Board of Supervisors Condemned Hospital Naming After Zuckerberg
On Thursday, San Francisco’s panel of supervisors denied Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg to become the inspiration behind renaming the municipality’s General Hospital. According to the said superintendents, they have a list of concrete evidence that could prove Zuckerberg guilty of endangering public health by existing offensive posts scattered on his owned and popular social media platform.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee’s three members all voted to create better regulations for public institution names, beginning with changing the label of the San Francisco General Hospital. The resolution brought no legal instructions the time it got proposed, backed up by the panel as a chance to slander Facebook and as an expression of opinion. In withdrawing Zuckerberg’s name from the city health center, the board feels contrived in its contract with the Facebook CEO. As of late, all members of the Board of Supervisors would cast their decisions on the resolution.
List of Grievances Reportedly Made by the Zuckerberg’s Online Platform Against Public Health
According to Supervisor Gordon Mar, the intention contained a full list of public attacks made by Facebook against public health. That substantial evidence pushed Mar to reject renaming the city hospital under Zuckerberg’s name. Moreover, the resolution contained two pages detailing the grievances appearing on Zuckerberg’s popular social media networking site. Several of those previously mentioned atrocities include allowing assertions that promote violence and racism, the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting controversy, permitting unproven claims about AIDS prevention treatments and abortion, and other consumer privacy rights issues.
Furthermore, Mar supplied the list with additional grievances. Those offenses consist of misleading information about COVID-19 involving its false and unproven claims. Mar declared that a person endangering public health has no right for his name to get bore upon by the San Francisco General Hospital – that person in question is none other than Zuckerberg.
Apart from declining to name the hospital under the Facebook founder’s name, the resolution also calls for another purpose. The said resolution encourages naming rights for public properties should align with San Francisco’s virtues. Additionally, the city’s departments need to establish clear guidelines when plans or renaming specific institutions are proposed to the board. The suggested titles should get derived from people who uphold and commit to sticking with racial and social justice, dignity, and human rights.
Mar pointed out that Facebook does not live and adhere to San Francisco’s values and morals when operating around the Internet. Giving a brief rundown, Zuckerberg currently resides in the municipality together with his wife, Priscilla Chan. The latter is one of the hospital’s pediatric employees.
Despite the name refusals, Supervisor Matt Haney still expressed his gratitude toward Zuckerberg’s and Chan’s contributions to the General Hospital. However, Haney pointed out that the health center only includes names in its honorary rosters, provided that the people who work there every day follow the institutions’ values and morals by heart. When asked to give her public comment, Protest Facebook Coalition’s Tracy Rosenberg affirmed that they regret selling their hospital name to people working by unjustified means.
Resolution’s Aftermath and the General Hospital’s Billing Scandal
Following the news of the publicized resolution, San Francisco General Hospital Foundation’s CEO Kim Meredith expressed her worries about the resolve. According to Kim, the intention may discourage organizations from making future donations to aid the hospital’s endeavors in assisting their patients.
Almost two years before the currently proposed resolution, the public criticized Mark Zuckerberg concerning the billing practices implemented at the city’s General Hospital. According to official news reports, the said health center left it privately insured patients with five-figure billing debt. It is a stunt that got both former inpatients and outsiders questioning how the said hospital does their invoice calculations.
