5 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 You may not agree with th

by 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 ago
Yes, you should defy the fash whenever you encounter them and regardless of the size of the movement they've managed to rally.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  A 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 ago
I 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.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >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. That's a total 180 from the OP and most of this comment thread, which was seemingly about excoriating meta/zuck's behavior.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        I think Zuck’s behavior is craven. I think him feeling like he has to be is terrifying.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Everyone who makes a decision has the responsibility to judge whether it's right. It would be one thing if Meta content teams sat down, thought about it, and decided that abortion pills aren't something they're comfortable having on their platform. But then they wouldn't have restored accounts when the New York Times started asking. It looks a lot more like an unprincipled decision to make their lives a bit easier by putting their thumbs on the scale against views the government doesn't like. (It's not like they've never done that before!)
ceejayoz 2y ago
> 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. Does this concept of yours apply to, say, the Heritage Foundation, Musk's Twitter, Fox News, etc. during the Biden presidency?
- gruez 2y ago
  >Does this concept of yours apply to, say, the Heritage Foundation, Musk's Twitter, Fox News, etc. during the Biden presidency? The Heritage Foundation and Fox News are basically advocacy organizations so their remit includes criticizing the government. For that reason they get a pass. I don't know what you're referring to with "Musk's Twitter [...] during the Biden presidency", so you're going to have to elaborate.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Biden won the popular vote. Musk, as the owner of Twitter, opposed and frequently "defied" Biden and his policies. Was that "anti-democratic", as your theory appears to assert? > The Heritage Foundation and Fox News are basically advocacy organizations so their remit includes criticizing the government. Everyone gets to criticize the government. That's how the First Amendment works. It's not restricted to advocacy organizations.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Musk, as the owner of Twitter, opposed and frequently "defied" Biden and his policies. Examples? >Everyone gets to criticize the government. That's how the First Amendment works. It's not restricted to advocacy organizations. Does this extend to "exxon hiring lobbyists to convince congress that climate change isn't an issue"?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Examples? https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyers/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyers/in... (Plus a couple hundred million dollars towards his opponent's campaign.) > Does this extend to "exxon hiring lobbyists to convince congress that climate change isn't an issue"? Yes, that was and is explicitly legal. (Morally shitty. But that's freedom!)
NineStarPoint 2y ago
I would rather companies do whatever they thought was best with no regards to the current administration, unless forced by law to take some action. Large companies feeling like they need to take actions to please the current President is not great.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Large companies feeling like they need to take actions to please the current President is not great. As opposed to "unaccountable billionaires" or whatever?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Neither's great. Any scenario in which a billionaire, with all their power and resources, is deeply scared of pissing off the President - to the point of doing a public 180 on everything - is one in which us much less powerful regular people should be very scared.
roughly 2y ago
If you want to wave the flag of "the people's will", well: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public...
- gruez 2y ago
  There's a pretty wide gulf between "abortion should be legal in at least most or all cases" and "ads for abortion pills on facebook". The company's spokesperson specifically mentioned it was taken down due to regulations relating to advertising drugs.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The very next sentence is: > The company also described some of the incidents as “over-enforcement.”
  - roughly 2y ago
    If the reason for the takedown was "we don't allow ads for drugs of any variety on the platform" or "regulations prevent us from allowing ads for medicines on our platform" then sure, I have no problem with that. I can complain about the quality or consistency of that enforcement, but sure, if that's the reason, that's fine. If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 2y ago
      >If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy. Is the implication here that any sort of proactive action by companies to dodge enforcement actions a bad thing? For instance, if after Biden appointed Lina Khan to the FTC, and M&A firms suddenly stopped doing deals out of anti-trust concerns, is that bad? Or is it somehow only limited to advertising?
n42 2y ago
> defy the current administration? Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me defying an administration that you disagree with, within the rule of law, is just about the most American and democratic thing I can imagine. this is a corporation, not an arm of the government.
- gruez 2y ago
  >defying an administration that you disagree with, within the rule of law, is just about the most American and democratic thing I can imagine. Purdue Pharma caused the opioid crisis which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. State and federal governments thinks it's liable for billions in damages. Perdue disagrees and is fighting it tooth and nail in the courts, which is within their rights. Would you characterize this as "the most American and democratic thing I can imagine"?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Having the right to attempt to defend yourself in court - even if you're a shitty person/organization - is very American, yes. Electing governments in part to try and prosecute said shitty people/organizations is similarly quite democratic.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Having the right to attempt to defend yourself in court - even if you're a shitty person/organization - is very American, yes. I'm not arguing they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves in court, only that most people wouldn't think that as being "patriotic". It's also not hard to find people characterizing Citizens United v. FEC as "undemocratic", even though it theoretically emobies the democratic principles of free speech and the supreme court acting as a check.
      - intermerda 2y ago
        “It happened so it’s democratic” is such an incredibly naive take bordering on bad faith.
standardUser 2y ago
> You may not agree with the current administration, but they won the popular vote A republican candidate narrowly won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years, a metric that has no value in our system of government. And somehow you think this factoid puts the current administration in a position where they dare not be defied? Give me a fucking break.
- gruez 2y ago
  >A republican candidate narrowly won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years, a metric that has no value in our system of government. I can't tell whether you're trying to make a nitpicky point about how the president is elected, or you're trying to claim the concept of political legitimacy doesn't exist.
  - krapp 2y ago
    I think they're claiming that the popular vote has no real relationship to political legitimacy in the US, which is true, because the electoral college/FPTP system is explicitly designed to render the popular vote essentially meaningless through layers of abstraction and gatekeeping. It's only really useful for propaganda, and not even that useful - Republicans claimed a sweeping mandate from the masses even in 2016 when millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Political legitimacy exists. Overstating one’s narrow win as a giant mandate does too.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Overstating one’s narrow win as a giant mandate does too. The "giant" part is inserted entirely by you. The point is that he's elected president, and the usual excuse about the popular vote doesn't apply.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
tzs 2y ago
They got 49.8% of the popular vote.
afavour 2y ago
> but they won the popular vote They didn’t. They won 49.8%. But I’ve got to be honest, any logic along those lines rings very hollow these days. We’ve been told over and over about the “tyranny of the majority” being why a number of sparsely populated states get a disproportionate vote on the country’s destiny. To pivot just because the popular vote flipped to the other side (which, again, it didn’t) feels very… convenient.
- skuzye 2y ago
  I don't have a horse in this race nor a particular interest in US elections but I don't think your definition of popular vote is the commonly used one (i.e. candidate doesn't have to have more than 50% to win it).
  - nickthegreek 2y ago
    Correct. Trump won the popular vote with a plurality, they didn’t win the majority of voters.

