Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram(mstdn.chrisalemany.ca)
mstdn.chrisalemany.ca
Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
https://mstdn.chrisalemany.ca/@chris/113864600222476627
185 comments
UK: can confirm that '#democrat' gives "we've hidden these results". While typing in the search box it auto-suggests "democrats crying memes", which is not hidden.
HN flags and removes lots of this sort of discussion for not aligning with their goals (imho, anecdotally). Censorship is a creeping disease that already has its foot over the winning line.
foot over the winning line? bratna, they've been dancing in the endzone for well over a decade, arguably since the mid 2000s when the W Bush media convinced the average voter to "support the troops" even if they're against fighting two wars at once.
this isn't foot over, this is consolidation. to quote a marvel movie: "we're in the endgame now"
this isn't foot over, this is consolidation. to quote a marvel movie: "we're in the endgame now"
moderation to keep things on-topic is not the same as censorship. spaces are allowed to, and should, exist for certain topic areas.
In this case though, it's pretty clearly on topic. This is a major tech company and they are claiming that it is due to a software bug.
Ultimately, it is the same as censorship. That's why it's so tough to find the right balance between fostering a community and extinguishing it.
We call it differently because its purpose is different, not its actions.
We call it differently because its purpose is different, not its actions.
>Ultimately, it is the same as censorship.
No, freedom of speech is not censorship, no matter how hard so many try to push the idea. Censorship involves the use of force, be it direct or implied, not others choosing not to give you support. Inherent in the right to express an opinion is the right to not express an opinion, both yourself and on your own private forum. Hacker News (or any other private site) are not public forums, the public forum is the internet. If HN wishes not to allow certain things, that's literally freedom of speech. Of course, those choices can in turn be criticized (both here within rules at HN's choice but also on other forums entirely or by creating your own), and the criticism criticized in turn and so on. Depending on the arguments made and social and economic pressure it creates some involved may change their stances, or not.
But none of that is censorship. Censorship is the death of that process, force being used to put an end to the circle of social/economic discussion.
>That's why it's so tough to find the right balance between fostering a community and extinguishing it.
It's hard to do so sure, but not because of some "censorship" thing but just because managing human relationships and networks and community is hard.
No, freedom of speech is not censorship, no matter how hard so many try to push the idea. Censorship involves the use of force, be it direct or implied, not others choosing not to give you support. Inherent in the right to express an opinion is the right to not express an opinion, both yourself and on your own private forum. Hacker News (or any other private site) are not public forums, the public forum is the internet. If HN wishes not to allow certain things, that's literally freedom of speech. Of course, those choices can in turn be criticized (both here within rules at HN's choice but also on other forums entirely or by creating your own), and the criticism criticized in turn and so on. Depending on the arguments made and social and economic pressure it creates some involved may change their stances, or not.
But none of that is censorship. Censorship is the death of that process, force being used to put an end to the circle of social/economic discussion.
>That's why it's so tough to find the right balance between fostering a community and extinguishing it.
It's hard to do so sure, but not because of some "censorship" thing but just because managing human relationships and networks and community is hard.
Yeah, there's absolutely nothing tech or intellectually provoking about about this post! Wait...
I get the same "We've hidden these results" on Instagram in Spain. But #democrats (plural) works and #fucktrump as well (a user here was saying that was censored but #fuckbiden was allowed)
I only have an X account and got no censorship for #fucktrump
Same in Canada
Same here in Germany
Ireland: can confirm that both '#democrat' and '#democrats' gives "we've hidden these results"
Is this reportable to the EU as an EU resident?
Examples of pairs of keywords and their effects:
- #dnc (no results) vs #rnc (normal results)
- #voteblue (no results) vs #votered (normal results)
- #fuckbiden (normal results) vs #fucktrump (no results)
Most likely explanation is whatever algorithm change they pushed on 20/Jan to boost Trump-aligned posts and bury Trump unaligned ones was accidentally tuned too aggressively and became too obvious. Please accept our apologies, we will be rectifying the issue and fixing the Algorithm so the manipulation of public opinion is properly hidden, as intended.
