8 ms·
At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news and specially right now that it is trying to please the current adminstration. Over the years I see it go
by srameshc 2y ago
At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news and specially right now that it is trying to please the current adminstration. Over the years I see it got a lot of bad press but they continue to grow their revenue. Investors are happy, nothing else matters probably for the company .
- hammock 2y agoI wonder if this has always been true
- trhway 2y ago[flagged]
- afavour 2y ago> the Biden admin forced him to censor Covid info No, he said they “pressured” him. Important difference. The choice was still ultimately his, which he now says he regrets.
- trhway 2y agoIt is Sopranos style difference.
- afavour 2y agoIt really isn’t. What did the Biden administration threaten them with?
- trhway 2y agoThe question is what they could do to them. A lot.
- ceejayoz 2y agoMy neighbor could murder me. They don’t. Instead they drop off cookies. That matters quite a bit.
- trhway 2y agoYour example has no merits on both key factors - means and motive. Means - your neighbor has no way to murder you without very high risk of getting punished afterwards. Where is Biden could do to FB whatever he wanted without any risk to himself. Motive - does your neighbor pressures you into doing something worth killing for?
- ceejayoz 2y agoI mean, sometimes they ask me to watch their dog.
- lesuorac 2y agoI mean he also said in the same interview that after he pushed back against Biden, Biden opened an anti-trust lawsuit against Meta. However, the anti-trust lawsuit was filed in the 1st Trump administration. So, I don't really think you can take anything Zuck says outside of a shareholder meeting at face value (where he has an actual penalty for lieing).
- ziddoap 2y ago>At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news At this point? Over the last decade, they've had like a dozen major scandals (hundreds of millions of passwords in plaintext, cambridge analytica, etc.). They've never worried.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoThey just learned, like every single company, that nobody has willpower, ability or memory to keep up with the news. Wait a week or two, say nothing, people will forget. The product is intrenched enough in the society that nobody will move unless something happens to the product itself. Frankly, can’t really judge them. That is probably the optimal thing to do in the current business environment.
- spencerflem 2y agoPeople keeping up with the news doesn't do much either when our lawmakers are bought and paid for. And yes its the right "business move" but I have plenty of hate left in my heart for buisnessmen.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoYeah totally fair. But honestly, I would blame the people. Eventually they are the ones that vote for politicians that result in uneven game field, so businesses end up playing ball. And I know, leadership needs to have some sort of shame, empathy, morality and etc., but US isn't Japan where some sort of participation of leadership in sexual misconduct between third parties can bring down a TV company to their knees. And i'm not saying whether one is better than the other, it's just what it is.
- spencerflem 2y agoLots of blame to go around. I can have it my heart to blame the voters, the systems set up to make sure the voters never get a good choice, the slavers that made that system, the apathetic, the opportunistic, the greedy, the domineering. Overall though, I feel like if I'm going to single anyone out, its those with the most power and those benefiting the most.
- Amezarak 2y agoWe’re talking about posts promoting prescription medications. There were always strict rules about this on Facebook (banned by default) and the fact that most of these posts ever stayed up was more likely a result of oversight and possibly politics in the first place. You certainly don’t see almost anything about other prescription meds. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/263390265553560?id=434838534925385 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/263390265553560?id=43... I find it very doubtful that post-election Meta policy had anything to do with this.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> "The company restored some of the accounts and posts on Thursday, after The New York Times asked about the actions." It would appear the posts were OK after all. > You certainly don’t see almost anything about other prescription meds. I get pretty much non-stop Ozempic ads on Facebook. > "Aid Access, one of the largest abortion pill providers in the United States, said some posts were removed on its Facebook account and blurred out on its Instagram account since November, with more posts blurred in recent days. The abortion pill service said it has been blocked from accessing its Facebook account since November, and its Instagram account was suspended last week, though it has since been restored." You don't think the November timing is the slightest bit suspicious?
- Amezarak 2y agoNo, I don’t. To regard it as suspicious I would have to know: - Has this happened before? - are they actually compliant with the rules? Or are they being banned and then unbanned because we’re sympathetic to them? - was anyone mass reporting them? Was this human or automatic? - how often are these things banned? It’s really a miracle most of these outfits are operating at all. In most cases we’re talking about filling out an anonymous form to get prescription medication. It’s not legal. Some of them try to provide a form of legality as a cover (“we definitely have a doctor review your anonymous form”) but not anything that would hold up to scrutiny. It’s not surprising that very few of them are likely following Facebooks rules on top of that. Of course maybe they should be legal and the situation should be totally different, but Facebook banning grey market prescription drug sellers that almost certainly violate their rules is not surprising. It’s also not surprising they ease up when the NYT asks about it even if there are rule violations because I doubt Meta wants any part of this debate.
- 1oooqooq 2y agomore likely they paid for this to be printed.
- devindotcom 2y agopaid the new york times for a critical article with a triple byline?
- 1oooqooq 2y agoyes because the opinion of voters who care about DEI doesn't seem to matter, while voters who demonize it does. why you pretend this won't ressonate well with the electorate of our new president? for that crowd, this a puff piece.
- devindotcom 2y agoyou may believe it is a puff piece, and that's subjective, it's fine to think so. but saying it's paid for is a serious accusation and very different from "puff". big time news outlets like the NYT don't do paid content like that - if they have any sponsored content it will be prominently labeled or placed in the Opinion/Editorial section.
- gruez 2y ago>At this point Meta doesn't even worry about these news and specially right now that it is trying to please the current adminstration You may not agree with the current administration, but they won the popular vote. What would you rather them do, defy the current administration? Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. Am I missing a deeper principle here or is it just a matter of "companies should do what I think is right"?
- cess11 2y agoYes, you should defy the fash whenever you encounter them and regardless of the size of the movement they've managed to rally.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoA good short video on it (do not obey in advance): https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=159&v=9tocssf3w80&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=159&v=9tocssf3w80&feature=yo...
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI definitely think it's better for companies to do what's right than what's wrong, and I'm not sure I follow your implication that this is a shallower principle than calibrating what I think companies should do against the winner of the most recent federal elections. It would be a harder question if there were a law which requires Instagram or Facebook to block and hide posts from abortion pill providers, but there isn't.
- gruez 2y ago>I definitely think it's better for companies to do what's right than what's wrong, And who is the arbiter of "right"? Does this boil down to just "I don't agree with what meta is doing"?
- ceejayoz 2y ago> And who is the arbiter of "right"? Ideally, each individual, with society deciding via laws and regulation when people disagree. > Does this boil down to just "I don't agree with what meta is doing"? No, this boils down to "it is bad for even billionaires to be terrified of opposing the new President". Who has, for the record, previously called for Zuck's imprisonment.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoWell, just deleted my Instagram account after this latest bullshit. Maybe it just has to reach a tipping point. (Yeah, deleted FB almost a decade ago. I had tried to convince myself Instagram was different somehow.)