5 ms·

As a leftist, while this is concerning, it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. So, while this announc

by dmazin 2y ago

As a leftist, while this is concerning, it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. So, while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith (what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?), this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.

spencerflem 2y ago
You know that this announcement is made to win favor with Trump. I would not expect that leftism will be any more allowed
- dmazin 2y ago
  I agree. At the very least, it's using Trump as cover. That said, if they remove the political filter, they're opening the door for all discussion (even from the left). Of course, they could surreptitiously filter out the left. Hell, why not?
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    That's my guess as to what they intend to do. Just moving the needle for allowed content to include transphobia and racism.
lapcat 2y ago
> this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza, don't count on it, because this censorship is bipartisan in the United States. Zuck cares about currying favor with the powerful. He doesn't give a crap about the powerless. Also, he's pretending that Texas, the proposed site for content moderation, is not politically biased, which is laughable. "We're moving from a blue state to a red state" is not a serious proposal for reducing or eliminating bias.
- nailer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lapcat 2y ago
    Conspiracy theory?
- sjsisixkxkkxxx 2y ago
  > If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza It’s also a right wing complaint, and they’re also silenced for bringing it up.
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    Everytime someone calls Biden "Left Wing", I roll my eyes. So it's quite possible that you have a different definition of Right Wing than I do. But Trump, Fox News, and the Republicans are absolutely actively aiding the genocide and squashing dissent.
nailer 2y ago
[flagged]
- GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
  > people just do not wish to participate in other peoples gender performances. The “bad faith” is in the pretending that we don’t all participate in gender performance with every single person we come into contact with, every single day, for our entire lives.
  - nailer 2y ago
    The post you are responding to does not claim otherwise. Again: it is specifically pointing out that other people are not obliged to participate in other people’s performance. People are free to act, have whatever cosmetic surgery or take whatever hormones they wish to. Where their rights end is asking other people to refer to them based on their performance rather than their sex. Again, it is not ‘bad faith’ for Meta to allow discourse from people to disagree with gender ideology. Meta are not hiding anything, they are directly saying that they want to allow people that disagree with gender ideology - which judging by the last election is most Americans - to use their services.
jl6 2y ago
He explained it in the next sentence. If people are free to say it in Congress they should be free to say it on Meta platforms too, and that includes a range of non-binary opinions that aren’t intrinsically istphobic.
pasimm 2y ago
> while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith Not really though. It means that feminist campaigners can advocate for single-sex spaces and services without the looming threat of being banned. This is great news and a win for free speech.
- alicesmemories 2y ago
  it is undeniably in bad faith. the ToS was updated to use the phrase "transgenderism" which is used exclusively by right-wing anti-trans actors. https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/hate-speech/ https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-stand...
  - etri 2y ago
    It's used by left-wing gender-critical feminists too.
- ausbah 2y ago
  there are plenty of TERFs on Meta’s platforms already
  - pasimm 2y ago
    That's good, hopefully they can speak more freely now.
zahlman 2y ago
>it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. This is a bold claim. I see a lot of people in this discussion that seem to have a very different experience. Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content". >what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion? From what I've been able to tell the last several years, the overwhelming majority of your ideological opponents here have no interest in visiting physical harm upon others simply because of how they view and present themselves. They just don't want to be, or feel, compelled to treat the other person's self-image as an objective fact. Some of them additionally have concerns about capacity of minors to give informed consent for the related medical procedures, or consider it suspicious that the prevalence of such self-identification has risen drastically in recent years (to the point that they imagine social pressures toward such identification). >Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely. I have seen statements like this from your opponents interpreted as veiled threats in the past.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content". I think it's extremely likely that people will see the "de-ranking" of content they agree with as bias, regardless of their place on the spectrum. Similar: "Biden must have committed election fraud, because all of my friends voted for Trump and I don't know anyone who voted for Biden." (previous election, obviously) Well, is that because no-one voted for Biden, or that the friends/content you see is tuned to how you lean.

