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
[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 142 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Zuckerberg thinks Facebook should self regulate and that means in this case be free to allow posts of anti-vax propaganda and covid conspiracy theories that literally cost lives.

This is just a great example of why social media needs external regulation.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is just a great example of why social media needs external regulation.

And "needs external regulation" here just means "needs to not be above the law".

[–] koper@feddit.nl 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They are not above the law, because these is no law in the US that regulates how social media platforms should be moderated. This is new territory. The EU only recently passed the Digital Services Act that broadly deals with this topic.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago

They are not above the law, because these is no law in the US that regulates how social media platforms should be moderated.

And that is entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with the endless billions pouring into political bribery in the US. The EU started regulating it because the shit was piling up so high, it started to smell over the Atlantic.

What I mean by being above the law is both that they get to write the law, and that even if they run afoul of it, they get to get off with bullshit fines, often without admitting that they did anything wrong.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you picture a world in which an authoritarian like Trump is President and then immediately abuses this authority to choose what's allowed to be said on social media? Because then you might begin to understand how this could be a problem.

[–] carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But there is surely room between "controlled by the government" and "not accountable for the content on its platform."

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

There isn't. They're the same thing. How is the government going to hold them accountable without controlling the speech?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Do you think the government has complete control over your speech now? Do you think you are absolutely free to say whatever you want? I don't even know where to start with someone who doesn't understand that it doesn't have to be one or the other despite, right now, it not being one or the other.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Do you think the government has complete control over your speech now?

...no? No one thinks that.

I don't know where to start with someone who doesn't understand the concept of a slippery slope or legal precedent.

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

I don’t know where to start with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a slippery slope or legal precedent.

Well, when you figure it out, let me know where because it's clear you don't understand either of those terms.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 3 weeks ago

Let me know when you figure out how to answer the question I asked you...