8 ms·

What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-mo

What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. They also said that their existing moderation efforts were due to societal and political pressures. They aren't explicit about it, but it's clear that pressure does not exist anymore. This is another big win for Meta, because minimizing their investment in content moderation and simplifying their product will reduce operating expenses.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
> reduce operating expenses If you assume they are immune to politics (not true but let's go with it), this is the most obvious reason. They've seen X hasn't taken that much heat for Community Notes and they're like "wow we can cut a line item". The real problem is, Facebook is not X. 90% of the content on Facebook is not public. You can't Fact Check or Community Note the private groups sharing blatantly false content, until it spills out via a re-share. So Facebook will remain a breeding ground of conspiracy, pushed there by the echo chamber and Nazi-bar effects.
- raxxor 2y ago
  How would fact checkers access the 90% of private content? And should they? I don't think so, even if the respective private content is questionable. The EU goes its own way with trusted flaggers, which is more or less the least sensible option. It won't take long until bounds are overstepped and legal content gets flagged. Perhaps it already happened. This is not a solution to even an ill-defined problem.
  - timeon 2y ago
    Yes. Those are all bad solutions. Banning social networks would be probably better.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      Right, if you don't agree with people at an online community, these communities should just be banned! You would be a good dictator.
- cwillu 2y ago
  Good. Private communication is private, even if it's a group. The nice thing about the crazy is that they're incapable of keeping quiet: they will inevitably out themselves. In the meantime, maybe now I can discuss private matters of my diagnosis without catching random warnings, bans, or worse.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    What kind of diagnosis spawns so many fact checks that it's a problem? I'd think any discussion about medical issues would benefit greatly from the calling out of misinformation.
    - cwillu 2y ago
      Amusingly enough, it's not misinformation being blocked or called out, it's just straight up censorship of any mention of the topic.
grues-dinner 2y ago
Yes, this just reads like "oh, thank God for that, that department was an expensive hassle to run". I don't know if I'd call it a certain win for Meta long term, but it might well be if they play it right. Presumably they're banking on things being fairly siloed anyway, so political tirades in one bubble won't push users in another bubble off the platform. If they have good ways for people to ignore others, maybe they can have the cake and eat it, unlike Twitter. Like Twitter, the network effect will retain people, and unlike Twitter, Facebook is a much deeper, more integrated service such that people can't just jump across to a work-alike. A CEO who can keep his mouth shut is also a pretty big plus for them. They skated away from bring involved with a genocide without too many issues, so same ethical revulsion people have against Musk seems to be much less focused.
ColdTakes 2y ago
The pressure has just shifted from being applied by the left to the right. There is still censorship on Twitter, it is just the people Elon doesn't like who are getting censored. The same will happen on Facebook. Zuckerberg has been cozying up to Trump for a reason.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  fb has been censoring left wing stuff and leaving fascists be since several years. This is just "like before, but even more" I think.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    What is this based on? I see so many people shouting things like this, but there doesn't seem to be any basis for these arguments. They seem a bit useless and empty.
    - LtWorf 2y ago
      Experience.
      - gitaarik 2y ago
        Ah ok, nothing noteworthy
        LtWorf 2y ago
        Better than the "I made it up" you use, no?
  - xvector 2y ago
    So glad FB abandoned moderation. Both of you guys (left and right) blame Facebook for censorship. What a thankless job. I'd throw my hands up as well. If you care so much about it, now you can contribute with Community Notes. The power is in your hands! Go forth and be happy.
- 2y ago
phatfish 2y ago
> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. Or maybe such people have far better things to do than fact check concern trolls and paid propagandists.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  I pay for some news subscriptions now. I actually love it. Read it, support journalism , log off. Done.
  - HappMacDonald 2y ago
    Right, so from where? Many of us might pay for journalism if we knew who was producing content not already beholden to some ridiculous bias sink.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      Checkout Ground News. Then you can choose your specific poison :)
- jfengel 2y ago
  There do seem to be a lot of people who enjoy fact checking concern trolls and paid propagandists. I'm not sure if they do more good than harm. Often the entire point seems to be to get those specific people spun up, realizing that the troll is not constrained to admit error no matter how airtight the refutation. It just makes them look as frothing as trolls claim they are. And yet, it's also unclear if any other course of action would help. Despite decades of pleading, the trolls never starve no matter how little they're fed.
  - radlad 2y ago
    > And yet, it's also unclear if any other course of action would help. Despite decades of pleading, the trolls never starve no matter how little they're fed. Downvotes that hide posts below a certain threshold have always seemed like the best approach to me. Of course it also allows groups to silence views.
yodsanklai 2y ago
> They aren't explicit about it, but it's clear that pressure does not exist anymore It's clear that the pressure comes now from the other side of the spectrum. Zuck already put Trumpists at various key positions. > I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. It's a good point. They're also going to push more political contents, which should increase engagement (eventually frustrating users and advertisers?) Either way, it's pretty clear that the company works with the power in place, which is extremely concerning (whether you're left or right leaning, and even more if you're not American).
- lazyeye 2y ago
  Is it less concerning if Facebook only worked with one side of politics? How is reducing censorship a bad thing?
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Who said anything about that?
hintymad 2y ago
> content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content moderators judge content subjectively, labeling perfect discussions as misinformation, hate speech, and etc. That's where the censorship starts.
- nicce 2y ago
  > That's where the censorship starts. It also starts when there is no third-party anymore. Where is the middle line?
  - hintymad 2y ago
