62 ms·
Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content
- salojoo 2y agoThis is good news. Feels refreshing to see some respect towards users for a change.
- consp 2y agoHe said it is not political and published it at the end of an election cycle ... Of course it is.
- diegoholiveira 2y ago[flagged]
- TMWNN 2y agoNonetheless, better late than never for Zuckerberg to admit that he and Facebook erred.
- ericjmorey 2y agoI think the original point was that this wasn't late. It was timed to be influential to the outcome of the election.
- smt88 2y agoWhich also casts doubt on its sincerity.
- duhgz 2y ago[flagged]
- ErikBjare 2y agoI think it was timed to be relevant. Doubt this will influence the outcome of the election, esp given the WH statement which seems to be in agreement.
- indoordin0saur 2y agoIt's relevant right now because there's recent increase in the amount of government-directed censorship and propaganda on the social media platforms at the moment. Take a look at Reddit. Look at what's happening in the UK or with the EU threatening to imprison Musk for allowing Trump to be interviewed.
- TMWNN 2y ago> or with the EU threatening to imprison Musk for allowing Trump to be interviewed. ?
- indoordin0saur 2y agohttps://thehill.com/policy/technology/4824438-eu-sends-warning-letter-to-musk-ahead-of-trump-interview/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4824438-eu-sends-warni...
- TMWNN 2y agoHoly cow. I'd heard something about the EU recently warning Musk over Twitter, but did not know that it was because of the heinous mortal sin of interviewing the former and possible next US president.
- LunaSea 2y agoYes, God forbid that a billionaire follows the laws of a country or union of countries.
- hagbard_c 2y agoThere's just that thing that he forgot to say 'rinse & repeat' at the end of his statement while he's now in the 'rinse' phase. The upcoming election circus will make clear whether he is genuinely regretful or whether he's up to his old tricks. The 'Zuckerbucks' NGO 'Center for Tech and Civic Life' [1] is gearing up again so I suspect the latter to be closer to the truth. [1] https://mailchi.mp/06871ce9876c/new-campaign-seeks-federal-funding-for-secure-election-infrastructure-from-congress-10413853 https://mailchi.mp/06871ce9876c/new-campaign-seeks-federal-f...
- cheschire 2y agoSo we hold him to the same standards as an 8 year old that is still learning self control?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mypastself 2y agoCan’t find the claim about the statement not being political anywhere in the linked article. But there’s this: > Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms Sounds like he wasn’t the initiator of the discussion, but I may be misreading the paragraph.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoAnd it’s in the news because it’s being made newsworthy, not because it’s new. “A U.S. federal judge,” in 2023 “restricted some agencies and officials of the administration of President Joe Biden from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content” [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-blocks-us-officials-communicating-with-social-media-companies-newspaper-2023-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-blocks-us-officials-comm...
- cempaka 2y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> funny to see MAGA people all of a sudden embracing Chad Zuckerberg, as though this represents some sort of organic character development on his part Honestly, it's refreshingly pragmatic to see American politics ditching the ideological purity tests that defined our recent history. I disagree completely with MAGA politics. But allies don't have to be friends--if someone's on your side, that's really what counts.
- cempaka 2y agoZuckerberg is pretending to be on MAGA's side so that he can assist whatever next phase of the agenda is intended for Trump's next term in office. Of course, if MAGA could pick out people who are only pretending to be on their side they wouldn't be supporting Trump in the first place.
- EasyMark 2y agoHe said it because they got criticized for something that cost them a lot of money. It’s all about how much it costs and takes away from the pockets of the board of directors and owners. For profit companies are amoral for the most part and their only obligation is to make money.
- cempaka 2y ago[flagged]
- lp0_on_fire 2y ago> before the Immaculate Assassination Attempt Can you explain what you mean be "Immaculate Assassination Attempt"?
- cempaka 2y ago[flagged]
- orangecat 2y agoThis is a fine example of an insane conspiracy theory which nevertheless should not be censored.
- cempaka 2y agoWhat's insane about it, exactly? I mean, almost the entirety of the post is actually just a recitation of observable and verifiable facts.
- jasonlotito 2y ago- Trump disappears from the public eye for the week leading up to Butler July 9, Doral Fl - CNN and other mainstream outlets elect to cover the rally after not broadcasting any others This was discussed on July 9. They were expecting him to announce his running mate. This is why you saw a lot of press at the July 9th rally. - The Secret Service shoos crowd members farther from the stage and repositions some of the photographers just before the first shots They reposition people all the time. The fact that the first two are easily dismissed as a lie, and the third requires evidence from you that the Secret Service routinely do NOT redirect or move people is enough to discredit this. The rest of what you post is mostly purely subjective. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm not. I saw the videos. I saw the media talking about it and literally explaining why they were paying attention.
- bigbacaloa 2y agoThis pseudo-apology is the worst sort of political expediency. He did what the government asked while denying doing it, now apologizes for it to curry favor with the rightwing world he alienated. It's like the NY Times pushing the weapons of mass destruction narrative during the Iraq war and later running long articles about what bad journalism that was.
- firesteelrain 2y agoIt is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration. Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US? Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19? We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work. If we try the Reddit route, then we could have incredible bias in moderated communities. What about fitting the StackOverflow model to social media? Another route is how X provides for the Community Notes feature. Would that have worked? Is Community Notes still susceptible to the same bias?
- Timber-6539 2y agoThe shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.
- jncfhnb 2y agoPeople absolutely don’t of want maximal free speech. Moderation is a blessing
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoYeah. There's a reason I'm on HN, and not on 4chan. (But 4chan is there, if that's what you want...)
- beart 2y agoEven 4chan has moderation
- chgs 2y agoMost people don’t want free speech, and no country has free speech anyway. The question is what limits are made.
- 2y ago
- lupusreal 2y agoBet he'll do it again. "This time it's different." Assuming the man has any principles at all, he already demonstrated his willingness to violate them. He'll do it again.
- smt88 2y agoThere is zero doubt at this point about Zuckerberg's principles. He has none. He hasn't even stayed consistent on anti-Semitism, which you'd think would be close to his heart. I will also say, to be fair, that none of the other influential billionaires in the tech world (PayPal Mafia, Jack Dorsey, Andreesen, Horowitz, etc.) seem to have consistent principles either.