by dmazin 2y ago

spencerflem 2y ago

You know that this announcement is made to win favor with Trump. I would not expect that leftism will be any more allowed

dmazin 2y ago
I agree. At the very least, it's using Trump as cover. That said, if they remove the political filter, they're opening the door for all discussion (even from the left). Of course, they could surreptitiously filter out the left. Hell, why not?
- spencerflem 2y ago
  That's my guess as to what they intend to do. Just moving the needle for allowed content to include transphobia and racism.

lapcat 2y ago

> this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion. If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza, don't count on it, because this censorship is bipartisan in the United States. Zuck cares about currying favor with the powerful. He doesn't give a crap about the powerless. Also, he's pretending that Texas, the proposed site for content moderation, is not politically biased, which is laughable. "We're moving from a blue state to a red state" is not a serious proposal for reducing or eliminating bias.

nailer 2y ago
[flagged]
- lapcat 2y ago
  Conspiracy theory?
sjsisixkxkkxxx 2y ago
> If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza It’s also a right wing complaint, and they’re also silenced for bringing it up.
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Everytime someone calls Biden "Left Wing", I roll my eyes. So it's quite possible that you have a different definition of Right Wing than I do. But Trump, Fox News, and the Republicans are absolutely actively aiding the genocide and squashing dissent.

nailer 2y ago

[flagged]

GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
> people just do not wish to participate in other peoples gender performances. The “bad faith” is in the pretending that we don’t all participate in gender performance with every single person we come into contact with, every single day, for our entire lives.
- nailer 2y ago
  The post you are responding to does not claim otherwise. Again: it is specifically pointing out that other people are not obliged to participate in other people’s performance. People are free to act, have whatever cosmetic surgery or take whatever hormones they wish to. Where their rights end is asking other people to refer to them based on their performance rather than their sex. Again, it is not ‘bad faith’ for Meta to allow discourse from people to disagree with gender ideology. Meta are not hiding anything, they are directly saying that they want to allow people that disagree with gender ideology - which judging by the last election is most Americans - to use their services.

jl6 2y ago

He explained it in the next sentence. If people are free to say it in Congress they should be free to say it on Meta platforms too, and that includes a range of non-binary opinions that aren’t intrinsically istphobic.

pasimm 2y ago

> while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith Not really though. It means that feminist campaigners can advocate for single-sex spaces and services without the looming threat of being banned. This is great news and a win for free speech.

alicesmemories 2y ago
it is undeniably in bad faith. the ToS was updated to use the phrase "transgenderism" which is used exclusively by right-wing anti-trans actors. https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/hate-speech/ https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-stand...
- etri 2y ago
  It's used by left-wing gender-critical feminists too.
ausbah 2y ago
there are plenty of TERFs on Meta’s platforms already
- pasimm 2y ago
  That's good, hopefully they can speak more freely now.

zahlman 2y ago

>it's also important to remember that Meta censors left content as much as it does right content. This is a bold claim. I see a lot of people in this discussion that seem to have a very different experience. Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content". >what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion? From what I've been able to tell the last several years, the overwhelming majority of your ideological opponents here have no interest in visiting physical harm upon others simply because of how they view and present themselves. They just don't want to be, or feel, compelled to treat the other person's self-image as an objective fact. Some of them additionally have concerns about capacity of minors to give informed consent for the related medical procedures, or consider it suspicious that the prevalence of such self-identification has risen drastically in recent years (to the point that they imagine social pressures toward such identification). >Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely. I have seen statements like this from your opponents interpreted as veiled threats in the past.

FireBeyond 2y ago
> Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content". I think it's extremely likely that people will see the "de-ranking" of content they agree with as bias, regardless of their place on the spectrum. Similar: "Biden must have committed election fraud, because all of my friends voted for Trump and I don't know anyone who voted for Biden." (previous election, obviously) Well, is that because no-one voted for Biden, or that the friends/content you see is tuned to how you lean.