- #dnc (no results) vs #rnc (normal results)
- #voteblue (no results) vs #votered (normal results)
- #fuckbiden (normal results) vs #fucktrump (no results)
Most likely explanation is whatever algorithm change they pushed on 20/Jan to boost Trump-aligned posts and bury Trump unaligned ones was accidentally tuned too aggressively and became too obvious. Please accept our apologies, we will be rectifying the issue and fixing the Algorithm so the manipulation of public opinion is properly hidden, as intended.
> If censorship is indeed happening either due to manual flags or “AI” algorithms, people need to know what’s happening and if this is just anecdotal or geography specific or could be spreading to other countries in other forms for other search words and terms.
Not only it is happening. It is also influenced by the biggest bidder.
Not only it is happening. It is also influenced by the biggest bidder.
Norway
Searched for #dnc #democrat right now, and got relevant results.
Searched for #dnc #democrat right now, and got relevant results.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Kenya: was blocking #democrat a couple of hours ago.
Confirmed in Australia, still happening
#fuckbiden works, #fucktrump gets censored. They better have a good explanation for why this is a bug.
That can’t possibly be a bug…
They created two segregated lists on purpose. They implemented a change that only affected one list. They accidentally had a bug that exposed that they were trying to do something. They question now is what were they originally trying to accomplish?
Someone fat-fingered the "reach factor penalty for dem terms" and typed 01 instead of 0.1
this is called "controlled opposition"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda
They don't need explanations. America signed up for this. Now, everyone is just along for the ride.
"Everyone" worldwide? The rest of the world didn't sign up for this.
I suppose we did when signing up to accounts on a US-based site. It's long been a problem that the US has de facto global jurisdiction of the internet.
> The rest of the world didn't sign up for this.
He didn't say they did, he said America did, and everyone is along for the ride.
But in a way we did, by letting US (or China) control all our social medias.
He didn't say they did, he said America did, and everyone is along for the ride.
But in a way we did, by letting US (or China) control all our social medias.
In a way they did. Europe outsourced their defense to the US, energy to Russia and manufacturing to China, now getting <censored> by all three, rather predictably.
We also outsourced our social media. That has to change - it's literally not safe.
There is a lot of witless verbiage about the "town square", but precious little acknowledgement of the obvious fact that every town has its OWN square, and that's the point.
For the last decade my feeds have been polluted by "content" about Brexit and Trump, almost all of which has been noise/distraction/propaganda. I'm sick to the back teeth of it, and it's time to make it stop.
There is a lot of witless verbiage about the "town square", but precious little acknowledgement of the obvious fact that every town has its OWN square, and that's the point.
For the last decade my feeds have been polluted by "content" about Brexit and Trump, almost all of which has been noise/distraction/propaganda. I'm sick to the back teeth of it, and it's time to make it stop.
I truly believe the Fediverse is a viable solution. I've found Lemmy to be an extremely viable alternative to Reddit. The fediverse, more than any other centralized solution, seems equipped to avoid the hellish pitfalls that profit-motive behemoths seemingly must sink into.
There is no monetization, corporate decisions, manipulative algorithms; just self-hosted open source instances as far as the eye can see. Certainly there are rough edges and a perceptible decrease in dopamine from using them, but surely that's worth toughing out as they shape up if it means stopping the unfathomable destruction of society that we're experiencing in real time from big tech?
In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky makes a powerful argument that independent, citizen owned media is of critical importance if we're to pull society to a better, more collaborative place. It doesn't get more 'citizen owned' than a web of interconnected self-hosted servers.
There is no monetization, corporate decisions, manipulative algorithms; just self-hosted open source instances as far as the eye can see. Certainly there are rough edges and a perceptible decrease in dopamine from using them, but surely that's worth toughing out as they shape up if it means stopping the unfathomable destruction of society that we're experiencing in real time from big tech?
In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky makes a powerful argument that independent, citizen owned media is of critical importance if we're to pull society to a better, more collaborative place. It doesn't get more 'citizen owned' than a web of interconnected self-hosted servers.
I agree. As well as the technical merits, it seems to me to be a better match for natural human interaction. Your point about citizen-owned media is well made - in the US we seem to be seeing the near-total collapse of integrity in commercial media - on the one hand it is dismaying to watch, on the other it is as clear a call to arms as we could wish for.
It's been good to see Bluesky up its video game in response to the TikTok nonsense. I'd like to think that the Fediverse could evolve to meet the expectations of people fleeing Facebook, Twitter & co, but it's not there yet. Those of us who are highly motivated (and I am, after recent events!) will make do, but I think it needs to be easier in order to get the critical mass required.
It's been good to see Bluesky up its video game in response to the TikTok nonsense. I'd like to think that the Fediverse could evolve to meet the expectations of people fleeing Facebook, Twitter & co, but it's not there yet. Those of us who are highly motivated (and I am, after recent events!) will make do, but I think it needs to be easier in order to get the critical mass required.
I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in you acting like "rest of the world" means europe only, or by you thinking europe is a unified identical blob. My country of france neither delegated its defense to the US nor its energy to Russia, for exemple.
Actually wanted to highlight France as one country which correctly identified the threat of US going batshit crazy soon after WW2 and positioned accordingly, but didn't want to go into nuance on this particular thread. Now that it's flagged, we can agree in peace.
> France as one country which correctly identified the threat of US going batshit crazy soon after WW2
This was equal part pragmatic foreign policy and a desire by the French elite to hold onto their colonies, an institution strongly opposed by the United States since around WWI.
This was equal part pragmatic foreign policy and a desire by the French elite to hold onto their colonies, an institution strongly opposed by the United States since around WWI.
We share the blame as we spent 80 years relying on the crutch of US military support and now we struggle to see how we can stand up on our own without the crutch. The next decade will test the resolve of other liberal democracies to survive this challenge.
Republics fall, progress isn't linear. Even c. 2000 years ago people were writing about how democracy falls to tyranny. The world is a lot more global now, but the Roman Republic would also have seemed rather "global" too, yet was replaced by the Roman Empire not long after Cicero was writing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
Republics fall, progress isn't linear. Even c. 2000 years ago people were writing about how democracy falls to tyranny. The world is a lot more global now, but the Roman Republic would also have seemed rather "global" too, yet was replaced by the Roman Empire not long after Cicero was writing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory
Hoping ROTW can make US a little bit less relevant. More non-US startup unicorns. Fund the WHO, UN etc. Surely 8 within billion people we can so it?
Apparently ROW = America's colonies (in the eyes of Meta), so maybe kind of yeah.
[deleted]
I doubt it's a bug. I do think it's stupidity.
my interesting anecdote from chatgpt testing a year or two ago, whenever it started getting popular, was that it would give me tips on assassinating trump but not biden
disclosure: i was not planning on this in any way, it was only for testing purposes
disclosure: i was not planning on this in any way, it was only for testing purposes
This really just goes back to the fact that it's a private net work and they can do what they want. Even if it is censored, what can you do about?
I get results on #fucktrump. Don’t know what you’re talking about. (In EU, however #democrat is censored)
So what happens if they don't give that explanation to you?
I mean, it is kind of obvious, Trump is now in power and Zuckerberg does not like problems. Or would you rather have a technical scapegoat explanation, that some intern messed up?
I mean, it is kind of obvious, Trump is now in power and Zuckerberg does not like problems. Or would you rather have a technical scapegoat explanation, that some intern messed up?
The question for the people who find this outrageous, why didn't you find the opposite situation just as outrageous? For years, liberals have been tacitly and often explicitly endorsing censorious behavior of Twitter, Meta and others as not only legitimate, but desirable. And this outcome is exactly why that was a dangerous position to embrace. Because, soon enough, someone you don't agree with will come into power.
We need to denounce censorship always, _especially_ when we disagree with those being censored.
We need to denounce censorship always, _especially_ when we disagree with those being censored.
I’ve always been in favor of censoring based on facts. It’s just a shame that one side of the political divide is a lot more prone to… completely ignore the truth. That means it looks like you’re censoring their speech, when what you are really censoring is nonsense.
Who decides what a fact is and by what manner is information determined to be factual? In 2020, many major social media sites censored the New York Post's story regarding the Hunter Biden laptop scandal citing the report as political mis- or disinformation. The same laptop that many denied the very existence of became a lynchpin in securing Hunter Biden's guilt during his subsequent tax fraud case.
