effects

If every major political-speech decision now triggers a leak-and-dissent cycle — the Bosworth memo in 2018, this episode in mid-2020, and the recorded balancing acts by September ([[a:958175]]) — Facebook's real governance structure becomes a permanent negotiation between executive policy and employee pressure.
That dynamic pushes toward structural fixes rather than case-by-case calls: an external oversight apparatus or clearer published rules for political figures, precisely so individual executives aren't re-deciding the president's posts under fire each time.

The trend: Platform content moderation is becoming an internal labor issue as much as a policy one, with employee dissent recurring at every high-stakes political-speech decision and forcing companies toward formalized governance structures.

Discussion

Vox Shirin Ghaffary on x
Facebook and Twitter have similar policies. But only Twitter is fighting Trump.
@timobrien Tim O'Brien on x
“You could answer the existential question of whether @realDonaldTrump even exists if he doesn't exist on Twitter. I tweet, therefore I am. Dorsey meets Descartes.” Via ⁦@maureendowd⁩ https://www.nytimes.com/...
@carlquintanilla Carl Quintanilla on x
“Pour yourself a big old glass of salt juice. Draw an ice bath and fire up the cryotherapy pod and the infrared sauna. Then just pull the plug on him. You know you want to.” - ⁦@maureendowd⁩ $TWTR https://www.nytimes.com/...
@caseynewton Casey Newton on x
Here's what employees are saying inside Facebook today about the company's decision not to take action against Trump's threatening posts: “History will not judge us kindly.” https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@samanthajpower Samantha Power on x
Zuckerberg's position exempting politicians from #Facebook standards is as incoherent as it is destructive. He won't prevent pols from using FB to incite violence & he won't let FB be an “arbiter of truth” even to fact-check pols' most brazen&harmful lies. https://www.nytimes.com…
@justinhendrix @justinhendrix on x
This is correct. If you work for Facebook, you must accept that your CEO has bowed to a bigoted authoritarian. https://twitter.com/...
@buzz Buzz Andersen on x
“Another employee compared working at Facebook to a comedy sketch by the duo Mitchell and Webb in which two SS officers are talking during World War II and one asks the other, ‘Are we the baddies?’” https://www.theverge.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
1. YESTERDAY, Mark Zuckerberg said that if Trump promoted violence on Facebook, he would take action TODAY, Zuckerberg admitted Trump was promoting violence but said there is an (unwritten) exception for “warning about state action” In other words, it doesn't apply to Trump https…
@oliverdarcy Oliver Darcy on x
Zuckerberg: “I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but 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.” https://www.facebook.com/..…
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
Twitter and Facebook have the same basic policies around voter suppression and incitement to violence, and trump posted the same stuff to both platforms. Some FB employees are beginning to wonder what line must be crossed for the company to act. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
it's this clip. employees are sharing this @AOC on the Zuckerberg all-hands Q&A stream in protest. it is not going well https://twitter.com/...
@ahmed Ahmed Al Omran on x
Staying on the sidelines as Twitter does battle with Trump and his allies, Zuckerberg could gain unlikely Republican friends to stave off regulatory intervention into his business https://www.nytimes.com/...
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
Here's probably the reason we haven't heard from Facebook today. This is what Zuckerberg told Congress. https://twitter.com/...
@laurahuu Laura Halminen on x
Leaked posts show Facebook employees asking the company to remove Trump's threat of violence: “If we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly” We can see they failed. https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@jason_kint @jason_kint on x
A couple things here. 1) Monika Bickert is the Facebook exec who sat with colleague and misled Parliament in Feb 2018 as he stated emphatically Cambridge Analytica wouldn't have Facebook data one month before the world found out that was false. https://twitter.com/...
@npr @npr on x
The phrase President Trump tweeted goes back to the Civil Rights Era. It was used by a white police chief with “a long history of bigotry against the black community,” a scholar explains. And a segregationist politician. https://www.npr.org/...
@ananny Mike Ananny on x
Facebook employees can't explain the company's contortions: “'Would it be possible to explain in more detail the interpretation of our community standards?' one employee asked. ‘Does this post violate them but get an exemption, or is it not violating?’” https://www.theverge.com/.…
@slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x
It's not just users that have an issue with @Facebook's decision not to enforce their own policies on posts with threats of violence, it's their own employees. And it should be their customers, too. If you're advertising on @Facebook, vote with your dollars. You support them. htt…
@jasoncfry Jason Fry on x
History's been saying that for nearly four years now, fellas. https://twitter.com/...
@danielpunkass Daniel Jalkut on x
It's hard to quit your job in a time of crisis, but if you work for Facebook and have the flexibility to do so, it would send a message. https://twitter.com/...
@jeffbigham Rogue P. Bigham on x
zuck is sorry that trump incited violence but facebook has done nothing about it, even as twitter did something, ok?!? https://twitter.com/...
@fraying @fraying on x
It's journalistic malpractice to not mention anywhere in this story that the Trump campaign is giving millions, possibly billions, to Facebook. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@monteiro @monteiro on x
Another vichy headline from the @nytimes. Mark Zuckerberg didn't “keep Facebook out of it.” Giving the Nazis harbor isn't a neutral stance. It's a complicit stance. Facebook is guilty from top to bottom. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@hshaban Hamza Shaban on x
Facebook the communications platform with billions of users and incomprehensible amplifying power is very clearly not the same thing as a billboard on the highway. And disinformation explodes the bad speech/good speech thing. But Zuckerberg benefits from this idealized conception…
@aoc Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on x
If you work at Facebook and are inside agitating for change, thank you. Don't let up. Our democracy and the safety of so many lives are in the balance. Workers can tip it for the better. Keep pushing everywhere. We see you. https://twitter.com/...
@oneunderscore__ Ben Collins on x
This wound up being a lie. https://twitter.com/...
@mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x
In an April 22 scoop, Reuters reported that Facebook had secretly agreed to cooperate with the Vietnamese government in censoring content. https://twitter.com/...
@dylanbyers Dylan Byers on x
NEW Mark Zuckerberg: “I disagree strongly with how the President spoke... 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...” https://www.facebook.co…
@clarajeffery Clara Jeffery on x
If you still work for Facebook...how do you rationalize it? https://twitter.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
Mark Zuckerberg has a blog post defending Facebook's decision not to act against Trump's posts re: Minneapolis. Says he had a “visceral negative reaction” personally, but that he is the “leader of an institution committed to free expression.” https://www.facebook.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
Zuckerberg makes the call to keep POTUS' posts up inside Facebook so that people can see them for themselves, despite MZ's own “visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.” https://www.facebook.com/...
@alexeheath Alex Heath on x
Mark Zuckerberg: “I know many people are upset that we've left the President's posts up, but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers...” https://www.facebook.com/...
@nicdawes Nicholas Dawes on x
Policy is necessary for getting this right, but the sufficient condition is leadership https://twitter.com/...
@profgalloway Scott Galloway on x
“Many people in the tech industry believe regulators ... are the one existential risk to Mr. Zuckerberg's business.” Sure won't be his conscience. There isn't one. piece by @MikeIsaac @ceciliakang https://www.nytimes.com/...
@matthewfederman Matthew Federman on x
History? The Present isn't judging them kindly. https://twitter.com/...
@arainert @arainert on x
“History will not judge us kindly” - FB employees... is a candidate for understatement of the decade. https://twitter.com/...
@mollyjongfast Molly Jong-Fast on x
Facebook really really really sucks https://twitter.com/...
@jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
Leaked posts show Facebook employees asking the company to remove Trump's threat of violence “If we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly” https://www.theverge.com/...
@jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
FACEBOOK EMPLOYEE: “It's been said previously that inciting violence would cause a post to be removed. I too would like to know why the goals shifted, and where they are now.” https://www.theverge.com/...
@ericschultz Eric Schultz on x
If he's not going to be responsive to the country, wonder if he'll feel compelled to be responsive to his own team. Expect a lot more reporting on internal dissent. https://twitter.com/...
@zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x
Facebook employees seem to not understand the company they are working for. https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles