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.
It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
Community notes does the same thing but without the censorship... What's your point then?
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.
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.
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.
OK? I don't really care about your opinions on this stuff, this isn't what we were discussing.
It's not a "technicality". That's not a fact. Fact checkers never removed any fact-checked posts, and so canning them will have zero impact on supposed "censorship". It's horseshit.
‘Essential’: nearly 800 incarcerated firefighters deployed as LA battles wildfires
The firefighters earn $5.80-$10.24 per day plus $1 an hour when responding to active emergencies, according to CDCR
www.theguardian.com
1st amendment protects almost all speech, that's a fact, not an opinion.
You're claiming this is not censorship and/or that Facebook is lying about their process?
Correct, that's not censorship. Nothing is being removed. Fact-checked posts get boosted less by Facebook's algorithm and don't get 'recommended'. So in essence, they don't get actively helped. And why should they?
The algorithm determines what people see... And in a day and age when things that are called conspiracy theories and then months later are actually true, it means those that are determining "misinformation" are full of shit.
Sort of. The algorithm will boost or deprioritise posts being suggested. But any post, even those without any algorithmic boost, is visible to those who follow or show interest in the source, or those who seek them out.
As an analogy: someone puts up a poster. If someone else were to tear it down, you could call that censorship. And if someone else reprints the original poster and then goes around showing it to other members of the public, that's the equivalent of a boost from the Facebook algorithm.
When Facebook "deprioritises" a post, it's not tearing it down. It's still there, still visible to anyone looking for stuff nearby. All it's doing is refraining from doing all that extra stuff to spread it around.
More often than not, conspiracy theory bullshit is just conspiracy theory bullshit. Chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, disease-ridden produce being safer. All genuinely dangerous idiocy. I'd much prefer it be taken down, but if that's not possible, I at least don't want the algorithm actively promoting it.
You do realize people don't search for stuff on Facebook, right?
You can't call something a conspiracy theory when it's not and remove posts or stop people from talking about it.
People will quite often follow friends/figures they actually want to keep up with. But this is irrelevant. This is like saying that if I put up a poster, it's censorship for the government not to reprint it in national newspapers, because ordinary people aren't actively seeking out my poster.
Nobody is entitled to have their message actively reprinted and repeated by others.
I "can't call something a conspiracy theory when it's not"? Sorry? You've been insisting until now that not only can I say whatever I want regardless of accuracy, but I'm also entitled to have it boosted by an algorithm. By your own logic, not only can i say it, but Facebook is obligated to recommend my opinion to thousands of people!
Everyone's message is should have the same rules as far as how it gets boosted. Facebook literally stopped people from posting about actual news stories.
That's a fascinating position to take, because it has literally never been the case, and won't be the case after the fact-checkers get canned. And it would also render the algorithm useless and inoperable.
So: my message (being that Phoenixmgs is always wrong) should be boosted and suggested to others just as much as (for example) Donald Trump's or Taylor Swift's posts on Facebook, and if it isn't, that's censorship! I can sort of see the appeal...
There is a point to be argued that an algorithm is a form of censorship.
If certain message are being boosted, then other messages are necessarily being suppressed. Not absolutely, maybe, but reduced notice. There is a point where this could be close to being banned: the notice was publicly posted in a locked cabinet in an abandoned toilet with a warning sign on the door.
The idea was that algorithms give people what they want. Google is one of the world's largest companies because it wrote one for a search engine that was vastly better at giving people what they want than its competitors, and an algorithm superb at giving people content they enjoyed was critical to TikTok's rise. Herein also the fall: as per enshittification, what a lot of these algorithms now do is that once customers are locked in, the algorithm is compromised for additional money making, to the maximum extent before it drives customers away. (Take an Amazon search, which is an exercise in bullshit and obfuscation, which Amazon gets away with because it's such a massive and important online retailer that many customers don't go elsewhere.)
The best we can perhaps hope is that the algorithm is not directed censorship, or not intentionally directed censorship, in the sense that suppression of political views is an accidental byproduct of the algorithm that will eventually be recognised and corrected.