I personally think it's a bad example: they censored this story while there were wild speculations. But at the end, it had negligible impact on the news. As soon as it appeared that the story was not a political mis/disinformation, it was not suppressed anymore.
If anything, it just shows that they are censoring based on facts: if there are established facts about Hunter Biden's laptop, then the information cannot be censored.
It is obvious to me that any brand new story is first "unestablished". They are indistinguishable from rumors. If you start choosing and picking "this story sounds nice to me, so let's not censor it even if it's not confirmed yet, this story is not confirmed yet either but let's censor it", then, it is arbitrary. The fact that a story starts as not confirmed and then turn out to be confirmed is not the proof something is wrong, on the opposite.
I think it's the problem of people who think "facts" are just "opinions" and that you can modify them as you want. They don't understand how "facts" work, and that it requires time for the confidence to grow. I also think that they sometimes get confused because they want very much to believe in some "opinions" or "fake news", but then people are saying, correctly, that this is not based on facts, so their only resort is to pretend this "opinion" or "fake news" is as factual as the other facts, but therefore it means that indeed, "facts" have no objectivity, everyone can just say "it's a fact" or "it's not a fact" based on what they want to hear.
If anything, it just shows that they are censoring based on facts: if there are established facts about Hunter Biden's laptop, then the information cannot be censored.
It is obvious to me that any brand new story is first "unestablished". They are indistinguishable from rumors. If you start choosing and picking "this story sounds nice to me, so let's not censor it even if it's not confirmed yet, this story is not confirmed yet either but let's censor it", then, it is arbitrary. The fact that a story starts as not confirmed and then turn out to be confirmed is not the proof something is wrong, on the opposite.
I think it's the problem of people who think "facts" are just "opinions" and that you can modify them as you want. They don't understand how "facts" work, and that it requires time for the confidence to grow. I also think that they sometimes get confused because they want very much to believe in some "opinions" or "fake news", but then people are saying, correctly, that this is not based on facts, so their only resort is to pretend this "opinion" or "fake news" is as factual as the other facts, but therefore it means that indeed, "facts" have no objectivity, everyone can just say "it's a fact" or "it's not a fact" based on what they want to hear.
#republicans has never been censored. And tbh when right/far right content is being censored, it’s usually because they’re lying or prove to be terrible human beings. Not the same thing.
Yeah the conservative stuff that gets censored is crap like pizza gate and Wayfair selling children. Or sandy hook lies. The two aren't even remotely the same.
There's something to this argument, but a truly uncensored site 4chan style would never have been bigger than that site. The platforms have to censor CSAM; commercially, they end up having to censor slurs and abuse down to a level which the users and advertisers find acceptable.
(also there's a lot of false equivalence going on here - 'democrat' isn't a slur!)
(also there's a lot of false equivalence going on here - 'democrat' isn't a slur!)
The issue isn't necessarily that all censorship is "bad", it's that it is being applied asymmetrically to benefit a political party, blatantly.
Let's not "both sides" this issue.
You are painting it with really broad brush. Was Meta censoring #Republican before?
It never was that blatant;
Liberals did not explicitly ran on "everything has to be free speech";
It is a difference if you censor hate speech or your political opposition
It's hilarious to me that so many people are just noticing the censorship of these sites. But hey, I guess that's a good thing right? Surely we all want freedom of speech now.
Yes and this is the core problem.
I have no dog in this fight and I want to see all ideas surface. Then people will be able to judge for themselves. I do not want any kind of filtration by either communists or conservatives.
I have no dog in this fight and I want to see all ideas surface. Then people will be able to judge for themselves. I do not want any kind of filtration by either communists or conservatives.
It's not censoring, it's a private corporation and they can do whatever they want with their platform. They just want that type of speech on their platform, but you can build your own social media if you want to :)
I'm in Europe and I also have the democrat hashtag hidden but not the republican one. Between this and Musk salutes, it's very concerning.
Meta is obviously segregating has tags based on politics behind the scenes, the question is why?
