2 ms·
And 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"
by HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
And 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.
- ndsipa_pomu 2mo agoMost of the calls for censorship of right wing voices has specifically been about them inciting violence and riots (e.g. against asylum seekers).
- forestrywat 2mo agoImagine thinking the right has learned to tolerate different opinions that they find offensive.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo agoIt's disingenuous to try to present all offensive subject matter as "differences of opinion" and objections as politically motivated. Some subject matter, such as terrorist beheadings, animal abuse, sucker-punching strangers, etc, is just plain illegal and should not be publicized and glorified. YOU may not agree, but society and the legal system has.
- rancar2 2mo agoIt runs that global marketplace enabling this kind of trade per their internal 2024 documents quoted in the following article: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu... “Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.”
- dylan604 2mo agoMeta has already been okay with drug use by allowing people to place ads and other posts clearly promoting drug use/sales. IIRC, 404 Media did an article on this What's the latest social media platform position on being labeled a publisher? Aren't they against that?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- consensus1 2mo agoThe constitution guarantees free speech, but not free drug use (though maybe it should). So I don't see any contradiction here. Meta has every right to police speech as it is a private company, but it has no obligation to do so.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo agoI don't think the issue here is whether FaceBook is acting illegally, but whether it is acting responsibly, or just enshittifying society for it's own benefit. Note incidentally that "free speech" doesn't mean you can say what you like. Yes, you can go out in public and swear and engage in hate speech - all legal - but for example you can't incite others to commit crimes, cross over into disorderly conduct, shout "fire" in a theater, etc.
- wpietri 2mo agoIt has no legal obligation. Participants in a society have a moral obligation not to harm that society. People not heeding that is how we ended up with most of our laws, so Facebook could well end up with legal obligations here if they keep this up.