- scottyah 2y agoTo be fair, consistency can also be called stubbornness. It depends on how you slice things, but growing and changing your mind as new data comes in is not a bad thing.
- drewcoo 2y ago[flagged]
- greenthrow 2y agoFacebook, Instagram, etc. moderating content isn't a free speech issue. They are just glorified bulletin boards. They try to raise everyone's sense of their importance by claiming it to be a free speech issue, but they are awful garbage and the sooner everyone realizes the better for society.
- mandmandam 2y agoWe're talking about nearly 200 million posts, at least, having been wiped and suppressed [0]. Many of these were both 100% true and highly important. The effects of their suppression are still felt to this day; in broken minds, broken relationships, destroyed careers, a stunted generation, and unnecessary excess deaths. Serious and brave academics were threatened and had their voices stilled. Describing Zuck's censorship of nearly 200 million posts on Facebook alone as "moderating content" is like calling a tsunami "a bit of rain". It's irresponsible. Calling a platform with 3 billion monthly users a "glorified bulletin board" doesn't sound very credible to me either. 0 - https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170
- greenthrow 2y agoWhy would the number of posts matter? I don't care if it was 200 or 200 billion. Nothing in my original comment changes. Same for number of users. These are private platforms, not public spaces. They are not open. They are not free. They use the lie that they have anything to do with free speech as a marketing tool. Stop falling for it.
- mandmandam 2y ago> Why would the number of posts matter? Scale matters. Everyone on HN knows this. Why would the Biden Admin have a right to lean on FB to censor true and important information? "We need you to censor this false [read: true] information from your 3 billion users, because reasons" - not a very defensible position. By the way, I've advocated for tearing Meta apart and putting it in global public ownership for years, partly because of their acceptance of over-censorship. There's such a thing as public responsibility, and Meta has repeatedly failed. I said so here, just yesterday. I'm 100% fine with Meta and others censoring some things: drug sales, scams (I wish they would!), and worse. But censoring scientists trying to say true things of a devastating pandemic, or minimize the harms from terrible policy? Censoring discussion of stories that politicians find embarrassing? Censoring the word "Zionist"??!! That's indefensible. Again, there's a basic responsibility there; whether enshrined in law or not, and whether the law is enforced or not. Allowing a platform used by nearly half all people on Earth to warp our collective understanding of issues up to and including war, plague, genocide and famine is unacceptable, whether by government "request" or not.
- scott_w 2y agoThis whole article is really confusing. It sounds like there were two things: - Covid disinformation - Some nonsense about Hunter Biden and they're being conflated. What does Hunter Biden's laptop have to do with preventing Covid disinformation? A disease that was estimated to kill up to 30m people worldwide.
- cheeseomlit 2y agoThe US gov pressured social media companies to censor posts about both those topics for political reasons, even though a lot of what was said turned out to be true
- scott_w 2y ago> censor posts about both those topics for political reasons In the context of Covid disinformation, "political reasons" is simply not correct. We're only 2 years out but it was clear even at the time that there was a concerted effort to pretend there wasn't an active pandemic and governments were right to crack down on it. The only thread connecting them is "disinformation" which is tenuous at best. It's not clear to me what Zuckerberg's letter refers to because the article seems to move between the topics as though they're basically the same thing.
- cheeseomlit 2y agoSuppressing the lab leak theory certainly seemed political to me
- minkles 2y ago"Musk is getting away with it so why can't I?" ?
- influx 2y ago[flagged]
- EasyMark 2y agoMusk is free to do what he wants with his platform, but let’s remember Facebook, x, TikTok, instagram, etc are all free to censor their content as they see fit. They are under no obligation to be a free for all. While they can do that like X, not all choose to. That’s also respecting their own Constitutional rights as an organization. Freedom of speech means controlling the narrative of your platform as much as you like, as you are not stopping those people you kick off from forming their own platform as happened with Gab, Truth, etc.
- mrtksn 2y agoIn a few years they are going to be sorry for the other end of the spectrum because the issue stems from the fundamentals of their business: lack of mechanism to hold civil discussion, one person pretending to be multiple people, institutions pretending to be people. When a BS is viewed 10M times and its correction is viewed 10K times, what do you do? Demote the content you assume that it's BS but this time you have the problem of demoting non-BS content that happens to be outside of the mainstream narrative. This time you get collapse of trust to institutions. Now that Mark is very sorry, it spreads on the social media as "We told you that the vaccine was a conspiracy". God help humanity on the next pandemic because awful lot of people wouldn't trust in anything and will roll with the conspiracy theory they are last convinced of. Twitter's community notes are quite effective but they are simply very low bandwidth and very small number of BS gets community noted. Also, the war spreads to the community notes and they too sometimes are complete BS. IMHO, these social media companies should be forced to work with open to inspection systems. I don't know, maybe everyone should be able to ssh in read-only mode into the servers and honeypot servers should result in prison times for the involved. It is not OK for companies to be able to pick whom voice should be lauder and do that in secret. The western world should drop the censorship ideas and just focus on accountability.
- whywhywhywhy 2y ago> When a BS is viewed 10M times and its correction is viewed 10K times, what do you do? Journalism has always been this though, story as full page headline correction as a footnote.
- archagon 2y agoNot on this scale.
- mike_hearn 2y ago> Twitter's community notes are quite effective but they are simply very low bandwidth That's why they are effective. I review Community Notes sometimes and the right assessment is almost always "no note needed". A lot of attempted CNs are just arguing with the poster's opinion, which belongs in replies. CN is meant to be for correcting cases where something is objectively false or missing critical context, and it does quite well at that. People are very good at spotting edited videos, mis-dated photos and so on, which is the bread and butter of real fact checking. Not very exciting but useful. Facebook could do worse than just reimplementing the system. It's certainly far better than letting activist run NGOs be editors.
