4 ms·

This isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything e

by bilekas 2mo ago

This isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything else, and rage bait is exactly that.

trymas 2mo ago
I just want to add, that they (FB and other big social media) probably understood what propaganda power they wield after 2016 facebook and cambridge analytica scandal. Personally - I think that this was the moment when silicon valley billionaires without shadow of a doubt understood that they have power what used to be reserved only for state actors. Bonus - for using that power they get fined penny on the dollar at most or just slap on the wrist. Update: now situation is even worse - states actively buy propaganda with social media companies, making those companies even more rich and influential.
iamnothere 2mo ago
COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and engagement model, not the lack of fact checking.
- b40d-48b2-979e 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    Lol. “My president”. As if. This attitude you have is why we’re in a race to the bottom politically. I hope you live to see the fruits of your efforts, fully.
- bilekas 2mo ago
  > because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.
  - eigencoder 2mo ago
    COVID was accidentally released from a lab. That statement was censored as "objectively false", but our best information says it's probably true, and it was probably true then, too. Censorship is a dangerous walk. I totally agree with you that harmful misinformation is a problem, and that we have a duty of care. The problem is "who fact-checks the fact checkers?", and what happens when political leaders can request certain topics "fact checked".
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    It isn’t just you, but it also isn’t everybody. Dissent is always present, and the 1st amendment ensures that people have the right to speak their mind. Having the government lean on private platforms to pressure them into censorship, especially in a coordinated fashion, violates that right. Even if the government attempts to launder that pressure through a maze of domestic and foreign NGOs.
    - bilekas 2mo ago
      I'm not from the U.S so I'll only say that the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, the government is not going to arrest people for sharing false information. The government has a responsibility to its citizens and so should act in the interests of their safety. > Having the government lean on private platforms to pressure them into censorship, especially in a coordinated fashion, violates that right. Even as a non US, this isn't true. A private company can decide to ban you for whatever reason they like. If they align with government health experts or not. It has nothing to do with your first amendment. It WOULD violate your rights if they arrested you for it.

by bilekas 2mo ago

This isn't anything new, it was abundantly clear after Facebook removed their fact checking team during covid that the priority was engagement over everything else, and rage bait is exactly that.

trymas 2mo ago

I just want to add, that they (FB and other big social media) probably understood what propaganda power they wield after 2016 facebook and cambridge analytica scandal. Personally - I think that this was the moment when silicon valley billionaires without shadow of a doubt understood that they have power what used to be reserved only for state actors. Bonus - for using that power they get fined penny on the dollar at most or just slap on the wrist. Update: now situation is even worse - states actively buy propaganda with social media companies, making those companies even more rich and influential.

iamnothere 2mo ago

COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and engagement model, not the lack of fact checking.

b40d-48b2-979e 2mo ago
[flagged]
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  Lol. “My president”. As if. This attitude you have is why we’re in a race to the bottom politically. I hope you live to see the fruits of your efforts, fully.
bilekas 2mo ago
> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.
- eigencoder 2mo ago
  COVID was accidentally released from a lab. That statement was censored as "objectively false", but our best information says it's probably true, and it was probably true then, too. Censorship is a dangerous walk. I totally agree with you that harmful misinformation is a problem, and that we have a duty of care. The problem is "who fact-checks the fact checkers?", and what happens when political leaders can request certain topics "fact checked".
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  It isn’t just you, but it also isn’t everybody. Dissent is always present, and the 1st amendment ensures that people have the right to speak their mind. Having the government lean on private platforms to pressure them into censorship, especially in a coordinated fashion, violates that right. Even if the government attempts to launder that pressure through a maze of domestic and foreign NGOs.
  - bilekas 2mo ago
    I'm not from the U.S so I'll only say that the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, the government is not going to arrest people for sharing false information. The government has a responsibility to its citizens and so should act in the interests of their safety. > Having the government lean on private platforms to pressure them into censorship, especially in a coordinated fashion, violates that right. Even as a non US, this isn't true. A private company can decide to ban you for whatever reason they like. If they align with government health experts or not. It has nothing to do with your first amendment. It WOULD violate your rights if they arrested you for it.