According to CNBC, the Facebook CEO has left President Trump’s post up about greenlighting the military getting involved with the riots. The riots sparked off after police killed George Floyd in Minneapolis and began spreading to lots of the country’s other larger cities.
Now, Facebook employees say they strongly disagree with Zuckerberg’s decision to leave Trump’s FB post unbanned.
Meanwhile, the same post published by Trump's and the White House's Twitter accounts last week was marked as one that may encourage violence and, as such, was limited in its visibility.
Facebook CEO leaves Trump’s controversial post as it is
CNBC reports that at least half-a-dozen Facebook employees disagree with Mark Zuckerberg’s decision not to ban nor take any other action against President Trump’s post about greenlighting the potential involvement of the military for suppressing the riots.
Since then, the protests against police abuse of power in dealing with citizens of color have spread to many large cities, including Washington and New York.
CNBC cites such words from Facebook staffers about their CEO’s decision as ‘disappointed’, ‘gravely concerned’, ‘Mark is wrong’ and ‘doing nothing is unacceptable’.
The message Trump put on the two social media behemoths promises shooting to be involved if looting starts.
The president shared that he had had a phone call with Governor Tim Walz and approved of the military supporting him if necessary.
Jack Dorsey limits visibility of Trump’s tweet
Another social media monster, Twitter, has demonstrated a contrary reaction to Trump’s tweet. Both tweets from Trump published on his account and the page of the White House have been limited.
The Twitter team has emphasized that the message was allowed to stay online because it may be of public interest considering the situation with the protests.
Trump and Zuckerberg meet on the phone
According to Axios, Trump and Mark Zuckerberg had a phone call after the social unrest began and crowds took to the streets.
The call took place on Friday and was ‘productive’ for both participants, the article says. However, the conversation was about racial justice.