- ericjmorey 2y ago[flagged]
- chasd00 2y agoWhen the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoThey were already doing censorship, just for different things - there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan which is not advertiser-friendly. So you can lose credibility two ways, one by not doing any censorship because people on the internet will be the worst if you let them. Doing too much censorship is also bad because people don't like that either. Of the big causes of censorship currently, I think of things like youtubes copyright claim process and how that is routinely used as a censorship backdoor by anyone - including the police. Sometimes its not even for any good reason and done by unthinking bots. This is banning more perfectly fine content than anything the government has done. I don't understand why there isn't more pushback against that process to punish people for frivolous claims.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoTheres no push back because only the uploader knows it even happened. The millions of other people who did not get to see that video never knew there was anything that was taken from them. Even after you start to hear about an example here & there, it still feels like an isolated and insignificant example. You as a viewer don't have any way to perceive the scale, the mass of what is being blocked and diverted and modified and bowdlerized. I mean to include all the ways creators taylor their stuff and self-censor so that it will get through, not just plain take downs. Everyone knows it happens, but you have no way to see what that really means in it's totality. I think people would push back a lot if they could see that somehow.
- celdon25 2y ago> but you have no way to see what that really means in it's totality. I think people would push back a lot if they could see that somehow. I’ve watched enough Mark Dice videos to know how bad it is, and I regret not taking the blue pill sometimes. He’s shown just about every notable case of it happening (with proof). Though he knows how to game the system to resist being taken offline and you could say it’s part of his brand. You could say that it wouldn’t be worth the risk for others to call it out like he does because it wouldn’t add to the content, and they could slip up. You can disagree with his politics or personality but you probably wont find a leftist channel that covers that kind of censorship. I wish the videos were more categorized, though he doesn’t do it and uses generic video titles because apparently that makes it less likely to get censored.
- renegat0x0 2y ago- some people cannot think abstractly about speech, because it is skewed because of actions of Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, or other individuals - it is certain that governments want to control the narrative, and it is not always done in our interests - sometime actions are done to help us, but [disinformation enters the room] - Everything at CEO level is "political" - centralization of social media and forums allowed for this behavior. It would be impossible to "control" the Internet with federated Internet - various powers fight over the Internet (governments, China, Russia, corporations, billionaires etc.). This is why it difficult to tell what is the truth, everyone tries to shift our perception - YouTube removed thumbs down not to protect small creators. Moderation on social media is also not to protect ordinary people, but to retain clean image, or to keep investors happy - sometimes when social media removes post is censorship. Sometimes it is not, but both scenarios occur - some people that complain about free speech might be influenced by foreign powers - some people that say moderation is required want just more control over social media for their own benefit, agenda - I do not know if there is a clean, ethical way to "run the social media"
- throw310822 2y agoA quick reminder of how democracy works: people's choice -> government -> media -> narrative -> people's choice
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> people's choice -> government -> media -> narrative -> people's choice In this toy model, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have zero influence over either the media or government?
- throw310822 2y agoNo, of course you're right, the "toy model" is exaggerated. I think it was more true in some countries than others and several decades ago, when there was no internet and the media were dominated by a few players (including the government itself, in many countries) all very much established. Let's say that I suspect that democracy is a system that assumes public opinion to be directed so that it doesn't stray too much from a narrow range of possibilities. This can be done just by manipulating the Overton window.
- Eumenes 2y agohere's why that's a good thing
- toofy 2y agohere we go again. another election cycle where some of the loudest voices with some of the largest platforms ever in history will be declaring they’re not being allowed to speak. the reality is, they’re loud, they have easier and larger access to more people than anyone ever in history. the reality is also that they’re just mad people speak back to them. people talking back to them is what they’re really upset about. honestly i can’t wait for this election cycle to be over.
- mypastself 2y agoDid Zuckerberg himself support conspiracy theories? Or does he regret succumbing to government requests for censoring that type of content? Sounds to me like he wants to allow certain kinds of speech on his platform, regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with them.
- lesuorac 2y agoWhich he was free to do and did. Literally Zuckerberg is quoted as saying he didn't remove posts: "[USG] “expressed a lot of frustration” when the social media platform resisted.". It would be much better if the article actually posted the contents of the government email. Everything we saw from say the Twitter files in this regard is some gov employee asking if X post complied with Y Twitter policy and if-not if the post should be removed. That gov employee didn't write Y policy, it was Twitter's own policy. I suspected a similar thing happened here where Facebook has a fake news policy [1] and a gov employee was asking them if given posts were in violation of it. [1]: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/misinformation https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/m...
- mypastself 2y agoI assume he’s familiar with the transparency standards of his own site. And he still calls whatever happened pressure. So it’s entirely possible it wasn’t as innocuous as you suggest.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throw_m239339 2y ago"He regrets", no he doesn't. He got something we don't know in return for his allegiance to the democrats, he is a businessman after all, but now he sees that the rats are fleeing the sinking ship and he wants in with the Trump campaign...
- PaulKeeble 2y agoThe same elements that make Reddit and Twitter unpleasant places to comment are also the elements that meant they sustained the discussion around the research (and conspiracies) of the ongoing Covid pandemic. There is no Covid aware community really anywhere else of remotely the same size as on Twitter and secondarily Reddit (which cracked down a bit). The weird part is 4.5 years into this pandemic there are still significant restrictions in most places that don't allow Covid medical papers to be posted and discussed. Its an ongoing problem.
- nemothekid 2y ago[flagged]
- pton_xd 2y ago> It's very bizarre that COVID is the poster-boy for social media censorship. The whole thing seems incredibly contrived; no one actually cares about COVID censorship I agree, it is bizarre. Why weren't we allowed to discuss theories about how Covid was created? What's so wrong with proposing that it may have escaped from a lab? Shouldn't we be allowed to debate the pros and cons of taking medication or wearing a mask? The whole situation was just an uncomfortable display of our supposed freedom in online discourse. Not even online discourse, peoples careers were threatened for having the "wrong" opinion. The fact that it was over something so contrived like Covid made it all the more disturbing. Perhaps we've been conditioned to not expect total freedom when discussing highly propagandized topics like war. But Covid? Healthcare? That was an eye-opener for many.