    I thought there would be community notes. And how would third-party work? The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenge the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenging the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria. Not familiar with that specific case, though generally I'm not a fan a bans. Fact checks are great though. There have been peer reviewed papers about midi-chlorians too (https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a-blogger-fooled-three-scientific-journals-into-publishing-a-fake-star-wars-themed-paper-1091631/ https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a...), but I'd sure hope that if someone brought it up in a discussion they'd be fact checked.
  - raxxor 2y ago
    I do not follow, I do not believe this is correct. Third parties introduce the censorship.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  How do you avoid judging actual human discussions subjectively? I remember being a forum moderator and struggling with exactly the same issues. No matter what guidelines we'd set, there'd be essentially legitimate discussions that were way over the line superficially, and on the other you'd have neo-nazis acting in ways that weren't technically bad, but were clearly leading there. Facebook moderators have an even harder job than that because the inherent scale of the platform prevents the kinds of personal insights and contextual understanding I had.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. Strong disagree. This is a very naive understanding of the situation. "Fact-checking" by users is just more of the kind of shouting back and forth that these social networks are already full of. That's why a third-party fact checks are important.
- ldoughty 2y ago
  True, but that doesn't discount that it's a win for Meta 1) Shouting matches create more ad impressions, as people interact more with the platform. The shouting matches also get more attention from other viewers than any calm factual statement. 2) Less legal responsibility / costs / overhead 3) Less potential flak from being officially involved in fact-checking in a way that displeases the current political group in power Users lose, but are people who still use FB today going to use FB less because the official fact checkers are gone? Almost certainly not in any significant numbers
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Yeah, I agree it's a win for Meta from a $$ perspective, just not for the reason the OP expressed (which was what I was disagreeing with). \
    - disconcision 2y ago
      OP said it's a win for meta because it creates more engagement, which is a proxy for $$
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 2y ago
qingcharles 2y ago
Community Notes is the best thing about Musk's Dumpster fire. The problem with CN right now, though, is that Musk appears to block it on most of his posts, and/or right-wing moderators downvote the notes so they don't appear or disappear.
- kristianc 2y ago
  The bad faith “NNN - just expressing an opinion” is a cancer on CNs too.
- extraduder_ire 2y ago
  Community notes launched at the start of 2021. It predates the buyout by almost two years. If what they said about their design is to be believed, political downvoting shouldn't heavily impact them. I wish it was easier to see pending notes on a post though.
  - Analemma_ 2y ago
    Right, I think that's the parent's point: CN is a great design, dragged down by the fact that Elon heavily puts his thumb on the scale to make sure posts he likes spread far and wide and posts he dislikes get buried, irrespective of their truth content.
    - qingcharles 2y ago
      This. You're getting downvoted as bad as me LOL
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    I agree, you should be able to see pending notes even if you're not a CN moderator.
    - extraduder_ire 2y ago
      You can see them, it's just that finding the button to do so on a post is difficult. I think you need to navigate to the post from the notes section of the website.
WalterBright 2y ago
The trouble with fact checkers was quite evident in the Trump-Harris debate.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  Non-American here (i.e. did not watch the debate), what trouble became evident? Were they fact-checking too much? Not enough? Incorrectly?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Only one side was fact checked.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      Was it the side that did the vast majority of the lying?
      - saulpw 2y ago
        Yeah, the problem is that if one side tells 100 lies, and the other tells 1 lie, you can't correct all 100 lies, but if you only correct the most egregious lies then statistically you'll only be correcting the one side, and if you correct 1 lie from each side, then you make it seem like both sides lie equally. The Gish Gallop wins again.
        autoexec 2y ago
        Especially for live fact checking the greater the number of lies and the more obvious/blatant those lies are the more likely someone is to get fact checked.
        gitaarik 2y ago
        We would have to fact check if those numbers are correct. Oh wait, fact checkers don't work, better just inform yourself and make up your own mind, and don't just believe some supposedly authoritarian figures.
aklemm 2y ago
What I heard is that trying to maintain sane content is less profitable than the alternative, and definitely less politically advantageous.
dotancohen 2y ago
> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. To me it sounds better for large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion, like Qatar. I disagree that this is better for either Facebook users, or society as a whole. It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.
- morley 2y ago
  I was under the impression that Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks, but I could be wrong. Community Notes have been used at Twitter for a long time. Are there examples of state-influenced notes getting through the process?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - BryantD 2y ago
    Twitter's Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks. Meta is calling their new product Community Notes, but it would be a mistake to assume the algorithms are the same under the hood. Hopefully Meta will be as transparent as Twitter has been, with a regular data dump and so on.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Qatar is not well known for paying people to bot on social media. They play the RT game by using their news network Al Jazeera to do that instead and give their propaganda a professional air. The first country to do this was India[1]. Israel has special units in the army to do this[2]. At this point so many countries pay people to do what you say, but Qatar doesn't, from what I can tell. If you have proof of it, I'm all ears. I was cautiously optimistic when this was announced that India and Saudi Arabia (among others, incl. Qatar) might see some pushback on how they clamp down on free speech and journalism on social media. But since Zuck mentioned Europe, I fear those countries will continue as they did before. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP_IT_Cell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP_IT_Cell [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896
aprilthird2021 2y ago
> They also said that their existing moderation efforts were due to societal and political pressures. They aren't explicit about it, but it's clear that pressure does not exist anymore. I didn't think it was any secret that Meta largely complies with US gov't instructions on what to suppress. It's called jawboning[1] [1] https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/what-jawboning-and-does-it-violate-first-amendment https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/what-jawboning-and-do...

philipwhiuk 2y ago

> reduce operating expenses If you assume they are immune to politics (not true but let's go with it), this is the most obvious reason. They've seen X hasn't taken that much heat for Community Notes and they're like "wow we can cut a line item". The real problem is, Facebook is not X. 90% of the content on Facebook is not public. You can't Fact Check or Community Note the private groups sharing blatantly false content, until it spills out via a re-share. So Facebook will remain a breeding ground of conspiracy, pushed there by the echo chamber and Nazi-bar effects.

raxxor 2y ago
How would fact checkers access the 90% of private content? And should they? I don't think so, even if the respective private content is questionable. The EU goes its own way with trusted flaggers, which is more or less the least sensible option. It won't take long until bounds are overstepped and legal content gets flagged. Perhaps it already happened. This is not a solution to even an ill-defined problem.
- timeon 2y ago
  Yes. Those are all bad solutions. Banning social networks would be probably better.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Right, if you don't agree with people at an online community, these communities should just be banned! You would be a good dictator.
cwillu 2y ago
Good. Private communication is private, even if it's a group. The nice thing about the crazy is that they're incapable of keeping quiet: they will inevitably out themselves. In the meantime, maybe now I can discuss private matters of my diagnosis without catching random warnings, bans, or worse.
- autoexec 2y ago
  What kind of diagnosis spawns so many fact checks that it's a problem? I'd think any discussion about medical issues would benefit greatly from the calling out of misinformation.
  - cwillu 2y ago
    Amusingly enough, it's not misinformation being blocked or called out, it's just straight up censorship of any mention of the topic.

grues-dinner 2y ago

Yes, this just reads like "oh, thank God for that, that department was an expensive hassle to run". I don't know if I'd call it a certain win for Meta long term, but it might well be if they play it right. Presumably they're banking on things being fairly siloed anyway, so political tirades in one bubble won't push users in another bubble off the platform. If they have good ways for people to ignore others, maybe they can have the cake and eat it, unlike Twitter. Like Twitter, the network effect will retain people, and unlike Twitter, Facebook is a much deeper, more integrated service such that people can't just jump across to a work-alike. A CEO who can keep his mouth shut is also a pretty big plus for them. They skated away from bring involved with a genocide without too many issues, so same ethical revulsion people have against Musk seems to be much less focused.

