Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials “repeatedly pressured” Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to “censor” content in 2021. “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken,” he wrote to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again,” Zuckerberg added.
Asking them to take down stuff that is clearly false and can endanger people is not censorship.
not to mention, basically, he’s handing the platform to a very vocal minority.
A minority that probably hates his guts. because lets face it, everybody hates Zuck the Cuck
A minority that probably hates his guts.
How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.
The platform is accommodating people- or trying to, anyhow- that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.
It’s patently stupid to alienate the vast majority of people, who look at antivax as rampant stupidity, to accommodate people who will inevitably prove to be too extreme.
Look at what’s happening on twitter, with advertisers leaving.
That’s about to be Facebook.
Okay, look: I really need you to knock it off with this argument, please. 'Cause if you keep going with it, you’re gonna start convincing me that maybe we should let Zuckerberg post all the anti-vaxxer bullshit his shriveled, blackened heart desires, after all!
(And that’s bad because, as much as I’d love to see Zuck fuck up, @RidcullyTheBrown is right.)
that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.
Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.
Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.
This isn’t argument for regulation social spaces.
This is me passing around the popcorn and watching Facebook go up in flames.
Zuck is being dementedly stupid here. That’s all I’m saying.
Unless they can infiltrate his underground bunker in Hawaii, I doubt he cares how much they hate him.
You can also not claim freedom of speech when yelling fire in a crowded Theatre. I don’t understand why this is different. In this case the platform is amplifying people yelling fire and even creates spaces for people yelling fire to gather and talk strategy.
Taking down anything is, by definition, censorship. Censorship doesn’t mean only taking down things you agree with.
The mistake people make is thinking censorship is inherently bad.
Wat? It’s literally the definition of censorship. I think you mean to say censorship is not, in and of itself, bad.
Zuckerberg thinks Facebook should self regulate and that means in this case be free to allow posts of anti-vax propaganda and covid conspiracy theories that literally cost lives.
This is just a great example of why social media needs external regulation.
This is just a great example of why social media needs external regulation.
And “needs external regulation” here just means “needs to not be above the law”.
They are not above the law, because these is no law in the US that regulates how social media platforms should be moderated. This is new territory. The EU only recently passed the Digital Services Act that broadly deals with this topic.
They are not above the law, because these is no law in the US that regulates how social media platforms should be moderated.
And that is entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with the endless billions pouring into political bribery in the US. The EU started regulating it because the shit was piling up so high, it started to smell over the Atlantic.
What I mean by being above the law is both that they get to write the law, and that even if they run afoul of it, they get to get off with bullshit fines, often without admitting that they did anything wrong.
Can you picture a world in which an authoritarian like Trump is President and then immediately abuses this authority to choose what’s allowed to be said on social media? Because then you might begin to understand how this could be a problem.
But there is surely room between “controlled by the government” and “not accountable for the content on its platform.”
There isn’t. They’re the same thing. How is the government going to hold them accountable without controlling the speech?
Do you think the government has complete control over your speech now? Do you think you are absolutely free to say whatever you want? I don’t even know where to start with someone who doesn’t understand that it doesn’t have to be one or the other despite, right now, it not being one or the other.
Do you think the government has complete control over your speech now?
…no? No one thinks that.
I don’t know where to start with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a slippery slope or legal precedent.
I don’t know where to start with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a slippery slope or legal precedent.
Well, when you figure it out, let me know where because it’s clear you don’t understand either of those terms.
Let me know when you figure out how to answer the question I asked you…
Someone’s trying to become a right wing grifter.
He hired Joel Kaplan over ten years ago.
Kaplan was a Bush toadie who participated in the Brooks Brothers Riot that stopped the recount in Florida in 2000 letting the corrupt jackasses on the Supreme Court to steal the election for Bush.
Kaplan has personally exempted right wing “news” sources from Facebook’s truthfulness standards.
Meta really needs to be split up, along with Google and Microsoft. Nobody can be allowed to have this much influence on public opinion without it going terribly wrong.
People need to stop using Meta’s products. They can’t survive without users.
Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc. are all Meta.
Worst case scenario I see brewing is that Google gets split up and Meta and Microsoft just buy up their assets.
With Android near the top of the divestment list, that’s a scary notion.
That’s just not going to happen. Unfortunately the average consumer doesn’t much care about any of these things. It’s the job of governments to prevent excessive concentration in industry. They’ve been doing a piss poor job in recent decades.
Facebook has enough money and influence to just buy the next big social media. Hell, most people don’t even seem aware Instagram is owned by them.
Everything is owned by like 10 companies. They all need to be busted up.
Ah, the “express regret” module was installed yesterday. It’s nice to see his upgrades are coming along.