[deleted]
That's an understatement. I'm personally shit scared
- "It violates freedom of speech!"
- "This is a free market; if you do not like it use another platform!"
- "I thought $conglomerate" had our back! They had rainbows and all; is that all it took them to fold"?
- "No, this is not a systemic issue; conversation needs to be steered away from attacking the system and rather its a few bad apples! Go after them and stop asking for systemic changes!"
- "Any attempt at regulating companies in an assault on #freedom and must not be tolerated"
- "This is a free market; if you do not like it use another platform!"
- "I thought $conglomerate" had our back! They had rainbows and all; is that all it took them to fold"?
- "No, this is not a systemic issue; conversation needs to be steered away from attacking the system and rather its a few bad apples! Go after them and stop asking for systemic changes!"
- "Any attempt at regulating companies in an assault on #freedom and must not be tolerated"
I am against almost all kinds of censorship, the only times I personally believe things should be censored if it's inciting violence/death threats to people. And even then I feel like censorship is probably the wrong way to do it.
And from that perspective, these quotes you're currently touting are ripped out of their context, making them sound asinine despite being mostly on point, fundamentally.
Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are private companies. They should be free to censor whatever they decide to censor.
I would personally hate it if they did, and it'd hope we'd get a competing platform that doesn't censor and that that'd become the standard, but it is what it is.
If a government makes the company censor something, then that is a violation of free speech (which I sadly don't have, as I'm not from the USA). And isn't that what happened in the context of Corona/antivax?
And from that perspective, these quotes you're currently touting are ripped out of their context, making them sound asinine despite being mostly on point, fundamentally.
Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are private companies. They should be free to censor whatever they decide to censor.
I would personally hate it if they did, and it'd hope we'd get a competing platform that doesn't censor and that that'd become the standard, but it is what it is.
If a government makes the company censor something, then that is a violation of free speech (which I sadly don't have, as I'm not from the USA). And isn't that what happened in the context of Corona/antivax?
What is censorship for you personally? I don't have a clear definition in mind (because I think is hard), but something along the lines of "the ones with overwhelming power should not be able to impose what ideas are spread".
Why I think is hard it's because multiple rules can be made to make it impossible to spread ideas: talking loudly in the street => you disturb the neighbors; you send mails with pamphlets => it's spam; want to make an add on TV => extremely expensive. And so on.
Why I think is hard it's because multiple rules can be made to make it impossible to spread ideas: talking loudly in the street => you disturb the neighbors; you send mails with pamphlets => it's spam; want to make an add on TV => extremely expensive. And so on.
I completely agree that it's a very hard topic from the perspective of actually maintaining a healthy social media site.
Most of them have a vision for their platform, i.e. town hall for Twitter, family and friend conversations for Facebook etc.
To adhere to this image they filter out spam etc. now, filtering out obnoxious content just becomes one more rule and thus the slippery slope begins.
But to answer your question: for me, any kind of interference such as deleting/hiding content or algorithmically influence which content is shown is censorship on social media platforms, and the user should be responsible for applying such censorship.
I.e. provide a UI which let the user configure their own preferences. But actually nailing such a feature with a good UX ain't easy, and how to actually implement it isn't either, so that's just a pipedream, realistically speaking.
Most of them have a vision for their platform, i.e. town hall for Twitter, family and friend conversations for Facebook etc.
To adhere to this image they filter out spam etc. now, filtering out obnoxious content just becomes one more rule and thus the slippery slope begins.
But to answer your question: for me, any kind of interference such as deleting/hiding content or algorithmically influence which content is shown is censorship on social media platforms, and the user should be responsible for applying such censorship.
I.e. provide a UI which let the user configure their own preferences. But actually nailing such a feature with a good UX ain't easy, and how to actually implement it isn't either, so that's just a pipedream, realistically speaking.
I have doubts the effects would be as envisioned. There might be negative social/biological traits (ex: fear is stronger than happiness; low threshold for believing things) that amplified by the exponential effect of such a network can have disastrous results. We had tyrants, cult leaders and other nuts that made enough damage without such a tool.