- cruffle_duffle 2y agoThe whole Covid thing gave a lot of people an excuse to have control over others. Turned a lot of people into power tripping sanctimonious busy bodies. Scare the shit of people, convince them that “The Science” is on their side and the others are all your enemy and boom… there you go. It was a huge eye opener for me. I’ll never again trust the government nor will I ever fully trust “the science”. And how many people bought into the narrative and how aggressive they got scared the shit out of me. All it would have taken is some “expert” to give permission to physically hurt “anti-maskers” or anybody who didn’t go along with the narrative and things would have gotten much, much much worse. Hell many so-called progressive areas even set up numbers you could call to dime out your neighbors and family for violating all the nonsense the government enacted. It really opened my eyes to how things like the holocaust happened. How you can convince ordinary people to commit some very horrible things. There are several people I know for a fact would have happily tossed me and my family into the gas chamber over Covid. And that isn’t even hyperbole at all. Given the chance they absolutely would have done so… some are even close family. …suffice to say my stance on gun ownership has changed considerably since 2020.
- frank_bb 2y ago[dead]
- beej71 2y agoFrom a practical standpoint, I feel this issue is largely moot with the emergence of AI bots. Will the government have the time to chase them all? And will Facebook have the ability to censor them all?
- renegade-otter 2y agoThere are absolutely ways. It's not a "solvable once" problem, but it's solvable. When there is a need, there is a way. What was the last time you saw someone post porn on StackOverflow? Oh my, HOW do they do it?!
- beej71 2y agoI think blocking porn is a lot easier than blocking subtle misinformation based on half-truths, e.g. "Trump said he wants to be dictator". I also think the scale is different between FB and SO, and SO has a much narrower definition of "on topic", as well.
- renegade-otter 2y agoTiKTok is notoriously heavily moderated. Try to post anything about COVID and you will get banned. Everything else is excuses.
- andy_ppp 2y agoI wonder if this is coming up just before the election because of the Harris campaign’s suggested policy of capital gains tax on unrealised gains for people who have over $100m in assets? I think this is a great idea personally given what these people are doing to avoid paying tax including taking out loans against their own share portfolios. Worth thinking about what people are willing to do to not pay billions of dollars worth of taxes.
- _heimdall 2y agoI'd much prefer seeing us close up the tax loop holes than create an even more complex system. Taxing unrealized gains will be extremely complex, and given that they aren't allowing us to deduct unrealized losses its a pretty shitty setup for the taxpayer. We need to drastically simplify our tax code rather than further increase its complexity.
- appplication 2y agoPut simply, people in these brackets don’t need more options for tax breaks.
- Terretta 2y agoThe audience of HN are striving to be "people in these brackets" and far more here have experienced paper gains over $100M then seen it evaporate, than the few that end up at a place they are insensitive to marginal dollars.
- jajko 2y agoNo we're not, since we are smart enough to realize what sort of person you would need to be and what it would cost you in one's actual life (TM) to even have a chance to get there. And most folks here are not high functioning sociopaths to start with. Upper middle class its where highest quality of life happens, if one is smart enough to understand how happiness and life fulfillment works, to not die full of hard regrets. You can have meaningful true friendships. Enough to afford whatever is you need or desire to do, not enough to become self-entitled spoiled lazy disconnected from reality piece of shit parent and partner type of folks. No you don't need private jet or mega yacht or 5 mil hypercar for that, that's poor man's idea of what sort of quality wealth brings you in life.
- techostritch 2y agoThe thing I'm getting out of this Zuckerberg letter is that we've basically learned nothing. It's a nakedly partisan letter designed to signal to Republicans that he's not taking sides. Which I guess is fine, but I'm thinking about Paul Graham's recent tweet about the next round of social networks being designed to be built in to combat trolling, and it makes me think. This time there was valid concern about issues like the lab leak theory being censored on social media, I predict in the next crisis, social media will be useless adjacent for almost everything.
- giantrobot 2y ago> This time there was valid concern about issues like the lab leak theory being censored on social media You need to be very clear about what you mean by "lab leak theory" because that term has a number of definitions that are very different. There's the definition where COVID was the result of gain of function research that leaked from a lab through negligence. There's also a definition that it was an entirely natural virus being studied that was leaked through negligence. Then there's the definition that the virus was "leaked" with malicious intent from the virology lab in Wuhan. While the definitions are similar they have very different implications. Because social media tends to perform nuance destroying compression of concepts down to sound bites no two individuals using the term "lab leak theory" can be assumed to be using the same definition. You even have an assumed definition of what you mean when you say "lab leak theory". Of everyone that reads your post your definition doesn't match that of half the audience. Even then, plenty of people claimed to be banned from social media for one reason while the reality they were banned from a network for other (or a combination) of reasons. So even the general statement of people being "social media censoring lab leak theory" elides important information and nuance and derives its validity from third hand accounts.
- purpleblue 2y ago[flagged]
- BryantD 2y agoNah, Republicans are still pushing it. As Trump just said: “I wanna get a law passed […] You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. Gotta do it — you gotta do it,” Trump said. “They say, ‘Sir, that’s unconstitutional.’ We’ll make it constitutional.”
- purpleblue 2y agoI would say the exact same thing about the Republicans if they were in power. Right now they aren't so they aren't committing the same offenses. I think they are just as capable as being corrupt and fascist like the Democrats are right now.
- Propelloni 2y agoPlease look up what "fascism" means, it will improve the discussion. Don't get me wrong, you have the right to say what you want, even if it is wrong. But I guess it is not so much about saying what we want anyway but meaning what we want, isn't it?
- coolbreezetft24 2y agoHow come Musk has never raised awareness on censorship issue in China - which is orders of magnitudes worse than the US? He very clearly has no problem speaking out against other countries governments
- lp0_on_fire 2y agoIs there _anyone_ on the planet who is not aligned with the CCP that thinks there _isn't_ a censorship issue in China?
- purpleblue 2y agoPerfect example of Whatabout-ism. I'm not talking about China, I'm not a citizen of China and I will never even visit that country. Why are you mentioning China when this is about the US?
