Comment by condenser
1 month ago
Facebook election interference has been going on for a long time in Europe. It's a two-tier system where parties outside the establishment have a far lower ban-threshold.
1 month ago
Facebook election interference has been going on for a long time in Europe. It's a two-tier system where parties outside the establishment have a far lower ban-threshold.
Can't we just ban Facebook everywhere? I bet that will make a lot of people a lot happier in a lot of different ways. It's ridiculous how much power over our lives and our internet experience we've given to American Big Tech companies. Time to roll it back.
> Can't we just ban Facebook everywhere?
That's not that EU asks. EU asks to have a direct interface to delete posts EU elites don't like.
If you think the US elites don't have a Zuckerberg-shaped button to delete posts they don't like, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
1 reply →
They changed their name to "Meta" after the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Was the name change related to publicity from that? My memory is that it was part of an attempt to be the new Second Life. But on the other hand I tend to be naive.
Yes, they did it to break the association with their brand (“reputation laundering”) and then they got into 3D to throw some chaff. Seems to have worked for them.
If they changed their name to “Flobular” it wouldn’t change a thing.
They’re Facebook in many people’s minds.
“Meta” doesn’t convey the same meaning that “Facebook” does. And it’s also squatting on an important term in English. Mets is used all over the language, like metaphysical.
No thanks, I’ll use Facebook
> They’re Facebook in many people’s minds.
And Meta loves it. People can ‘not use Facebook’ while living on WhatsApp and Instagram.
How committed are you? A one letter change gets you to Faceboot, as in "a boot stamping on a human face - forever". Just sayin'.
2 replies →
Careless people, the book talks about it too.
Facebook marked a video where a famous Italian author was saying what he was going to vote and why as "fake news". Of course he's opposing the current right wing pro-USA government.
edit: yes please, as usual, keep downvoting factual information.
[flagged]
Look up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It explains the current situation and should be obvious that it's less than perfect. Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings. So to compensate there's the good samaritan provision which is the whole censorship thing from the right's perspective (like back during Covid) and the protection from being a publisher let's them host hate speech from the left's perspective.
Personally I think making them public square is probably the only real solution if you want to keep social media and avoid this drama, or make them liable as publishers and these platforms will disappear overnight (maybe the best result?!?)...
This carries over into LLMs I presume, which have bias and I assume are not being sued for the content the publish? I'm not really sure about how it applies to LLMs to be honest.
Regardless, other countries will have different laws, that have different takes on censorship and what private companies are responsible for.
> Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings.
I don’t see this as a problem. They could just as easily have changed their business model and invested more heavily in content moderation. Maybe it wouldn’t have been as profitable, but profit is a great motivator to do bad things.
1 reply →
Ok, but here we have people not from Brazil claiming that a private company is guilty of censorship but also was not guilty of censorship when government "embeds[1]" in the US would flag what they labeled disinformation and blocked discussion on Covid, Covid origins, laptops with evidence, suspended political accounts in the US, etc. So, it seems people want to have it both ways -essentially they want to censor things they disagree with and also don't want censorship of things they agree with.
[1] Of course, that was plainly censorship with a veneer of plausible deniability (it assumed those embeds could only be truthful and unbiased and in no way politically motivated).
1 reply →
What people are objecting to is how this relates to facebook's recently stated principles. They'd said that things like deplatforming Trump were mistakes and that they won't do these sorts of things again. And then...
[dead]
[flagged]
Say what you want.
Pretty much every time somebody backs up these kinds of claims it shows something else.
1) posts going out 500 times a day in all caps (who is arguing you can’t suppress spam?)
2) the post that you read and so clearly wasn’t suppressed.
3) they’re linking to a low scoring comment
7 replies →
Isn't it probably an n-tier system which is pay to play?
the pay-to-play claim is wrong, the issue is the ban threshold itself, post certain topics from the "wrong" political side and you get banned almost instantly, the same ideas posted repeatedly from the other prefered side of the us gov face no consequences on especially meta and twitter
[dead]