this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
141 points (83.4% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2697 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials "repeatedly pressured" Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to "censor" content in 2021. "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken," he wrote to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). "Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction -- and we're ready to push back if something like this happens again," Zuckerberg added.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shish_mish@lemmy.world 206 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Asking them to take down stuff that is clearly false and can endanger people is not censorship.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 58 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

not to mention, basically, he's handing the platform to a very vocal minority.

A minority that probably hates his guts. because lets face it, everybody hates Zuck the Cuck

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform's influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The platform is accommodating people- or trying to, anyhow- that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

It’s patently stupid to alienate the vast majority of people, who look at antivax as rampant stupidity, to accommodate people who will inevitably prove to be too extreme.

Look at what’s happening on twitter, with advertisers leaving.

That’s about to be Facebook.

[–] RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

This isn’t argument for regulation social spaces.

This is me passing around the popcorn and watching Facebook go up in flames.

Zuck is being dementedly stupid here. That’s all I’m saying.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Okay, look: I really need you to knock it off with this argument, please. 'Cause if you keep going with it, you're gonna start convincing me that maybe we should let Zuckerberg post all the anti-vaxxer bullshit his shriveled, blackened heart desires, after all!

(And that's bad because, as much as I'd love to see Zuck fuck up, @RidcullyTheBrown is right.)

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Unless they can infiltrate his underground bunker in Hawaii, I doubt he cares how much they hate him.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

You can also not claim freedom of speech when yelling fire in a crowded Theatre. I don't understand why this is different. In this case the platform is amplifying people yelling fire and even creates spaces for people yelling fire to gather and talk strategy.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 points 3 weeks ago

Taking down anything is, by definition, censorship. Censorship doesn't mean only taking down things you agree with.

The mistake people make is thinking censorship is inherently bad.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Wat? It's literally the definition of censorship. I think you mean to say censorship is not, in and of itself, bad.