Maybe the network should also limit interaction and exposure. It's fine if you get more interaction than you could do in real life, but I find worrying to have one person followed by tens of millions ... (and even if it was the case before with newspapers, I don't think it was ideal either)
Maybe the network should also limit interaction and exposure. It's fine if you get more interaction than you could do in real life, but I find worrying to have one person followed by tens of millions ... (and even if it was the case before with newspapers, I don't think it was ideal either)
> Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are private companies. They should be free to censor whatever they decide to censor.
Why? Private companies can't dump waste onto a river, can't build buildings not up to code, can't discriminate based on religion or sex, can't prevent their employees from joining a union, can't evade taxes (well these last 2 only in theory I admit)... Meta owns platforms with 3B, 2B, 2B users (fb, insta, whatsapp); why the hell wouldn't it be possible, in principle, to regulate them as public utilities and forbid them by law from censorship or other nefarious practices?
Your phone company can't spy on your conversations and your power company can't shut you off if you are black. Only on a society completely far off the deep end of neoliberal philosophy would people even think to invoke "but it's a private company" like some sort of holy taboo.
Why? Private companies can't dump waste onto a river, can't build buildings not up to code, can't discriminate based on religion or sex, can't prevent their employees from joining a union, can't evade taxes (well these last 2 only in theory I admit)... Meta owns platforms with 3B, 2B, 2B users (fb, insta, whatsapp); why the hell wouldn't it be possible, in principle, to regulate them as public utilities and forbid them by law from censorship or other nefarious practices?
Your phone company can't spy on your conversations and your power company can't shut you off if you are black. Only on a society completely far off the deep end of neoliberal philosophy would people even think to invoke "but it's a private company" like some sort of holy taboo.
> Private companies can't dump waste onto a river, can't build buildings not up to code, can't discriminate based on religion or sex, can't prevent their employees from joining a union, can't evade taxes
I think all of those are "fair game" now (if the price is right). I only wish I were kidding.
I think all of those are "fair game" now (if the price is right). I only wish I were kidding.
> why the hell wouldn't it be possible, in principle, to regulate them as public utilities and forbid them by law from censorship or other nefarious practices?
You're arguing with a strawman, I never said it's impossible in principle. I said it isn't currently categorized as a utility, hence they are free to censor as they see fit.
It's entirely possible for the courts of the USA to deem it a utility, and it'd be interested to see the long term effects of such ruling.
The ruling would only apply to citizens of the USA, so it'd be very interesting to see how the companies in question implemented the changes to stay compliant.
It'd be an interesting case study, but it's impossible to speculate on its fallout until a clear plan has been drafted. I.e. It could potentially make it impossible for newcomers to create platforms, depending on the angle for such a regulation. Or it could make changes to the algorithm borderline impossible etc.
basically countless pitfalls and without a clear draft, nothing of value can be discussed
You're arguing with a strawman, I never said it's impossible in principle. I said it isn't currently categorized as a utility, hence they are free to censor as they see fit.
It's entirely possible for the courts of the USA to deem it a utility, and it'd be interested to see the long term effects of such ruling.
The ruling would only apply to citizens of the USA, so it'd be very interesting to see how the companies in question implemented the changes to stay compliant.
It'd be an interesting case study, but it's impossible to speculate on its fallout until a clear plan has been drafted. I.e. It could potentially make it impossible for newcomers to create platforms, depending on the angle for such a regulation. Or it could make changes to the algorithm borderline impossible etc.
basically countless pitfalls and without a clear draft, nothing of value can be discussed
Your internet provider is also a private company. Do you think it should be free to censor you and close your contract if you visit websites they don't agree with?
While youre touching on a real issue, your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.
What you're actually putting forth is wherever large social media platforms should be treated as utilities. (Which ISPs are).
If the legislative decided to categorize it as a utility, then any censorship the company decided to do could potentially infringe on your free speech, yes.
However, this is not the case as of today. If it's deemed as such, it'd definitely have a global effect. Wherever that'd be positive would be an interesting case study.
And I might add: lots of ISPs host DNS servers which do in fact censor / block certain domains from resolving
What you're actually putting forth is wherever large social media platforms should be treated as utilities. (Which ISPs are).
If the legislative decided to categorize it as a utility, then any censorship the company decided to do could potentially infringe on your free speech, yes.