by gruez 2y ago

cess11 2y ago

Yes, you should defy the fash whenever you encounter them and regardless of the size of the movement they've managed to rally.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
A 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 ago

I 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.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >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. That's a total 180 from the OP and most of this comment thread, which was seemingly about excoriating meta/zuck's behavior.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      I think Zuck’s behavior is craven. I think him feeling like he has to be is terrifying.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Everyone who makes a decision has the responsibility to judge whether it's right. It would be one thing if Meta content teams sat down, thought about it, and decided that abortion pills aren't something they're comfortable having on their platform. But then they wouldn't have restored accounts when the New York Times started asking. It looks a lot more like an unprincipled decision to make their lives a bit easier by putting their thumbs on the scale against views the government doesn't like. (It's not like they've never done that before!)

ceejayoz 2y ago

> 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. Does this concept of yours apply to, say, the Heritage Foundation, Musk's Twitter, Fox News, etc. during the Biden presidency?

gruez 2y ago
>Does this concept of yours apply to, say, the Heritage Foundation, Musk's Twitter, Fox News, etc. during the Biden presidency? The Heritage Foundation and Fox News are basically advocacy organizations so their remit includes criticizing the government. For that reason they get a pass. I don't know what you're referring to with "Musk's Twitter [...] during the Biden presidency", so you're going to have to elaborate.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Biden won the popular vote. Musk, as the owner of Twitter, opposed and frequently "defied" Biden and his policies. Was that "anti-democratic", as your theory appears to assert? > The Heritage Foundation and Fox News are basically advocacy organizations so their remit includes criticizing the government. Everyone gets to criticize the government. That's how the First Amendment works. It's not restricted to advocacy organizations.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Musk, as the owner of Twitter, opposed and frequently "defied" Biden and his policies. Examples? >Everyone gets to criticize the government. That's how the First Amendment works. It's not restricted to advocacy organizations. Does this extend to "exxon hiring lobbyists to convince congress that climate change isn't an issue"?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > Examples? https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyers/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/tech/twitter-files-lawyers/in... (Plus a couple hundred million dollars towards his opponent's campaign.) > Does this extend to "exxon hiring lobbyists to convince congress that climate change isn't an issue"? Yes, that was and is explicitly legal. (Morally shitty. But that's freedom!)