- EcommerceFlow 2y ago[flagged]
- jmull 2y agoThe idea that a private social/sharing/communications platform should be required to carry the messages of the head of government is strongly authoritarian and quite unconstitutional. It’s incredible to me that people will argue the government’s lack of control over mass media platforms is censorship. IMO, nobody should be required to carry government propaganda.
- seydor 2y agoThat's not what the parent is claiming, merely that facebook lost all credibility
- darig 2y ago[dead]
- snickerbockers 2y agoyeah but you can still disagree with them for doing so. I don't get why so many people think the 1A protects them from criticism of the way they exercise their own freedom of speech. It's not just your freedom of speech that gets protected.
- jmull 2y ago> yeah but you can still disagree with them for doing so Of course. I'm not telling anyone what to say or think. I was just pointing out how the poster's "censorship" argument is contrary to free speech, not supportive of it.
- snickerbockers 2y agoNo, it's still censorship even if the government doesn't do it. It's just not a violation of the 1st amendment in that case.
- Malidir 2y agoIn Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.
- NotAnOtter 2y agoZuck Vs Elon on the 2028 presidential ticket would be.... something
- jpadkins 2y agoElon was born in Africa and is not eligible to be president.
- immibis 2y agoThe rules don't apply to the people who make them. What do you expect is going to happen if he does show up on the ballot and the most people vote for him?
- wodenokoto 2y agoZuckerberg vs trump, would also pretty much be Facebook vs x
- chrisco255 2y agoTrump's not going to be able to run for a third term.
- reaperducer 2y agoTrump's not going to be able to run for a third term. He says he won the last election, so he's already running for a third term.
- 2y ago
- Arthanos 2y ago[flagged]
- indoordin0saur 2y ago> The Hunter Biden "story" was merely revenge porn of a private citizen gained by hacking a private laptop, they were right to censor it, they would do so for any other private citizen But this wasn't their stated reason for it. They claimed it was "Russian propaganda" or a fabricated story knowing full well it was not. Then they try and gaslight you into thinking they did the censorship for principled reasons rather than a cynical ploy to hold onto power. Some people fall for it, others learn not to trust those who consistently lie about their manipulative behavior.
- Arthanos 2y ago[flagged]
- JohnMakin 2y agoInteresting they use the example of covid - to me that's a far less offensive application of censorship than what my research on social media platforms during the last year seems to be indicating - it became very apparent that Meta has/was taking various censorship methods against pro-palestine content - whereas tiktok largely was not (at least from what I could tell, I don't research tiktok as much as I do meta platforms). I suspect (conspiracy theory a bit but not entirely farfetched) that the sudden, completely bi-partisan effort to force tiktok to divest was influenced in no small part by the government's lack of ability to censor that platform compared to ones like meta's. Was the palestinian stuff directed by the government? I don't know, but it sure seemed to me like the israel/palestine war posts that were allowed through sounded awfully similar to what the white house/IDF was saying about it. When stuff like this comes out, regardless of whether my theory is true or not, it adds fuel to that fire in a way I don't feel is very good for democracy or social media in general, particularly when zuck/meta will gaslight their users and claim state censorship isn't happening when it very, very obviously is. What was stopping them from coming out and saying "hey we're censoring this type of content?" Their entire approach to moderation is like this, it's a completely automated black box that leaves a user with very little clue as to how they're even supposed to interact with the platform without being punished in strange and obtuse ways.
- object-a 2y agoIt's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. Twitter similarly requires aggressive use of block + mute to eliminate scams, clickbait, and other content I'm not interested in. I don't know if this is due to their changes in moderation policy, or if AI has overwhelmed them, but I vastly preferred the old news feeds
- pupppet 2y agoIt's just Reddit now.
- lawlessone 2y ago>It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait. It's brutal. (i know this is my own fault for arguing with once probably) I constantly get recommend stuff about flat earth, portals around the world. It's like this weird toxic mix of new age cult with maga. More generally to all media ... What happens when flat earthers start using AI to generate videos with "proof" the earth is flat, or fake videos of robots inside a vaccine?
- JohnMakin 2y ago> What happens when flat earthers start using AI to generate videos claiming the earth is flat, this is definitely already happening but not how you think. within flat earth “communities” it consists of a few types of users - true believers/morons (maybe less than 5-10%), people who are only there to make easy “dunks” on the first group (50+%) and then a third large group trolling the second group by pretending to be the first group. The third group’s the one making these videos/content.
- gosub100 2y agoIt's the verbal equivalent of an M.C. Escher work.
- somenameforme 2y agoI doubt anywhere remotely near 5% actually believe the Earth is flat. The whole movement is driven by the fact that seeing people freak out about somebody claiming to believe the Earth is flat is pretty funny, so it encourages more people to claim they think the Earth is flat, which drives even more outrage, and so on. It's just classical trolling in a world where people no longer know how to deal with trolls, which is quite simple: don't feed them. Flat earthers by contrast are feasting like no troll ever before.
- surfingdino 2y agoBut he has no regrets pouring gasoline on the bonfire of Brexit, I guess? He's only concerned when there is a real danger of someone going after his wealth. It will be interesting to watch the business community of the US unite against the Democrats. Interesting times.
