4 ms·

> For someone to enjoy expressing themself with custom themes doesn't mean that custom themes are what gives their life meaning. The article laments their remo

> For someone to enjoy expressing themself with custom themes doesn't mean that custom themes are what gives their life meaning. The article laments their removal as a tragedy and a removal of agency from the aggrieved party. If someone is "expressing themselves" they are communicating to others the things they consider meaningful in their life beyond an aesthetic choice. > think the primary underlying motivation tying these changes together is aligning with the incoming administration. Why were such policies implemented in the first place?

Ukv 2y ago
> The article laments their removal as a tragedy I don't think the article calls it a tragedy - just removal of an option for users expressing themselves. Main concern is in what that move indicates of Meta's new position, IMO. > If someone is "expressing themselves" they are [...] > [Parsing A:] communicating to others [the things they consider meaningful in their life] beyond an aesthetic choice Aesthetic choices, like wearing a t-shirt of a band you like or creatively decorating your home, are a pretty common way for people to express themselves. Probably what I see the term applied to most frequently, even. > [Parsing B:] communicating to others [the things they consider meaningful in their life beyond an aesthetic choice] The aspect of themselves that they are expressing may have significance to them - that does not imply that the aesthetic choice itself (through which they express that aspect), be it badge or software theme, is what gives their life meaning. > Why were such policies implemented in the first place? Some, like suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, I think were fairly directly at the behest of the democratic party. The themes (and similar changes, including those made during or persisting through the previous Trump administration) seemed intended to appeal to an LGBTQ/ally userbase, which Meta have now determined benefits them less than appealing to the Trump administration. I do not believe Meta is acting based on what is good/bad for society in either case.

Ukv 2y ago

> The article laments their removal as a tragedy I don't think the article calls it a tragedy - just removal of an option for users expressing themselves. Main concern is in what that move indicates of Meta's new position, IMO. > If someone is "expressing themselves" they are [...] > [Parsing A:] communicating to others [the things they consider meaningful in their life] beyond an aesthetic choice Aesthetic choices, like wearing a t-shirt of a band you like or creatively decorating your home, are a pretty common way for people to express themselves. Probably what I see the term applied to most frequently, even. > [Parsing B:] communicating to others [the things they consider meaningful in their life beyond an aesthetic choice] The aspect of themselves that they are expressing may have significance to them - that does not imply that the aesthetic choice itself (through which they express that aspect), be it badge or software theme, is what gives their life meaning. > Why were such policies implemented in the first place? Some, like suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, I think were fairly directly at the behest of the democratic party. The themes (and similar changes, including those made during or persisting through the previous Trump administration) seemed intended to appeal to an LGBTQ/ally userbase, which Meta have now determined benefits them less than appealing to the Trump administration. I do not believe Meta is acting based on what is good/bad for society in either case.