3 ms·

I'm not sure how to read the second paragraph? Does it suggest that suppression of speech goes hand in had with pandering to the Trump administration? Suppress

by rqaldk 2y ago

I'm not sure how to read the second paragraph? Does it suggest that suppression of speech goes hand in had with pandering to the Trump administration? Suppression of speech was the number one topic for Democrats from 2020. They ordered COVID censorship (admitted by Zuckerberg), suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story (admitted by Zuckerberg and Twitter/X), suggested a "disinformation tsar" (Jankowicz). They encouraged flagging and de-platforming of opposing opinions and people. Democrats did not oppose the use of Lavender (pre-crime software) and "Where is Daddy" (cynical name for assassination technology) in Gaza, despite their constant claims to care for people of color. I'm not saying that any of this will get better under Trump, but let's be realistic here. Though I do believe that Republicans will allow more free speech in total.

jmyeet 2y ago
> Does it suggest that suppression of speech goes hand in had with pandering to the Trump administration? Apologies for not being clear. I'll clarify. My view is that US foreign policy is uniparty. No matter who is in the White House or controls Congress, there is always money for weapons. So in that sense, suppressing speech that doesn't align with US foreign policy isn't pandering to one party or the other. It's moving in lockstep with the US State Department. Meta is increasingly comfortable becoming a government tool for mass surveillance and, essentially, a weapons manufacturer. So while that part is uniparty, you have to then consider what those weapons will be used for. Trump openly campaigned on mass deportations and has said since the election has confirmed that the mass deporation program will begin the first day of his administration [1]. It would be naive to think that social media platforms won't be used to identify targets for mass deportation. No one, particularly Zuckerberg, can argue this is a surprise. So Zuckerberg has either endorsed the mass deportation plan or at least not considered it a deal breaker. I wonder how the staff that actually created his fortune feel about this. Not good overall I suspect. Compare this to the Harris agenda. Were there any similar uses for social media likely? Not that I can recall. So one side wants to build concentration camps and the other doesn't. So yes, Zuckerberg has quite clearly cozied up to the Trump administration. [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/donald-trumps-day-one-agenda-from-mass-deportations-to-green-new-deal-rollback-2629852-2024-11-07 https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/donald-trumps-day-one-...

by rqaldk 2y ago

jmyeet 2y ago

> Does it suggest that suppression of speech goes hand in had with pandering to the Trump administration? Apologies for not being clear. I'll clarify. My view is that US foreign policy is uniparty. No matter who is in the White House or controls Congress, there is always money for weapons. So in that sense, suppressing speech that doesn't align with US foreign policy isn't pandering to one party or the other. It's moving in lockstep with the US State Department. Meta is increasingly comfortable becoming a government tool for mass surveillance and, essentially, a weapons manufacturer. So while that part is uniparty, you have to then consider what those weapons will be used for. Trump openly campaigned on mass deportations and has said since the election has confirmed that the mass deporation program will begin the first day of his administration [1]. It would be naive to think that social media platforms won't be used to identify targets for mass deportation. No one, particularly Zuckerberg, can argue this is a surprise. So Zuckerberg has either endorsed the mass deportation plan or at least not considered it a deal breaker. I wonder how the staff that actually created his fortune feel about this. Not good overall I suspect. Compare this to the Harris agenda. Were there any similar uses for social media likely? Not that I can recall. So one side wants to build concentration camps and the other doesn't. So yes, Zuckerberg has quite clearly cozied up to the Trump administration. [1]: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/donald-trumps-day-one-agenda-from-mass-deportations-to-green-new-deal-rollback-2629852-2024-11-07 https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/donald-trumps-day-one-...