4 ms·
> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness" Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.
by wpietri 2mo ago
> "it is not Meta's role to police offensiveness"
Just to fund, transmit, amplify, protect, and profit from it.
- mc32 2mo agoThe egregious part is the amplification part. Profit derives from that. Transmission and protection are neutral and they are necessary for all information especially if there is a history of freedom of expression; though of course some governments and others like regulating permissible expression.
- thisislife2 2mo agoDon't forget the politics too behind it: - Facebook and Genocide: How Facebook contributed to genocide in Myanmar and why it will not be held accountable - https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/ https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-ho... - UN: Facebook had a ‘role’ in Rohingya genocide - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-role-in-rohingya-genocide https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/13/un-facebook-had-a-r... - Rohingya refugees sue Facebook over genocide - https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against-facebook-over-genocide/a-60038553 https://www.dw.com/en/rohingya-refugees-file-lawsuit-against...
- basilgohar 2mo agoAnd Gaza: - https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/facebook-meta-censoring-palestine/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2024/12/20/fa... - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complicity-in-genocide-the-unforgivable-silence-of-online-platforms/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240921-big-techs-complic... - https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-out-google-and-amazon-for-abetting-gaza-genocide/en/ https://progressive.international/wire/2025-08-26-un-calls-o...
- gagan2020 2mo agoFacebook is doing that in India as well. They are becoming Government Lap dog and do as its comfortable to their profits. Government of India able to suppress many dissent in recent years because of social media suppression. BTW Current government control News Channels by other means, we have term for Indian news channel as Godi Media. "Godi" in hindi literally means lap.
- wpietri 2mo agoTransmission and protection are not neutral. They're a choice. Facebook has freedom of association and is allowed not to host content they believe harmful. Something they already do extensively. [1] [1] https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/ https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- fc417fc802 2mo agoThey are a choice, yes, the same way anything is. They are neutral choices in the same way roads and other infrastructure "permitting" criminals to use them are. The fact that Meta does not choose to be neutral in all such cases is not an argument against that.
- actionfromafar 2mo agoIt's more like explicitly building infra for criminals.
- wpietri 2mo agoIt is definitely a valid argument. "Facebook should allow all content" is a consistent position if ultimately a stupid one. But once they decide to intervene all of the downstream choices are valid to question.
- fc417fc802 2mo agoThey were always valid to question regardless but that doesn't mean intervention is inherently good (nor bad). We actively work to prevent anyone with a suspended license from using the road, so does it follow that failing to do the same for convicted rapists is a bad thing? I don't think "Facebook should allow all content that is within the bounds of the law of the local jurisdiction" is stupid at all. Ideally that's how infrastructure-esque operations should conduct themselves.
- consensus1 2mo agoYes, but that is perfectly ok because we live in a society with not only freedom of speech but also freedom of the press, so it necessarily follows that it is ok to distribute speech that you don't like to a willing audience and also to profit from it. If that isn't ok, then neither is HN or the New York Times.
- fc417fc802 2mo ago"Legal" and "perfectly okay" (aka socially acceptable or virtuous in some other way) are different things. If HN started paying people to post socially divisive content that wouldn't be okay at all (though it would almost certainly be legal).
- datsci_est_2015 2mo ago[flagged]
- phatfish 2mo agoZuck was gagging for the Trump 2nd term so he could go all in on this shit. Slow clap for the Meta employees that enable it.
- asdvsadnvs 2mo ago[flagged]
- beezlewax 2mo ago> do you expect everyone to agree with your moral code and quit their job Yes. This would be ideal.
- wpietri 2mo agoAnd second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. I can sort of respect a response like, "Yeah, I like Zuckerberg's money and I don't give a shit about the harm I'm enabling. I'll keep cashing my checks and being an asshole." It's the people who expect us to pretend they're not asshole that get to me. They want the upside of bad behavior without the downside. Sorry bub, FAFO.
- AlexandrB 2mo ago> And second best would be these people owning their moral vacuity. So anyone who does not agree with you is morally vacuous? Very convenient. Prevents you from ever having to question your own morality.
- nancyminusone 2mo agoSomebody implemented this. If you did, you did, and I don't think you should be allowed to claim you didn't.
