5 ms·

Calling women 'household objects' now permitted on Facebook

29 points by SigmundurM 2y ago

raxxor 2y ago
This is outrage bait and pretty low even for CNN.
- Oras 2y ago
  They made a report showing alleged prisoner in Syria who turned to be an intelligent officer in Assad’s regime. So don’t expect any better. Source https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/16/middleeast/syria-assad-prisoner-homs-intl-latam https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/16/middleeast/syria-assad-pr...
  - astrange 2y ago
    Those two things certainly aren't in conflict, jailing your own people is pretty typical.
    - Oras 2y ago
      You didn’t watch the report, did you? It was a clear setup
      - olivergregory 2y ago
        Yes, but not by CNN, even though they should have known better.
- tledakis 2y ago
  Why do you say that? I checked the policy change and they have removed the literal "don't do this" example and the whole category above it. Seeing as FB moderation was already lax on hate speech, do you think calling women 'household objects' will not be permitted in the future FB?
  - adastra22 2y ago
    FB moderation has been a complete failure compared to Twitter’s community notes system. This is Meta switching from authoritarian moderation to community-driven notes. This should be presented as a good thing, but every news outlet out there is spinning it negatively as “Facebook is removing all moderation.” No mention of what they are adding in its place.
  - mantas 2y ago
    It was not lax, but bent in strange ways. E.g. FB was banning people for using a historical term when discussing Russian-Ukraine war - „Muscovite“. Which has no derogatory connotations mind you. Besides reminding that modern Russia started as Duchy of Moscow. And to make distinction between Rus/Ruthenian people (e.g. Kievan Rus) and modern Russia. Yet FB considered it hate speech for some god forsaken reason.
underseacables 2y ago
I just hope we can get past the era of people, and the media, being so outraged by everything.
- onetokeoverthe 2y ago
  Salem witch trials, degenerate art, red scare blacklists. Many eras and errors. Cyclical. Maybe the next gen will celebrate its version of dumb phones and acid.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > I just hope we can get past the era of people, and the media, being so outraged by everything. When do you think that era started?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mantas 2y ago
Thank you CNN for bringing up creative ideas...
rich_sasha 2y ago
I can understand simplifying moderation rules (making the less verbose, but by extension seemingly allowing some new things) but actually taking the time to spell out that these things are allowed, as the article alleges, seems bizarre.
BitterCritter 2y ago
I wonder what strange little people this rule was removed for. Sexism just stupefies me and I wonder how someone with the intelligence to breath could render such words.
- mantas 2y ago
  Looks like there was no specific rule. But some so-called journalists tried to think of what some people they dislike might say now that a rule they like is gone.
  - BitterCritter 2y ago
    If a rule blocks someone from saying something then that rule is for that. There is a specific rule if they couldn’t say it before. What are you saying what does that mean?
Oras 2y ago
It’s not shame on any media making these article, it’s shame that there are people still reading this shitrag and similar shitrags.
anonzzzies 2y ago
I am all for real free speech about anything. It's just never real free speech; it's always censored and influenced (drowned out or amplified which is basically the same thing) in some direction. X is not free speech and this won't be either. What I do hope is that this will drive the banning of Meta, X and others from the EU. I know this will hurt a lot of people short term, but long term, we might be the only part of the world without a severe mental illness epidemic.
- tappaseater 2y ago
  When Zuck said on Jan 7th, 2025, that he wants to work with President Trump to oppose states threatening free speech, he wasn't talking about China. It was 100% the EU and its regulations. The quid pro quo starts to emerge.
  - mantas 2y ago
    If he wants to fight ever-coming-back EU chat supervising bill, more power to him. But I guess that's not about it :(
- raxxor 2y ago
  I think the people most influenced be terrible influences by people like Musk are those that mirror this opinion. Banning social media sites is a pretty draconian approach that probably will not work anyway and I believe it to be completely reactionary. The EU formerly did have influence on Twitter content. They lost that and aren't too happy about that. I think it was a necessary correction and I don't want to live in the EU silo and I don't trust their DSA "trusted flaggers". What do they ban next, HN? I don't think it has official fact checkers either.
  - mantas 2y ago
    EU as in some bureaucrats in Brussels ain't too happy. As a citizen of EU member, I'm pretty happy some little known societal control by non-elected bureaucrats is gone.
- 2y ago
the_gipsy 2y ago
What happened to Zuckerberg? I thought they were the Democrat side, they had to testify in congress about it, and now Musk bought out twitter and the Republicans won the elections. Is this a move to avoid getting facebook and instagram getting killed somehow by twitter and the republican government?
- pyrale 2y ago
  "Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them... well, I have others"
- chewz 2y ago
  October 7th happened... The turning point had been last year when Zuckenberg explained to Congress that Administration forced Facebook to manipulate public opinion but he now regrets it. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/unpacking-mark-zuckerbergs-letter-congress-biden-facebook/story?id=113212652 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/unpacking-mark-zuckerbergs...
- TechRemarker 2y ago
  He's on the "winning" side. Even Apple (Tim Cook) along with all the other major CEO's are groveling understandably since the upcoming administration could severely damage any of their businesses once in power.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > I thought they were the Democrat side, they had to testify in congress about it Maybe you thought wrong.
  - the_gipsy 2y ago
    Are you saying they were pushing the same thing twitter / Musk does? Openly or secretely? Or that he just switched sides when convenient? I genuinely want to understand this, I'm not american.
- olivergregory 2y ago
  He's an opportunist, always has been, always will be. Opportunists don't have sides: they roll all the times.
d3vmax 2y ago
Asslicking the next admin to ban tiktok and create a moat.
Pinegulf 2y ago
Good. I want to know who think on these lines. Helps me to pick better company.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627

29 points by SigmundurM 2y ago

raxxor 2y ago

This is outrage bait and pretty low even for CNN.

