4 ms·

This seems to be the reason for writing about the topic right now: > So, yes, in June 2015, I slowed down the whole company [Facebook] by a second. > Of cours

This seems to be the reason for writing about the topic right now: > So, yes, in June 2015, I slowed down the whole company [Facebook] by a second. > Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years [by ending fact checking?]. Way to upstage me, dude.

klooney 2y ago
Facebook maybe? She mentions the cat factory
sunshowers 2y ago
The fact checking is the tip of the iceberg — it's what the marketing machine led with because it's the least objectionable. Far far worse is letting queer people like myself be called mentally ill, though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Yes, it's part of the common discourse, but the common discourse is objectively morally abhorrent. I worked at FB for a decade, and I now am rooting for its complete destruction.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    I'm advocating for moral virtue and the reduction of suffering, but short of that I'm arguing for the same standards. I'm an Indian immigrant living in the US.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Newsflash: people don't like being called mentally ill on either continent.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    If an adult told you they believed Santa was real, you'd call them mentally ill and yet..
    - praptak 2y ago
      That's literally not true. Neither flat earthers nor "vaccines cause autism" folks are being called mentally ill. The hypothetical Santanists would not be called mentally ill either.
      - morkalork 2y ago
        I'll help you out, flat-earthers are delusional and sick, anti-vaxxers are idiots and anyone that believes in the supernatural in this century is a cultist.
- ClassyJacket 2y ago
  [flagged]
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  You can’t call Christians mentally ill on Facebook? Really?
  - skellington 2y ago
    [flagged]
- pessimizer 2y ago
  If wanting to kill yourself over your sex isn't mental illness, I have no idea why insurance or the state should be concerned about it. We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs, although they both may be upset about their bodies. We're also not labeling it as "life-saving." I don't understand how we can insist that these conditions are both the worst mental illnesses, and not mental illnesses at all, at the same time. And maybe you do understand, but it's not so clearly explained that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it in public. > though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Is this made up?
  - KittenInABox 2y ago
    > We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs, although they both may be upset about their bodies. Umm...We actually do pay for breast implants/breast reductions in the case of medical need which can vary from reconstruction to hormone imbalances, the latter of which makes sense to consider being transgender under since hormones do quite a bit to help with the illness.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    Is pregnancy an illness, mental or otherwise? Should insurance or the state not cover the medical costs of pregnancy? What are your credentials, anyway? Why do you think you know more than decades of in depth research and millennia of anthropological evidence?
    - intended 2y ago
      Why bring logic to an emotion fight. They have a whole media ecosystem, the actual main stream media, giving them training and talking points to subvert these conversations and successfully move away from facts. They only follow the style of debate, not its substance. Limiting your self to the substance only weighs you down against an attacker of this nature. Engage, but just waste their cycles. Eventually there is always a missing definition, something extremely basic that’s being alluded to. Or a contradiction that shows up. Point that out and you will get the “go google it yourself”, retreat flag show up.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  I don’t think (most) queer people nor (most) religious people should be called mentally ill at work or on social media. However, I also don’t think a standalone policy should address either case specifically. Professional decorum and the typical “no hate speech” should cover it. What say you to that position?
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    It would be if those were not specific exceptions to the hate speech policy: “ Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”” Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/hateful-conduct/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/h...
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    You are welcome to take this up with Mark Zuckerberg.

klooney 2y ago

Facebook maybe? She mentions the cat factory

sunshowers 2y ago

The fact checking is the tip of the iceberg — it's what the marketing machine led with because it's the least objectionable. Far far worse is letting queer people like myself be called mentally ill, though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Yes, it's part of the common discourse, but the common discourse is objectively morally abhorrent. I worked at FB for a decade, and I now am rooting for its complete destruction.

jimbob45 2y ago
[flagged]
- sunshowers 2y ago
  I'm advocating for moral virtue and the reduction of suffering, but short of that I'm arguing for the same standards. I'm an Indian immigrant living in the US.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Newsflash: people don't like being called mentally ill on either continent.
- morkalork 2y ago
  If an adult told you they believed Santa was real, you'd call them mentally ill and yet..
  - praptak 2y ago
    That's literally not true. Neither flat earthers nor "vaccines cause autism" folks are being called mentally ill. The hypothetical Santanists would not be called mentally ill either.
    - morkalork 2y ago
      I'll help you out, flat-earthers are delusional and sick, anti-vaxxers are idiots and anyone that believes in the supernatural in this century is a cultist.
ClassyJacket 2y ago
[flagged]
pfannkuchen 2y ago
You can’t call Christians mentally ill on Facebook? Really?
- skellington 2y ago
  [flagged]
pessimizer 2y ago
If wanting to kill yourself over your sex isn't mental illness, I have no idea why insurance or the state should be concerned about it. We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs, although they both may be upset about their bodies. We're also not labeling it as "life-saving." I don't understand how we can insist that these conditions are both the worst mental illnesses, and not mental illnesses at all, at the same time. And maybe you do understand, but it's not so clearly explained that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it in public. > though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Is this made up?
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  > We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs, although they both may be upset about their bodies. Umm...We actually do pay for breast implants/breast reductions in the case of medical need which can vary from reconstruction to hormone imbalances, the latter of which makes sense to consider being transgender under since hormones do quite a bit to help with the illness.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  Is pregnancy an illness, mental or otherwise? Should insurance or the state not cover the medical costs of pregnancy? What are your credentials, anyway? Why do you think you know more than decades of in depth research and millennia of anthropological evidence?
  - intended 2y ago
    Why bring logic to an emotion fight. They have a whole media ecosystem, the actual main stream media, giving them training and talking points to subvert these conversations and successfully move away from facts. They only follow the style of debate, not its substance. Limiting your self to the substance only weighs you down against an attacker of this nature. Engage, but just waste their cycles. Eventually there is always a missing definition, something extremely basic that’s being alluded to. Or a contradiction that shows up. Point that out and you will get the “go google it yourself”, retreat flag show up.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
I don’t think (most) queer people nor (most) religious people should be called mentally ill at work or on social media. However, I also don’t think a standalone policy should address either case specifically. Professional decorum and the typical “no hate speech” should cover it. What say you to that position?
- freeone3000 2y ago
  It would be if those were not specific exceptions to the hate speech policy: “ Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”” Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/hateful-conduct/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/h...
- sunshowers 2y ago
  You are welcome to take this up with Mark Zuckerberg.