ColdTakes 2y ago

The pressure has just shifted from being applied by the left to the right. There is still censorship on Twitter, it is just the people Elon doesn't like who are getting censored. The same will happen on Facebook. Zuckerberg has been cozying up to Trump for a reason.

LtWorf 2y ago
fb has been censoring left wing stuff and leaving fascists be since several years. This is just "like before, but even more" I think.
- gitaarik 2y ago
  What is this based on? I see so many people shouting things like this, but there doesn't seem to be any basis for these arguments. They seem a bit useless and empty.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    Experience.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      Ah ok, nothing noteworthy
      - LtWorf 2y ago
        Better than the "I made it up" you use, no?
- xvector 2y ago
  So glad FB abandoned moderation. Both of you guys (left and right) blame Facebook for censorship. What a thankless job. I'd throw my hands up as well. If you care so much about it, now you can contribute with Community Notes. The power is in your hands! Go forth and be happy.
2y ago

phatfish 2y ago

> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. Or maybe such people have far better things to do than fact check concern trolls and paid propagandists.

bamboozled 2y ago
I pay for some news subscriptions now. I actually love it. Read it, support journalism , log off. Done.
- HappMacDonald 2y ago
  Right, so from where? Many of us might pay for journalism if we knew who was producing content not already beholden to some ridiculous bias sink.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Checkout Ground News. Then you can choose your specific poison :)
jfengel 2y ago
There do seem to be a lot of people who enjoy fact checking concern trolls and paid propagandists. I'm not sure if they do more good than harm. Often the entire point seems to be to get those specific people spun up, realizing that the troll is not constrained to admit error no matter how airtight the refutation. It just makes them look as frothing as trolls claim they are. And yet, it's also unclear if any other course of action would help. Despite decades of pleading, the trolls never starve no matter how little they're fed.
- radlad 2y ago
  > And yet, it's also unclear if any other course of action would help. Despite decades of pleading, the trolls never starve no matter how little they're fed. Downvotes that hide posts below a certain threshold have always seemed like the best approach to me. Of course it also allows groups to silence views.

yodsanklai 2y ago

> They aren't explicit about it, but it's clear that pressure does not exist anymore It's clear that the pressure comes now from the other side of the spectrum. Zuck already put Trumpists at various key positions. > I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. It's a good point. They're also going to push more political contents, which should increase engagement (eventually frustrating users and advertisers?) Either way, it's pretty clear that the company works with the power in place, which is extremely concerning (whether you're left or right leaning, and even more if you're not American).

lazyeye 2y ago
Is it less concerning if Facebook only worked with one side of politics? How is reducing censorship a bad thing?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Who said anything about that?

hintymad 2y ago

> content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive I think the fact-checking part is pretty straightforward. What's outrageous is that the content moderators judge content subjectively, labeling perfect discussions as misinformation, hate speech, and etc. That's where the censorship starts.

nicce 2y ago
> That's where the censorship starts. It also starts when there is no third-party anymore. Where is the middle line?
- hintymad 2y ago
  I thought there would be community notes. And how would third-party work? The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenge the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > The Stanford doctor was banned from X because he posted peer-reviewed papers that challenging the effectiveness of masks (or vaccines)? I certainly don't want to see that level of hysteria. Not familiar with that specific case, though generally I'm not a fan a bans. Fact checks are great though. There have been peer reviewed papers about midi-chlorians too (https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a-blogger-fooled-three-scientific-journals-into-publishing-a-fake-star-wars-themed-paper-1091631/ https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2017/07/24/news/a...), but I'd sure hope that if someone brought it up in a discussion they'd be fact checked.
- raxxor 2y ago
  I do not follow, I do not believe this is correct. Third parties introduce the censorship.
AlotOfReading 2y ago
How do you avoid judging actual human discussions subjectively? I remember being a forum moderator and struggling with exactly the same issues. No matter what guidelines we'd set, there'd be essentially legitimate discussions that were way over the line superficially, and on the other you'd have neo-nazis acting in ways that weren't technically bad, but were clearly leading there. Facebook moderators have an even harder job than that because the inherent scale of the platform prevents the kinds of personal insights and contextual understanding I had.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. Strong disagree. This is a very naive understanding of the situation. "Fact-checking" by users is just more of the kind of shouting back and forth that these social networks are already full of. That's why a third-party fact checks are important.