Remember on TNG when Data got his emotion chip? This could get hairy…
Which time? When he joined up with his evil brother or when he crashed the Enterprise into a planet?
Yes!
we should not compromise our content standards
You have to have standards to be able to compromise them.
Like he said: no compromise!
Said the company who deleted a facebook post by Malaysia Prime Minister offering condolences to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, which Meta later apologised and restored the post. But sure, lets go ahead and defend misinformation that basically hindering the vaccination effort.
The Meta CEO also said the company “shouldn’t have demoted” a New York Post story about corruption allegations involving President Biden’s family ahead of the 2020 election while waiting for fact-checkers to review it.
The social media company has since updated its policies and processes, including no longer demoting content in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers, he noted.
This seems to be the only concrete thing in here and it seems like a terrible idea to me. No information about what exactly the pressure was from the government or what specific content they took issue with, leaving us all to come up with the guesses that most comfortably confirm our own biases.
Considering Zuck and Meta’s track record so far, I am categorically unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Content? Hardly.
Disinformation. Lies. Etc.
Hunter Biden laptop being Russian Propaganda.
Disinformation. Lies. Etc.
The letter said it has all the hallmarks of Russian propaganda, not that it was. This is certainly something that certainly has not been disproven by a long shot.
It’s funny how often people need to turn to blatant disinformation in order in a desperate attempt to both sides the issue of disinformation. Quite telling, in fact.
The letter said it has all the hallmarks of Russian propaganda, not that it was.
The FBI knew for certain the laptop was genuine, because they had the original (not just the disc image). Yet they led twitter and Facebook to believe it was Russian Propaganda and made no effort to correct the public perception.
This is certainly something that certainly has not been disproven by a long shot.
It’s funny how often people need to turn to blatant disinformation in order in a desperate attempt to both sides the issue of disinformation.
It’s funny how a campaign of blatant disinformation by the FBI has been completely ignored. A campaign so successful that Hunter’s laptop is still mislabelled as Russian propaganda by most Americans.
Yet they led twitter and Facebook to believe it was Russian Propaganda and made no effort to correct the public perception.
The letter did not come from the FBI. More lies or spin to cover up previous lies and spin only further confirms my point.
The serial number on the back of the laptop matches the serial number provided in Apple Inc.’s response to a subpoena for records.
The letter doesn’t say the laptop is fake. Are you sure you know at all what happened?
The letter did not come from the FBI … The letter doesn’t say the laptop is fake
What letter are you being blinkered by?
From your link:
He said the FBI did not warn Facebook about the Biden story in particular - only that Facebook thought it “fit that pattern”.
Directly contradicting your point. Yet you used it as evidence of your point. Can you answer me why one would cite a article that contradicts their point by cherry picking part of it that doesn’t contradict their point?
Although, let’s also laugh at the absurdity of claiming that because Zuckerberg said it on the joe Rogan show…well, that means it’s absolutely true. Lol
But to answer your question, most people when they whine about people “lying” about the laptop being Russian propaganda are referring to the warning letter by ex spies:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
Directly contradicting your point.
Directly supporting. Look at the timeline
-
Laptop repair owner asks FBI why they haven’t done anything.
-
Says if FBI isn’t doing anything he will shortly release the copy he has.
-
FBI warn everyone that “Russian Propaganda” is about to be released.
-
Hunter Laptop story drops.
-
Everyone assumes this is the “Russian Propaganda” so all news and discussion is censored
-
FBI does not reveal that there is no “Russian Propaganda” related to that story.
-
FBI does not reveal laptop is genuine
-
FBI does not admit they’ve sat on evidence for 9 months and done nothing.
most people when they whine about people “lying” about the laptop being Russian propaganda are referring to the warning letter by ex spies:
No. I’m accusing the FBI of media manipulation and misinformation.
But it is hilarious that you are trying to invent evidence using what professional misinformation creators didn’t say in a published letter which, we now know, was complete misinformation.
The main problem with misinformation is who gets to decide what is fact and what is fiction.
-
The further we go down the misinformation hole the more these guys do their best to make their platforms shitty in the US while they comply with every dictator’s political oppression policies outside the US.
The only reason this shitbag’s site is still relevant is because it is a boomer propaganda machine
He knows he’s complicit in the collapse, and just wants to make enough money to survive the world wide riots that will result. Every decision he makes is to guarantee that goal.
You are exactly correct.
He seems confident ® will win the next election. Either presidency or enough of congress.
He’s also trying to help make that happen
I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again
Well, I did need a good laugh this morning, I just didn’t expect it to come from the lies this fucker tells himself so he can
rechargesleep at night…Shit I didn’t know Zuck was going the Elon Route.
Zuckerberg is dangerously stupid.
He’s dangerously sociopathic.
