4 ms·
I don't care about the fact checking part but I do care about the "removing the limits on political content on feeds". I think everyone can agree that polarizi
by torben-friis 2y ago
I don't care about the fact checking part but I do care about the "removing the limits on political content on feeds".
I think everyone can agree that polarizing content being pushed into people's feed for engagement is a very very bad mix with politics. There is no benefit for anyone in doing this, except for meta's metrics and propaganda outlets.
- llamaimperative 2y ago[flagged]
- nailer 2y ago[flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y agoPeople who are floating using the military to steal territory from a NATO ally, as just one totally random example. Yeah, I know what the press release said lol. Do you typically take press releases as fact? Journalist: "Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of [Greenland and Panama], you are not going to use military or economic coercion?" Extremist: "No. You're talking about Panama and Greenland: No, I can't assure you on either of those two..." Journalist: "Will you commit that you are not going to use the military?" Extremist: "No, I'm not going to commit to that."
- nailer 2y agoNo, I don’t take press releases as fact - do you not see that mainstream opinion on gender and immigration is clearly not in line with what Facebook were moderating for? Compared to compelling people to believe in gender ideology, industrial scale suppression of dissent on private platforms, and teaching race based original sin in schools, being the third president to want to get control of Greenland doesn’t seem particularly extreme. Also, as was pointed out but you omitted from the question you’re quoting, asking a military commander their strategy is a very poor question.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoDidn't they get in trouble with lawmakers and / or advertisers for that in the first place?