[Observation] Coca-Cola and other companies jointly resist! Trump causes Facebook to lose $7 billion, did its policy change right?

Facebook stock closed down 8.32% in Taiwan on the evening of the 27th local time, with founder Zuckerberg losing approximately $7 billion in a single trading day. U.S. media attribute this to companies like Coca-Cola, The Hershey Company, Unilever, The North Face, and Patagonia announcing the suspension of advertising on Facebook.

In Facebook's Q1 2020 financial report, it was revealed that over 98% of its revenue comes from advertising, hence the unsurprising investor reaction.

What we need to understand is that this series of boycotts is related to the "decentralization" behavior in democratic societies, where people are using their actions to decentralize and change the "governance model."

From "Trump's Remarks": #StopHateforProfit

African-American man George Floyd died as a result of excessive enforcement by white police officers, igniting long-standing racial issues in the United States. In addition to widespread protests, riots, looting, and other disorderly events have also occurred. Many state governments have implemented curfews, mobilized the National Guard for control, and near the White House, protests have turned violent. President Trump has stated that if the situation is not under control, he will not hesitate to use the military to suppress the crowds under the Insurrection Act. He has been posting robotically: "Law & Order."

Not only that, since the start of the protests, Trump has referred to the protesters as "thugs" and made threatening remarks on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. For example:

...(excerpt) These thugs are dishonoring George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

In fact, Trump's behavior on Facebook and Twitter is the same. However, while Twitter directly hides or labels false information, Facebook has taken little or no action. Therefore, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) launched the #StopHateforProfit campaign, hoping to resist Facebook by "not advertising on Facebook."

Subsequently, companies including Coca-Cola, Hershey's, Unilever, The North Face, and Patagonia, etc., have shown support. Facebook's stock price plummeted by 8% on the 27th, which was seen by the public as the boycott taking effect.

Facebook's Response and Changes

Actually, Zuckerberg has never been short of actions, whether it is donating aid, advocating for racial equality, or claiming to have more inclusive products and policies, both before and after the George Floyd incident. On the 26th, Zuckerberg announced more proactive policy changes, stating that these changes stem from discussions with civil rights groups: "Establish higher standards for hate content in advertisements," "Label news content," and another topic previously reported on, the "Voting Information Center."

(1) Regarding advertising content
Zuckerberg stated that according to EU research, Facebook is better than YouTube and Twitter in handling hate speech in advertising content, with up to 90% of such content being removed before users report it. This policy will be further expanded in the future to review content related to race, sexual orientation, etc.

(2) Labeling news content
Zuckerberg stated that Facebook will delete content that does not serve the public interest. However, if what a political figure says is related to the public interest and is also reported in the news, Facebook deems it to have "news value," so they will want to retain such content for public scrutiny. Furthermore, Facebook will label such content as "news tags." Zuckerberg also specifically clarified that content inciting violence and suppressing voting will still be deleted.

From here, we can see that the governance model of a company related to the public interest is changing due to social interaction, including political, economic, and ethical forces. However, as of the deadline, Trump's posts, considered hate speech and not advertising content, have not been deleted or labeled.

Critical Thinking: Did Facebook Do the Right Thing?

From our observations, Zuckerberg has always had a slogan: "Give voice to the voiceless." Earlier, when Twitter directly labeled Trump's remarks as false, Facebook did not take specific action. Twitter clashed with Trump, even prompting him to issue an executive order demanding social media be accountable for "curbing speech," causing a public outcry. Until June 17th, Zuckerberg still stated that the active way to hold politicians accountable is through voting. He said, "We encourage people to vote. Voting is a voice. It is the most powerful expression of democracy, the best way to hold our leaders accountable, and how we address many of the issues our country is grappling with."

From a personal standpoint, Twitter's "false remarks label," "deletion and hiding," is like a sharp knife that meets the public's expectations, fast and accurate, but we may not fully adhere to the principles of justice, possibly overlooking the interests of minorities, or just catering to the masses of online communities. Facebook's approach may be likened to a fan, light and thin, unable to cure the foul speech, but it can fan the entire room, allowing people to gather and see its foulness, perhaps also catering to its concept of "making voices heard."

Speech can lead to behavioral changes, and you can choose whether people "see" or "do not see" what you consider "evil speech." However, regardless of the approach, there is no guarantee that people will believe that "evil speech." In essence, online speech discusses real-world problems, and besides talking, we still have a responsibility to take action. The joint boycott by multiple companies in this case sets a good example for action and has had an effect.

As a blockchain information media, conveying many technological innovations related to decentralization, how would you solve the Trump issue with the concept of "decentralization" in mind?