- resters 2y agoNotably, Meta's algorithmic feed evolved so rapidly that it had major consequences before they were well understood. 1) FB launched and was able to scale past MySpace by making its feed algorithmic and gracefully degrading the freshness of content to get good uptime while MySpace was unusable during peak hours of the day. 2) FB realized that the feed being algorithmic could be a good thing, and could drive engagement directly, apart from simply avoiding downtime. 3) FB realized that the algorithmic feed was the heart of its ad platform. 4) Users got an explosion of sponsored content that overwhelmed the useful human content from friends and family. 5) Zuck decided to focus on News content and vowed to make FB the place to go for news. 6) The algorithmic feed created incredible virality and rapid spread of sensational, triggering content. Donald Trump's campain in 2016 exploited this characteristic and was able to exert great control over attention simply by Donald saying outlandish and intentionally polarizing things. 7a) This tactic, combined with viral content from other fringe groups (with questionable sponsorship & eaily funded via the ad platform) was credited with Trump's victory in the 2016 election. News orgs, motivated by profits and engagement, kept publishing more and more of the sensational stories which gave Trump's approach more and more power. Those opposed to Trump unwittingly fueled his rise in their naïveté about how the algorithm was amplifying his worldview when they shared stories about how abhorrent it was. 7b) This was a stunning blow to Meta and led to the rapid creation of internal censorship teams in response to pressure from political leaders. 8) Facebook's voluntary censorship was among the first in a movement to de-platform a wide variety of political speech in the US and other nations. Family members of top US officials were high level execs and FB, and there was/is a revolving door between Meta and government, even between Meta and the CIA (Meta's internal "disinfo" team is staffed mainly by ex-CIA info ops experts and analysts). 9) All this led to the creation of new, "anti-censorship" platforms, the purchase of Twitter by Musk for political reasons, and a variety of other consequences. 10) Now Zuck finds that consumers have lost some trust in the FB brand and there is tremendous pressure to keep the ad business profitable, but most importantly that hiring thousands of content police is very expensive and has unintended consequences. We can hope that the US Government chooses to resort to more direct attacks on free speech and gives up the approach of pressuring firms to do anti-democratic things. With most Americans happily consuming an algorithmic feed that aggressively suppresses dissent, it is funny to think about the impact on society it has compared with something like China's great firewall.
- fny 2y agoRemember friends “Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.” initiated by the Biden admin still doesn’t have a court date. While I completely agree, he agree screwed up, the admission is well timed.
- AlbertCory 2y agoIf you want to see what's been "moderated" away from you on Hacker News: Click your username at the upper right: Turn on "showdead": showdead: yes. (defaults to "no") There are a number of dead posts in this thread. I'd post some here (some of which don't appear to violate any HN guidelines, I'll note), but probably those same moderators would kill this one, too.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoPresumably those accounts are dead because of repeated rule breaking, not because their specific post in this thread broke the rules. And there might be more dead comments here on average because politics+tech draws a lot of a certain type of commenter(the type of commenter that might get banned)
- AlbertCory 2y ago"Presumably" ?? which ones? How do you know?
- shitpostbot 2y ago[dead]
- generalizations 2y agoIt's a fairly safe prior - Dang does a pretty great job moderating here & I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
- 13415 2y agoPeople generally know from participating in moderation because they flag comments and posts themselves.
- usefulcat 2y agoSome context on a user (bigbacaloa) who made one of the dead comments you've referred to elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37381905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37381905
- sidcool 2y agoThere's always money involved. There is no awakening of inner morality. Just follow the money and you'd know why this is happening.
- jmyeet 2y agoWhen someone starts making claims, there is a tendency for those claims to become "fact" if there isn't sufficient counter-messaging. Case in point: the idea that conservatives are somehow having their speech suppressed. This is patently false. Twitter has become 4chan. Any number of conservatives topics like anti-vaxxers, Brexit, anti-immigrant propaganda and so thrive on social media, including and especially Facebook. Now you can argue that this isn't intentional. It's simply a result of these platforms responding to and promoting "engagement bait". There might be some truth to that but at a certain point, particularly if you're the CEO of Meta, you can't play dumb. You should know what your platform is promoting and what benefits you. What you're seeing here is Zuckerberg is increasingly becoming aligned with the billionaire class and, by extension, the political right (eg [1]). This is the arc that leads to becoming Peter Thiel. No one, and I mean no one with the possible exception of Noam Chomsky, is a free speech absolutist. Elon, for example, has banned people who have simply hurt his feelings (many times). And while Zuck is sucking up Republicans in Congress, see how far you get on any of these platforms if you use words like "Gaza", "Israel", "Sde Temain" or "Palestine". All of these big tech companies have been very successful in pushing the idea that it's "the algorithm" that upranks or downranks content, like there's no human involved. This is propaganda. Humans decide what's in the algorithm and they make those decisions based on what they want it to do. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mark-zuckerberg-praises-trumps-response-assassination-attempt-rcna162777 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mark-zuckerberg-prais...
- rightisleft 2y agometa and google should be classified as public utilities
- hnax 2y agoAlways, as a good hedger Zuck, anticipating regime change in the White House by November, is minimizing the potential fallout of his treacherous behavior. Hold him accountable.
- seydor 2y agoLast time it didn't work out , so it s not always
- fitsumbelay 2y agoIn 2020, the charity he and his wife run donated hundreds of millions of dollars to local US election offices to help cover extra costs related to the pandemic. Conservatives claim, without evidence of course, that those funds skewed election results toward Democratic Party candidates especially in battleground states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All of Zuckerbergs earned media -- the "inside look" at his mixed martial arts training, riding futuristic surfboards carrying with a giant 'merican flag, pretending to fight with Musk -- a larger and more seasoned uber clown for the ages -- and virtue-signalling on behalf of fRea SpEAcH pRINSSaPuLLz -- is just part of the act
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- seydor 2y agoIs that a US constitutional violation by the biden government? I guess not because they weren't really forced to. Yet again , putting pressure on media is not negligible
- gwbas1c 2y agoThe first amendment specifically uses the word "congress," and the President is not congress. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ From what I understand, the executive branch generally uses the power of persuasion to influence media. There's no legal consequences for failing to comply; but instead the media has to weigh political consequences. To put it differently, if your social network is used to push conspiracy theories and otherwise undermine democracy, you're going to have a tough time asking for political favors.
- seydor 2y agobut if the president had the power to censor, that power should come from a law that the congress made. it wouldnt make sense otherwise
- tantalor 2y agoIt's a moot point; FB said it was 100% their decision to suppress speech.
- gwbas1c 2y agoBasically, aides call up media outlets and aggressively nag. The media then gets favors if they comply. There's no law against a politician playing favorites in the media. The media can also choose to ignore. It's not in the White House's interest to make enemies in the media.
- hsdropout 2y ago
- duxup 2y agoActions speak louder than words. Just log onto Facebook and see what he wants you to see. I don't know what he thinks he is selling folks on, but it's mostly spam and garbage...
- moosey 2y agoEngagement. In fact, IMO, trying to achieve engagement should be illegal psychological experimentation on humans, but I'm an outlier.