However, this is not the case as of today. If it's deemed as such, it'd definitely have a global effect. Wherever that'd be positive would be an interesting case study.
And I might add: lots of ISPs host DNS servers which do in fact censor / block certain domains from resolving
> your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.
I've understood it very well, I find it very funny that people which say stuff like Google is a private company and should do what it wants are the same people which say Google should respect net-neutrality (peering agreements, ...) and not do what it wants when it's about core networking and not social media.
I've understood it very well, I find it very funny that people which say stuff like Google is a private company and should do what it wants are the same people which say Google should respect net-neutrality (peering agreements, ...) and not do what it wants when it's about core networking and not social media.
How is that funny?
A utility is something that is regulated, it comes with a lot of caveats and challenges. It's not just a label you can put on anything, you need to actually define and set boundaries etc to what the utility provider is required to do etc.
This has happened for ISPs, but none of that has happened for Twitter, Facebook etc... thus it's not a utility, thus it's not bound to the free speech amendment.
A utility is something that is regulated, it comes with a lot of caveats and challenges. It's not just a label you can put on anything, you need to actually define and set boundaries etc to what the utility provider is required to do etc.
This has happened for ISPs, but none of that has happened for Twitter, Facebook etc... thus it's not a utility, thus it's not bound to the free speech amendment.
Companies that try to turn themselves into the infrastructure of the internet and then control it can fuck right off, private or not. Here's an example of where the Supreme Court agrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Don’t support meta. Don’t use their products. This has been obvious for so long. Just delete your accounts and move elsewhere.
Yup. Anyone who still maintains an account on any Meta product (including WhatsApp) is giving this shit their full-throated support in the only way Zuck cares about. And that says nothing about the kinds of horrible people still working there.
It seems like they quickly resolved it but as people making software we know exactly what happened. The deployment was not successful. Does not make the idea any less ugly. I’m sure they are gonna redeploy a less obvious version
Split test started, AI detects outrage level. Data point taken. Roll-back initiated. All in one python script.
So Instagram definitely created two segregated lists of hashtags based on politics, and intentionally implemented SOMETHING in the algorithm differently between the two, messed up and revealed that they are trying to do SOMETHING differently between the two. Now that the tags are 'restored' the question is what is Insta actually trying to accomplish behind the scenes?
Meta is switching shoes faster than it is stealing features from tiktok.
This is the Freedom you voted for !
Last time I checked, I had not moved to China. So why is my internet being censored?
Capitalism can be just as fascist and authoritarian as communism. Capitalism and communism are economic ideologies. Fascism and authoritarianism are political systems.
So remember to tag all your political posts #republican from now on.
That'd be the ultimate dog whistle
This being flagged is interesting in itself.
The whole Zuckerberg pretending to be conservative now that Trump is in power has been hilarious really. Like being in the Joe Rogan show, saying companies need more masculinity or some shit.
How about we don't let private companies do whatever the fuck they want?
Seems like several platforms are complying with fascists, so we should definitely be switching to decentralised platforms to communicate safely.
You cannot tech your way out of this.
Decentralisation is a socio-political solution, not a technical solution. It directly addresses the problem of media ownership and proliferation.
It's a limited solution at best. You can't win a tech arms race with the very people who control the core infrastructure, write the laws and run the police. Just ask the pro-Democracy protestors in Hong Kong.
That wasn't a tech arms race, that was military & police domination.
We have a heavily contested information space, & so far we are still not an authoritarian state. It seems defeatist I'm extremely to say it's not worth trying to build a better less manipulable less privately controlled information space. It seems obvious that there's still time & patriotic as hell - fully committed to democracy & people, over large institutions & powers.
We have a heavily contested information space, & so far we are still not an authoritarian state. It seems defeatist I'm extremely to say it's not worth trying to build a better less manipulable less privately controlled information space. It seems obvious that there's still time & patriotic as hell - fully committed to democracy & people, over large institutions & powers.
You are so right!!!! Everyone is like Elon is the richest man! Bezos is the richest! The richest government scares the NSA, not these poor rich people.
No, but it seems like we'll need ways to co-ordinate resistance against the oppressors.