- darig 2mo ago[dead]
- 2mo ago
- carlosjobim 2mo ago[flagged]
- acdha 2mo agoThere’s a big difference between fiction when the viewer knows it’s make believe and when it’s presented as factual. Nobody is committing genocide because they saw a violent movie whereas Facebook shares responsibility for at least one recognized genocide and a number of smaller scale events where the company amplified hateful content and was very slow to take it down. A key distinction here is choice: I don’t accidentally start watching a slasher movie or listening to gangster rap, but Facebook / TikTok / X will ensure that I see unrequested content if it’s something their algorithms reward for “engagement” (i.e. it sells ads), it won’t be labeled, and they won’t let you reliably control it because they’d lose money if Facebook had a “only show my actual friends’ posts” default. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
- asdf88990 2mo ago> There’s a big difference between fiction when the viewer knows it’s make believe and when it’s presented as factual. The difference is far more nuanced and borders on inconsequential when it comes to mass media influence on society. Just because something is presented as fiction or for entertainment doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact your psyche or your perception of the world and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion#Work_with_entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio...
- acdha 2mo agoIt’s complicated, yes, but my point is essentially just that someone saying “<ethnicity> are stealing our country! Force them out!” is specifically calling for violence directed against that group in a way that, say, a movie full of mayhem probably isn’t. That’s because, say, Paramount has editorial control and will never greenlight anything close to what many Facebook / X accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers say every day.
- xutopia 2mo ago[flagged]
- nehal3m 2mo agoI quote myself 2 years ago, forgive me if I’m stating the obvious: I'm going to set up two axioms to arrive at an extrapolated conclusion. One: Human psychology tends to ascribe more weight to negative things than positive things in the short term. In the long term this generally balances out, but in the short term it's more prudent in a biological sense to pay attention to the rustling in the bushes than the berries you might pick from them. This is known as the [negativity bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias). Two: The modern gatekeepers of social interaction, Big Tech, employ blind algorithms that attempt to steer your attention towards spending more time on their platforms. These companies are the arbiters of the content we experience daily and what you do and don't see is mostly at their discretion. The techniques they employ, in simple terms, are designed to provoke what they call 'engagement'. They do this because at the end of the day FAANG have not only a financial interest, but a fiduciary duty to sell advertisements at the behest of their shareholders. The more they can engage you, the more ads they can sell. They employ live A-B testing, divide people into cohorts and poke and prod them with psychological techniques to try and glue your eyeballs to their ads. Extrapolated conclusion: These companies have a financial and legally binding interest to divide the population against itself, obstructing politics and social interaction to the point where we might not be able to achieve any of the goals that we need to reach to prevent oblivion.
- criddell 2mo ago> Zuckerberg has a fiduciary responsibility to optimize shareholder value Is that true? And if it is true, he controls 60% of the voting power because he owns class B shares that get 10 votes each. Do you think he will sue himself if he fails to wring every last dollar out of Meta?
- stephen_g 2mo agoNo, the OP is repeating a common misconception. Corporate law sets out a number of fiduciary duties, including to act in the best interest of the shareholders but “maximising shareholder value” is not one of them. The idea that companies should “maximise shareholder value” is a key ideal of some political/economic ideologies (especially what people describe as ‘neoliberalism’) but it’s not law.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo agoAnd of course publish it. Logically we might expect Meta to get into selling narcotics next. "It is not Meta's role to police drug use"
- scarab92 2mo ago[flagged]
- lokar 2mo agoAt least you don’t have to use the default feed. You can make your own.
- scarab92 2mo agoThe default feed is orders of magnitude more visible than the cherry-picked low-follower-count users that formed the basis of this article. There’s a tremendous double standard here. The offensive right wing content is something you’d have to explicitly search for, whereas the offensive left wing content is front and center.
- NikolaNovak 2mo agoOut of curiosity, which part of the world are you in? While agreeing that every side and compass orientation has conspiracy theories and ragebait, here in North America the right / Conservatives are foaming-at-the-mouth livid at the (real, Perceived, or mixed) wokeness / communism / liberallness of "mainstream media". In this neck of the woods, the sentence "right has learned to tolerate different opinions they find offensive" isn't even hilariously wrong, it's tragically, despairngly, painfully bizarre :-(.
- wpietri 2mo agoAh, so you agree that a "white nationalist with Neo-Nazi links" is accepted as a right-wing voice these days? That's how it has looked to me since Charlottesville, but it's always nice to get it confirmed by people with different perspectives.
- 2mo ago
- xhkkffbf 2mo agoHow do you feel about bookstores stocking titles like "Steal This Book"? What about libraries?
- miah_ 2mo agoHave you ever read it? It was published in _1970_ and the content isn't really about stealing books, but about fighting against the government and corporations. Its more political commentary than anything else. Yes, bookstores should stock it, and libraries should shelve it. Its something everybody should read at least once, for some perspective at least.