- murphym 2y agofunnily enough, that's the name of their recent recommendation algorithm paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.17152 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.17152
- chambers 2y agoI don't trust Zuckerberg and I don't trust his motivations. That said, I think there's some truth in his words: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/EIP_Jira_Ticket_Staff_Report_11-6-23_Clean.pdf https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j... Skip the political mumbo-jumbo and go straight to page 27 to 29 of this investigation report. Internal emails show FB employees unhappy to onboard to a private takedown request portal, where Government employees would post tickets on "disinformation" that FB & other tech companies would then be obligated to police. Further, the report suggests that CISA & its proxies didn't have a legal mandate to compel FB, Twitter, and other companies to censor content, so the CISA resorted to "suggesting" they would get the FBI involved. The entire doc has an obvious political slant, but I think it partially explains why the Stanford Internet Observatory and other proxies self-dismantled before litigation commenced.
- peter_retief 2y agoWas it not wrong for the white house to put pressure on Zuckerberg? Are we not blaming the wrong people? In his defense, the FBI told him to. Most people would have believed the FBI.
- megous 2y agoI will maybe believe him maybe when they unban student groups like SJP Columbia. https://x.com/ColumbiaSJP/status/1828099828301107294 https://x.com/ColumbiaSJP/status/1828099828301107294
- cratermoon 2y agotranslation: disinformation and lies welcome here
- idunnoman1222 2y agoThis guy decides^
- jasonlotito 2y agoKey point here for me was that this was on FB, and no one else. Zuckerberg might regret doing this, but he did it. No one else. And, unless he is lying, he wasn't forced to do this. So, really, nothing more to add. Should note: The Supreme Court in June tossed out claims that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms into censoring users by removing COVID-19 content. The majority ruled that because Facebook "began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID-19 content" before the government pressure campaign began, platforms, not the Biden administration, bore responsibility for the posts being taken down.
- mandmandam 2y ago... What? Apologies if I'm missing the sarcasm, but Instagram, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, Pinterest and even LinkedIn all suppressed certain stories, keywords, etc. For Twitter and Google at least we have documents proving Biden admin requests. I think there's a whole lot more, but the point stands regardless. > unless he is lying, he wasn't forced to do this "We could make things real hard for you for four years. We were thinking about breaking you guys up actually, you're sort of a monopoly. Anyway, here is our request - we'd never force you though. The choice is yours." [Ominous stare.]
- laidoffamazon 2y ago> The choice is yours. Correct, the choice was theirs. They probably didn't want to keep spreading ivermectin conspiracy theories, it's bad for advertisers.
- mandmandam 2y agoYou don't find it interesting that both Meta and Google had monopoly lawsuits aimed at them in 2020? And at the exact same time, the exact same people were "asking" for scientific discussion of many kinds to be shut down across Whatsapp, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, among many others? Because it wasn't just Ivermectin. It was the lableak hypothesis, investigating the WIV, following back GOF funding, vaccine contracts, vaccine side-effects, vaccine effectiveness, lockdown effectiveness, natural immunity discussion, etc etc etc; all restricted and suppressed to fit whatever the Biden admin decided. That's not hyperbole, that's simple and well documented fact. And, as was directly pointed out in this letter/article, the Biden admin wasn't above using lies to shut down politically inconvenient (and true) stories.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y agoOK, so Facebook at the request of the Biden Harris administration censored the Hunter laptop story and knew it was not actually Russian disinformation. It’s not like you could draw a straight line between this action and something you’d categorize as election interference.
- djur 2y agoThere was no "Biden-Harris administration" in 2020.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y agoThere was. They just weren’t in office yet. Yet, they still pressured Facebook to suppress truth and opinion they just didn’t like. You can chose to not defend bad actions.
- acdha 2y agoYou’re thinking of the FBI, who reported to Trump. The Biden campaign reported things like the non-consensual nudes which did not have any justification as a public interest story.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago>You’re thinking of the FBI, who reported to Trump. You wrote that I’m sure doing your very best to believe it. Bless your heart.
- acdha 2y agoI don’t have to make an effort to believe it. It’s what all of the evidence shows – even your guys running through Twitter’s internal communications for months couldn’t find any evidence of the alleged censorship campaign. The best Taibi could come up with is presenting links to deleted tweets and counting on his readers not to check archives to realize they were nude photos rather than something politically relevant.
- 50208 2y agoHard to understand why Zuck would come out with this now? This is like a bazooka shot at Democrats ... to give Gym Jordan this information to twist and distort. Never mind that the "censored" data turned out to be from Russian operative sources ... yes, never mind that. This seems bigger than just business, or the House Judiciary Committee. Is this about Israel and fear of what a Harris admin would do (or stop doing)? Either way, there is definitely underhanded intent in this "admission" from ole'Zuck IMO.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aklemm 2y agoDoes he regret facilitating the circulation of garbage?
- mandeepj 2y agoPressures from sitting governments to enforce policies aren't new. So, not sure if he's trying to gain sympathy or favors from the other side. https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-threatens-jail-for-facebook-whatsapp-and-twitter-employees-11614964542 https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-threatens-jail-for-facebo...
- settsu 2y agoOf all the things Zuckerberg could have cited, he chose arguing FOR allowing information that could have materially detrimental effects on living human beings?? Or did I misread?
- vezycash 2y agoHe's telling half truths. Facebook started censoring Trump during his presidency!
- jdubz79 2y ago[flagged]
- yimmothathird 2y agoYes but sadly those people continue to live and vote
- dev1ycan 2y agoHe's doing the same thing for the israeli conflict out of his own volition so I don't believe a word he's saying.
- mocmoc 2y ago[flagged]
- nappingbat 2y agoYou can either have a healthy democracy, OR you can have Facebook (and X).
