On press call, Zuckerberg says FB users "naturally engage more with sensational content" that comes close to violating its rules. Compares it to cable TV and tabloids, and says, "This seems to be true regardless of where we set our policy lines."

Zuckerberg says FB is in the process of setting up a "new independent body" that users will be able to appeal content takedowns to. Sort of like the "Facebook Supreme Court" idea he previewed earlier this year.
Zuckerberg: "One of my biggest lessons from this year is that when you connect more than 2 billion people, you’re going to see the good and bad of humanity."
This is how Facebook says it's trying to change the engagement pattern on its services. https://t.co/3p0PGc912o
.@RebeccaJarvis asks Zuckerberg if anyone is going to lose their job over the revelations in the NYT story. He dodges, says that personnel issues aren't a public matter, and that employee performance is evaluated all the time.
4 questions on this Q&A so far, all about yesterday's story. (This call was supposed to be about content governance.)

@JoshConstine asks about the Definers/NTK issue, Zuckerberg says "I learned about this relationship when I read the New York Times piece yesterday."
.@KurtWagner8 asked if Facebook ever considered shutting off entirely in Myanmar, given all the violence there. Zuckerberg didn't answer directly, but cited earlier instances when FB took the site down/logged users out because of security concerns.
Zuckerberg gives a little more detail about the Supreme Court they're going to start testing next year. Says "it’s probably not going to handle every single case," but will adjudicate some user complaints "if you’re not happy" with the decision made by FB's internal reviewers.
Shorter version of this call: Facebook is starting a judicial branch to handle the overflow for its executive branch, which is also its legislative branch, also the whole thing is a monarchy.
Other thing: Zuckerberg's answer to @KurtWagner8's "why not shut down in Myanmar to see if it helps stop genocide" question — that FB has, in fact, shut down temporarily due to "security issues" before — was more revealing than he maybe intended!

More from Tech

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.