3 ms·

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

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!)

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!)