NineStarPoint 2y ago

I would rather companies do whatever they thought was best with no regards to the current administration, unless forced by law to take some action. Large companies feeling like they need to take actions to please the current President is not great.

gruez 2y ago
>Large companies feeling like they need to take actions to please the current President is not great. As opposed to "unaccountable billionaires" or whatever?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Neither's great. Any scenario in which a billionaire, with all their power and resources, is deeply scared of pissing off the President - to the point of doing a public 180 on everything - is one in which us much less powerful regular people should be very scared.

roughly 2y ago

If you want to wave the flag of "the people's will", well: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public-support-for-legal-abortion-persists-2-years-after-dobbs/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/13/broad-public...

gruez 2y ago
There's a pretty wide gulf between "abortion should be legal in at least most or all cases" and "ads for abortion pills on facebook". The company's spokesperson specifically mentioned it was taken down due to regulations relating to advertising drugs.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The very next sentence is: > The company also described some of the incidents as “over-enforcement.”
- roughly 2y ago
  If the reason for the takedown was "we don't allow ads for drugs of any variety on the platform" or "regulations prevent us from allowing ads for medicines on our platform" then sure, I have no problem with that. I can complain about the quality or consistency of that enforcement, but sure, if that's the reason, that's fine. If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 2y ago
    >If the reason for the takedown is that the popular will of the people, as manifest in the preferences of the current President, deems this thing bad, and therefore we're taking it down, then that's a) inaccurate and b) deeply out of step with American tradition, principle, and governing philosophy. Is the implication here that any sort of proactive action by companies to dodge enforcement actions a bad thing? For instance, if after Biden appointed Lina Khan to the FTC, and M&A firms suddenly stopped doing deals out of anti-trust concerns, is that bad? Or is it somehow only limited to advertising?

n42 2y ago

> defy the current administration? Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me defying an administration that you disagree with, within the rule of law, is just about the most American and democratic thing I can imagine. this is a corporation, not an arm of the government.

gruez 2y ago
>defying an administration that you disagree with, within the rule of law, is just about the most American and democratic thing I can imagine. Purdue Pharma caused the opioid crisis which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. State and federal governments thinks it's liable for billions in damages. Perdue disagrees and is fighting it tooth and nail in the courts, which is within their rights. Would you characterize this as "the most American and democratic thing I can imagine"?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Having the right to attempt to defend yourself in court - even if you're a shitty person/organization - is very American, yes. Electing governments in part to try and prosecute said shitty people/organizations is similarly quite democratic.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Having the right to attempt to defend yourself in court - even if you're a shitty person/organization - is very American, yes. I'm not arguing they shouldn't have the right to defend themselves in court, only that most people wouldn't think that as being "patriotic". It's also not hard to find people characterizing Citizens United v. FEC as "undemocratic", even though it theoretically emobies the democratic principles of free speech and the supreme court acting as a check.
    - intermerda 2y ago
      “It happened so it’s democratic” is such an incredibly naive take bordering on bad faith.

standardUser 2y ago

> You may not agree with the current administration, but they won the popular vote A republican candidate narrowly won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years, a metric that has no value in our system of government. And somehow you think this factoid puts the current administration in a position where they dare not be defied? Give me a fucking break.

gruez 2y ago
>A republican candidate narrowly won the popular vote for the first time in 20 years, a metric that has no value in our system of government. I can't tell whether you're trying to make a nitpicky point about how the president is elected, or you're trying to claim the concept of political legitimacy doesn't exist.
- krapp 2y ago
  I think they're claiming that the popular vote has no real relationship to political legitimacy in the US, which is true, because the electoral college/FPTP system is explicitly designed to render the popular vote essentially meaningless through layers of abstraction and gatekeeping. It's only really useful for propaganda, and not even that useful - Republicans claimed a sweeping mandate from the masses even in 2016 when millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Political legitimacy exists. Overstating one’s narrow win as a giant mandate does too.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Overstating one’s narrow win as a giant mandate does too. The "giant" part is inserted entirely by you. The point is that he's elected president, and the usual excuse about the popular vote doesn't apply.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago

tzs 2y ago

They got 49.8% of the popular vote.

afavour 2y ago

> but they won the popular vote They didn’t. They won 49.8%. But I’ve got to be honest, any logic along those lines rings very hollow these days. We’ve been told over and over about the “tyranny of the majority” being why a number of sparsely populated states get a disproportionate vote on the country’s destiny. To pivot just because the popular vote flipped to the other side (which, again, it didn’t) feels very… convenient.

skuzye 2y ago
I don't have a horse in this race nor a particular interest in US elections but I don't think your definition of popular vote is the commonly used one (i.e. candidate doesn't have to have more than 50% to win it).
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  Correct. Trump won the popular vote with a plurality, they didn’t win the majority of voters.