This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Meta's platforms want engagement, not truth. They are positively incentivized to get rid of anti-disinformation teams, since the spread of disinformation will increase engagement on their platforms.
Just one of the ways Meta (and Twitter, which is actively doing something similar) are bad platforms.
Yeah, but this likely has more to do with the first amendment lawsuits that conservatives are pushing through the courts not that the SC is a 6/3 right wing majority. A lot of tech companies are doing this so they don’t get dragged into that.
Yeah, that seems pretty on-brand for Meta
I guess they didn't do enough debasing then because the Taliban still likes Twitter better.
Well, if they are also banning news content on their site, then how much election manipulation can one do?
If by news they mean actual articles, it doesn't matter because its all happening in discussions
I haven't been on fb in a long time. How would one influence someone's political opinion there aside from targeted ads or news?
okay, okay, okay, okay... So hear this... We don't even hold our elected officials accountable for what they say, but we're pushing restrictions on what citizens can talk about?
Fuck that shit.
People are pissed about Trump, and anti-vax, and whatever else, and are scared of the effect of misinformation, but have you notice our demographics haven't actually changed? Neither Republicans nor Democrats really have a hand up in elections.
So why are we restricting people's freedoms of what information they consume?
Misinformation has a direct cost in lives and money. So it seems to me to be morally good to stop it.
Either way, no one is a citizen of Facebook or Meta. Those platforms can police their content in whatever lawful ways they desire, and if they want to police misinformation that's no one's business but their own.
People can still consume any information they like. But expecting and requiring Facebook or Meta to be that place seems pretty silly to me.
Sorry, I'm going to try to be less argumentative 😅
Misinformation has a direct cost in lives and money. So it seems to me to be morally good to stop it.
I personally consider things like freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom of expression to be pretty sacred, and to restrict those is a massive ethics issue.
Either way, no one is a citizen of Facebook or Meta. Those platforms can police their content in whatever lawful ways they desire, and if they want to police misinformation that's no one's business but their own.
The problem is we do have government putting pressure on tech companies to implement these polices. Zuckerberg has been infront of Congress multiple times. To me that's just a loop hole.
And why can't I have an opinion on how Meta polices their information?
People can still consume any information they like. But expecting and requiring Facebook or Meta to be that place seems pretty silly to me.
In this instance though Meta is downgrading their department.
No right or freedom is absolute or without limit. I'm okay with you choosing to do pretty much anything up until it harms someone else, and that's the limit. When your expression harms others, express it privately.
There's different degrees of harm. We all live in society, that means our choices impact other people. The electronics powering the infrastructure we're using are full of cobalt picked by child hands. You can't eat almonds without contributing to death.
There's a significant difference between punching someone in the face vs posting a Facebook article. And in my opinion, trying to exert control over the expression of others is a much more deliberate and direct act.
Of course they did!
