It's ok to be angry about capitalism

[The Rogue Wolf]

The decision to remove posts rests with the company. Not the fact checkers. So if you consider this to be "censorship" to begin with, this act doesn't target the body responsible for the censoring. They literally cannot remove posts they tag.

He knows they can't remove posts. He's crying "censorship" because fact-checkers prevent his lies from being considered as valid as the actual truth.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Gotta love being talked down to by fox news as a poor person

 

[Phoenixmgs]

He knows they can't remove posts. He's crying "censorship" because fact-checkers prevent his lies from being considered as valid as the actual truth.

Community notes does the same thing but without the censorship... What's your point then?

 

[Silvanus]

Do you agree censorship is bad regardless on who removes them?

Depends what you mean by "censorship". I'm a-ok with removing violent incitement, racism, libel.

But this question has nothing to do with Zuckerberg's decision to can fact-checkers, who were uninvolved in removing fact-checked posts at all.

 

[Agema]

The decision to remove posts rests with the company. Not the fact checkers. So if you consider this to be "censorship" to begin with, this act doesn't target the body responsible for the censoring. They literally cannot remove posts they tag.

To be fair, Zuckerberg never wanted fact-checking in the first place.

Like every dipshit fanatic ideologue, he's got his theory of how the world works and thinking he's right means more to him than reality. The problem years ago was that his ideology ran into reality, and it turned out his creations had adverse side effects that caused a whole host of damage to a whole host of people and things, so he was pressured to do something about it.

Remember all those meetings, Congressional hearings, where Zuck looked a bit awkward and confused, rabbit-in-headlights unable to process that his company might actually be a problem and how to do anything about it? Well, Zuck's answer has been to decide the problem isn't his company, it's everyone else, and now he's got an opportunity to make that stick. If that means more depression and anxiety for teenagers, more suicides, civil discontent, fascism and the odd genocide promoted on his platforms, that's just more opportunity for us to learn how awesome he and Meta actually are.

 

[Hades]

You know who can be angry at capitalism? Europeans, since Zuckerburg has essentially stated he plans to team up with Trump to force Europe to become more oligarch friendly which can only mean removing consumer protection that Europe has, but the US don't.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Depends what you mean by "censorship". I'm a-ok with removing violent incitement, racism, libel.

But this question has nothing to do with Zuckerberg's decision to can fact-checkers, who were uninvolved in removing fact-checked posts at all.

Tim Walz said the 1st amendment doesn't protect things like misinformation and hate speech when it very much does. Why would I vote for a candidate that says that? He can't even get the 1st amendment right.

But the stuff the fact-checkers tagged got removed... I don't care about arguing over semantics and technicalities. Fact is there is censorship on Facebook that shouldn't be there and getting rid of fact-checkers will stop things from getting censored.