Oras 2y ago
They made a report showing alleged prisoner in Syria who turned to be an intelligent officer in Assad’s regime. So don’t expect any better. Source https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/16/middleeast/syria-assad-prisoner-homs-intl-latam https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/12/16/middleeast/syria-assad-pr...
- astrange 2y ago
  Those two things certainly aren't in conflict, jailing your own people is pretty typical.
  - Oras 2y ago
    You didn’t watch the report, did you? It was a clear setup
    - olivergregory 2y ago
      Yes, but not by CNN, even though they should have known better.
tledakis 2y ago
Why do you say that? I checked the policy change and they have removed the literal "don't do this" example and the whole category above it. Seeing as FB moderation was already lax on hate speech, do you think calling women 'household objects' will not be permitted in the future FB?
- adastra22 2y ago
  FB moderation has been a complete failure compared to Twitter’s community notes system. This is Meta switching from authoritarian moderation to community-driven notes. This should be presented as a good thing, but every news outlet out there is spinning it negatively as “Facebook is removing all moderation.” No mention of what they are adding in its place.
- mantas 2y ago
  It was not lax, but bent in strange ways. E.g. FB was banning people for using a historical term when discussing Russian-Ukraine war - „Muscovite“. Which has no derogatory connotations mind you. Besides reminding that modern Russia started as Duchy of Moscow. And to make distinction between Rus/Ruthenian people (e.g. Kievan Rus) and modern Russia. Yet FB considered it hate speech for some god forsaken reason.

underseacables 2y ago

I just hope we can get past the era of people, and the media, being so outraged by everything.

onetokeoverthe 2y ago
Salem witch trials, degenerate art, red scare blacklists. Many eras and errors. Cyclical. Maybe the next gen will celebrate its version of dumb phones and acid.
mcphage 2y ago
> I just hope we can get past the era of people, and the media, being so outraged by everything. When do you think that era started?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mantas 2y ago

Thank you CNN for bringing up creative ideas...

rich_sasha 2y ago

I can understand simplifying moderation rules (making the less verbose, but by extension seemingly allowing some new things) but actually taking the time to spell out that these things are allowed, as the article alleges, seems bizarre.

BitterCritter 2y ago

I wonder what strange little people this rule was removed for. Sexism just stupefies me and I wonder how someone with the intelligence to breath could render such words.

mantas 2y ago
Looks like there was no specific rule. But some so-called journalists tried to think of what some people they dislike might say now that a rule they like is gone.
- BitterCritter 2y ago
  If a rule blocks someone from saying something then that rule is for that. There is a specific rule if they couldn’t say it before. What are you saying what does that mean?

Oras 2y ago

It’s not shame on any media making these article, it’s shame that there are people still reading this shitrag and similar shitrags.

anonzzzies 2y ago

I am all for real free speech about anything. It's just never real free speech; it's always censored and influenced (drowned out or amplified which is basically the same thing) in some direction. X is not free speech and this won't be either. What I do hope is that this will drive the banning of Meta, X and others from the EU. I know this will hurt a lot of people short term, but long term, we might be the only part of the world without a severe mental illness epidemic.

tappaseater 2y ago
When Zuck said on Jan 7th, 2025, that he wants to work with President Trump to oppose states threatening free speech, he wasn't talking about China. It was 100% the EU and its regulations. The quid pro quo starts to emerge.
- mantas 2y ago
  If he wants to fight ever-coming-back EU chat supervising bill, more power to him. But I guess that's not about it :(
raxxor 2y ago
I think the people most influenced be terrible influences by people like Musk are those that mirror this opinion. Banning social media sites is a pretty draconian approach that probably will not work anyway and I believe it to be completely reactionary. The EU formerly did have influence on Twitter content. They lost that and aren't too happy about that. I think it was a necessary correction and I don't want to live in the EU silo and I don't trust their DSA "trusted flaggers". What do they ban next, HN? I don't think it has official fact checkers either.
- mantas 2y ago
  EU as in some bureaucrats in Brussels ain't too happy. As a citizen of EU member, I'm pretty happy some little known societal control by non-elected bureaucrats is gone.
2y ago

the_gipsy 2y ago

What happened to Zuckerberg? I thought they were the Democrat side, they had to testify in congress about it, and now Musk bought out twitter and the Republicans won the elections. Is this a move to avoid getting facebook and instagram getting killed somehow by twitter and the republican government?

pyrale 2y ago
"Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them... well, I have others"
chewz 2y ago
October 7th happened... The turning point had been last year when Zuckenberg explained to Congress that Administration forced Facebook to manipulate public opinion but he now regrets it. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/unpacking-mark-zuckerbergs-letter-congress-biden-facebook/story?id=113212652 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/unpacking-mark-zuckerbergs...
TechRemarker 2y ago
He's on the "winning" side. Even Apple (Tim Cook) along with all the other major CEO's are groveling understandably since the upcoming administration could severely damage any of their businesses once in power.
mcphage 2y ago
> I thought they were the Democrat side, they had to testify in congress about it Maybe you thought wrong.
- the_gipsy 2y ago
  Are you saying they were pushing the same thing twitter / Musk does? Openly or secretely? Or that he just switched sides when convenient? I genuinely want to understand this, I'm not american.
olivergregory 2y ago
He's an opportunist, always has been, always will be. Opportunists don't have sides: they roll all the times.

d3vmax 2y ago

Asslicking the next admin to ban tiktok and create a moat.

Pinegulf 2y ago

Good. I want to know who think on these lines. Helps me to pick better company.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627