- 3np 2y agoEveryone: Please stop the flaming of Zuck, Meta and any politicians in this thread? Nobody cares how much or little you trust Zuck and these comments contribute nothing to the discussion. There is great significance and potential conversation here regardless of how accurately Zuck is laying out facts or his intentions behind this letter. We don't want that getting drowned by all-to-predictable echo chamber. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. FWIW, I'm as distrustful of him as the next person but I do think he's deliberately accurate in representation of facts and events in this letter. Including this spicy gem at the end: > Respectfully, > /s/ Mark Zuckerberg
- notfed 2y agoZuckerberg should learn to plead the 5th when asked about political intervention questions. He keeps apologizing, thinking it will gain him respect, but the general public only sees this as a grand admission of guilt (ostensibly for some crime they didn't know of until now, and still don't know any details about). Many other CEOs get asked similar questions, and they refuse to engage in the discussion; the result is no news coverage.
- Covzire 2y agoFacebook usage is tanking I think, they're losing market share because nobody trusts facebook for anything but the marketplace anymore, with exceptions of course but I don't know many people who use it anymore for anything but birthdays and the like.
- intended 2y agoI think the grand admission of guilt is what was wanted from him. This is setting up to say that the Biden admin influenced platforms.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yalogin 2y agoWhy is this t regretful to stop misinformation? I don’t get it, is he hedging against a trump win this election?
- hilux 2y agoDoes this mean that Facebook's internal analysis predicts a Trump victory? That's how I read it.
- timeon 2y agoOr panicking and trying to turn the wave like CNN'n'co.
- LightBug1 2y agoOh fucking please ... what a fucking hero ...
- mcv 2y agoWait a minute... Censorship requests from the Biden administration before the 2020 election? There was no Biden administration before the 2020 election. Something doesn't quite add up here.
- tonymet 2y ago"Why this, why now, why you?" Why did Zucc stamp his name on this now, after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020, and willingly censor in favor of the 2020 Biden campaign (covid + Hunter biden). You've got to wonder why he seems to be signaling to the Trump campaign that he is taking sides. My guess is either hoping for kickbacks or to thwart retribution for 2020.
- calgarymicro 2y ago> after putting $450m into Biden's campaign in 2020 This is false; he donated to state and local election offices, not Biden's campaign.[0] [0]https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-election-donations-188810437774 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-mark-zuckerberg-ele...
- vuln 2y agoThe evidence shows that a disproportionate amount of funding went to urban areas in key swing states, which generally lean Democrat. Never saw a single ballot drop box out near a corn field. The money helped fund those sorts of initiatives.
- calgarymicro 2y agoDoes it? The article I linked says > But election officials have said there is no indication of favoritism in how the money was distributed, according to previous AP reports. The board of the Center for Tech and Civic Life also includes Pam Anderson, a Republican and former elected clerk of a suburban Denver-area county. Republican election officials have also vouched for the program’s impartiality, including Brian Mead, a Republican election director in Licking County, Ohio. But even if it was true that urban election offices received disproportionately more funding (obviously they received more in general since more people live there), that's still not the same as "putting $450m into Biden's campaign", which is what was claimed.
- tonymet 2y ago
- energy123 2y agoConvenient timing, on the eve of the election and just after the Overton Window has shifted in tech circles.
- ProAm 2y agoI feel this is mostly political posturing now that we are close to the election. Whoa is me for doing something the government requested (not demanded) I do during a pandemic. Not the end of the world, but lets not act like the timing is too convenient for a political hot button issue of 'big government'. The feed in FB is already hot garbage, if he really felt this hurt his business he would have said no at the time. Just my opinion.
- navaed01 2y agoI’ll say this to everyone who is so quick to get out the government overreach brush. I was on tik tok today. I was fed a post that used an AI audio clip of Trump calling republicans dumb and stupid. People thought it was real. They comment and believe it. The clip has been reused hundreds of time to make new posts. It will reach millions. This is one example. There is government meddling in social media. It’s not always ours. That’s the MORE concerning part
- fma 2y agoI wonder how his wife, a medical doctor feels about letting medical informative spread. His line "we should not compromise our content standard" tela me he doesn't personally use Facebook. I can't scroll down more than a few screen length before closing the app due to poor quality ads and recommended content. I rarely see posts from my own network.
- maxehmookau 2y agoThe fact that he honestly believes Facebook has any sort of content standard is hilarious anyway.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- khana 2y ago[dead]
- KingMob 2y agoHe clearly has no problem with censorship, though. Meta just banned all accounts of the Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as NYU's People’s Solidarity Coalition.
- somedude895 2y ago[flagged]
- aguaviva 2y agoI wouldn't be surprised if those accounts spread From the River to the Sea messages, which is basically calling for a genocide If that were the concern they would swiftly ban the accounts of the Likud party, which has used the slogan in genocidal contexts as well (and continues to spout such rhetoric, along with its coalition partners). And in fact, the origins of the phrase can be traced back to Zionist literature from the 1920s. From Wikipedia: The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." ... The Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song which includes: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River. In any case -- current usage of the slogan from the pro-Palestine activist side is not intrinsically genocidal. Some basically do mean it that way. But most (at least those I talk to) do not. In their view it just means they want a Palestine that is "democratic, pluralistic, free from apartheid and other forms of oppression". And there's certainly nothing untoward about wanting that.
- novolunt 2y ago[dead]
- roshankhan28 2y agoi mean look at instagram itself, they have vastly deviated from the original idea of being a photo sharing app to a platform that is reel sharing app. also it will pull you in into doom scrolling if you dont have the ability to limit yourself.
- torginus 2y agoWhat I don't understand about this is the partisan spin of the story - much of Covid 19 happened under the Trump administration, including the most severe lockdowns before vaccines, and corresponding information warfare and articles about how people out on the streets are evil. Blaming Biden/Harris for this is an incredibly revisionist take thats surprising considering its very recent 'history'.
- michaelteter 2y agoI’m sure he does regret it as it cuts into his business model of profiting from disinformation.
- JimmaDaRustla 2y agoSure, they're banning tiktok while letting straight pressure to manipulate news feeds on Facebook is perfectly fine... Because it's the government is the have getting what they want
- Malidir 2y agoCame across a tiktok vid where a comentator was saying that perhaps all the data Zuckerberg has access to is showing a clear Trump win. And so he is now attacking Biden strategically to build relations with Trump.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoI deleted my Facebook account 10 years ago. Everything that has happened since then has served to confirm that decision. I don't miss it.