ldoughty 2y ago
True, but that doesn't discount that it's a win for Meta 1) Shouting matches create more ad impressions, as people interact more with the platform. The shouting matches also get more attention from other viewers than any calm factual statement. 2) Less legal responsibility / costs / overhead 3) Less potential flak from being officially involved in fact-checking in a way that displeases the current political group in power Users lose, but are people who still use FB today going to use FB less because the official fact checkers are gone? Almost certainly not in any significant numbers
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Yeah, I agree it's a win for Meta from a $$ perspective, just not for the reason the OP expressed (which was what I was disagreeing with). \
  - disconcision 2y ago
    OP said it's a win for meta because it creates more engagement, which is a proxy for $$
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
2y ago

qingcharles 2y ago

Community Notes is the best thing about Musk's Dumpster fire. The problem with CN right now, though, is that Musk appears to block it on most of his posts, and/or right-wing moderators downvote the notes so they don't appear or disappear.

kristianc 2y ago
The bad faith “NNN - just expressing an opinion” is a cancer on CNs too.
extraduder_ire 2y ago
Community notes launched at the start of 2021. It predates the buyout by almost two years. If what they said about their design is to be believed, political downvoting shouldn't heavily impact them. I wish it was easier to see pending notes on a post though.
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  Right, I think that's the parent's point: CN is a great design, dragged down by the fact that Elon heavily puts his thumb on the scale to make sure posts he likes spread far and wide and posts he dislikes get buried, irrespective of their truth content.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    This. You're getting downvoted as bad as me LOL
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I agree, you should be able to see pending notes even if you're not a CN moderator.
  - extraduder_ire 2y ago
    You can see them, it's just that finding the button to do so on a post is difficult. I think you need to navigate to the post from the notes section of the website.

WalterBright 2y ago

The trouble with fact checkers was quite evident in the Trump-Harris debate.

ziddoap 2y ago
Non-American here (i.e. did not watch the debate), what trouble became evident? Were they fact-checking too much? Not enough? Incorrectly?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Only one side was fact checked.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Was it the side that did the vast majority of the lying?
    - saulpw 2y ago
      Yeah, the problem is that if one side tells 100 lies, and the other tells 1 lie, you can't correct all 100 lies, but if you only correct the most egregious lies then statistically you'll only be correcting the one side, and if you correct 1 lie from each side, then you make it seem like both sides lie equally. The Gish Gallop wins again.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        Especially for live fact checking the greater the number of lies and the more obvious/blatant those lies are the more likely someone is to get fact checked.
      - gitaarik 2y ago
        We would have to fact check if those numbers are correct. Oh wait, fact checkers don't work, better just inform yourself and make up your own mind, and don't just believe some supposedly authoritarian figures.

aklemm 2y ago

What I heard is that trying to maintain sane content is less profitable than the alternative, and definitely less politically advantageous.

dotancohen 2y ago

> it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represented. To me it sounds better for large actors who pay shills to influence public opinion, like Qatar. I disagree that this is better for either Facebook users, or society as a whole. It does however certainly fit the Golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules.

morley 2y ago
I was under the impression that Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks, but I could be wrong. Community Notes have been used at Twitter for a long time. Are there examples of state-influenced notes getting through the process?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- BryantD 2y ago
  Twitter's Community Notes were designed to be resistant to sybil attacks. Meta is calling their new product Community Notes, but it would be a mistake to assume the algorithms are the same under the hood. Hopefully Meta will be as transparent as Twitter has been, with a regular data dump and so on.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
Qatar is not well known for paying people to bot on social media. They play the RT game by using their news network Al Jazeera to do that instead and give their propaganda a professional air. The first country to do this was India[1]. Israel has special units in the army to do this[2]. At this point so many countries pay people to do what you say, but Qatar doesn't, from what I can tell. If you have proof of it, I'm all ears. I was cautiously optimistic when this was announced that India and Saudi Arabia (among others, incl. Qatar) might see some pushback on how they clamp down on free speech and journalism on social media. But since Zuck mentioned Europe, I fear those countries will continue as they did before. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP_IT_Cell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BJP_IT_Cell [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23695896

aprilthird2021 2y ago

> They also said that their existing moderation efforts were due to societal and political pressures. They aren't explicit about it, but it's clear that pressure does not exist anymore. I didn't think it was any secret that Meta largely complies with US gov't instructions on what to suppress. It's called jawboning[1] [1] https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/what-jawboning-and-does-it-violate-first-amendment https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/what-jawboning-and-do...