What’s especially offputting is the media not covering Elon’s Nazi salute
Erm, google "elon nazi salut" did gave me a lot of mainstream media results.
But possible, that they do not make headlines out of it.
But possible, that they do not make headlines out of it.
> salute
Salutes. He did it more than once in that speech.
In full, hand to chest and all.
Salutes. He did it more than once in that speech.
In full, hand to chest and all.
Nearly half a trillion dollars of net worth must make him feel untouchable. The SEC can’t touch him when he says “funding secured” (it wasn’t). Nor can they do anything to him when he secretly bought Twitter shares.
Because he’s so engrained with the government he’s untouchable. SpaceX is doing stuff NASA only dreams of. Nobody built out starlink to the volume that he did and so now he can play king maker in war zones like Ukraine.
He’s got huge conflicts of interest with China.
The man is basically an asset of foreign governments and is here sweing the seeds of hate on his mega platform.
It used to be nobody was above the law but then billionaires became too powerful. How often do I think about Rome? A shit ton more now except I think more about the fall of Rome than the golden era.
Because he’s so engrained with the government he’s untouchable. SpaceX is doing stuff NASA only dreams of. Nobody built out starlink to the volume that he did and so now he can play king maker in war zones like Ukraine.
He’s got huge conflicts of interest with China.
The man is basically an asset of foreign governments and is here sweing the seeds of hate on his mega platform.
It used to be nobody was above the law but then billionaires became too powerful. How often do I think about Rome? A shit ton more now except I think more about the fall of Rome than the golden era.
Regarding Rome. I am thinking the same and what comes to my mind is Caesar. Trump crossed the Rubicon on January 6 and prevailed. Now history will tell how far this analogy will hold but what makes me think of it as fitting is that it marked the end of the Republic and from then on Rome was ruled by emperors and family clans.
That doesn't quite work. Trump lost on January 6th - the vote went against him.
I think the Rubicon was more this election. Caesar was in a position where, if he didn't bring his army to Rome, his political enemies were going to destroy him. Trump was in a position where, if he didn't win the election, his political enemies (and the legal cases arising from his various unusual activities) were going to destroy him.
But I wonder if that's really where we are. I wonder if we're not more at the time of Marius and Sulla, and the real Caesar is still 40 years away.
I think the Rubicon was more this election. Caesar was in a position where, if he didn't bring his army to Rome, his political enemies were going to destroy him. Trump was in a position where, if he didn't win the election, his political enemies (and the legal cases arising from his various unusual activities) were going to destroy him.
But I wonder if that's really where we are. I wonder if we're not more at the time of Marius and Sulla, and the real Caesar is still 40 years away.
I see it as Nov 6 was when he crossed a border without return. He showed his cards. He lost that day, but he wins now, so prevailed in the end.
From the man routinely saying the media lie to you on his own media platform.
At least that’s where I’ve seen the video of him doing it, so perhaps he isn’t wrong about that particular thing?
At least that’s where I’ve seen the video of him doing it, so perhaps he isn’t wrong about that particular thing?
Even the German Bundeswehr withdrew from Twitter because of Musk's endorsement of the far-right extremist AfD. The people who need to be made aware of this aren't the people who are remaining on there (which are people who either already are critical of Musk but are stubborn or can't leave for other reasons, and Musk fans).
I saw the BBC's article "Elon Musk's gesture at Trump rally draws scrutiny" - way to downplay a Nazi salute, BBC.
Musk has been promoting extreme right-wing opinions, conspiracies and outright lies for quite a while now and he's obviously seeing the Trump presidency as a key success in his plot for world domination, so he no longer needs to hide his fascism/racism etc.
Why other organisations are seeking to downplay actual Nazi salutes must be because they are scared of the power imbalance and seek to appease (hint: that never works).
Musk has been promoting extreme right-wing opinions, conspiracies and outright lies for quite a while now and he's obviously seeing the Trump presidency as a key success in his plot for world domination, so he no longer needs to hide his fascism/racism etc.
Why other organisations are seeking to downplay actual Nazi salutes must be because they are scared of the power imbalance and seek to appease (hint: that never works).
German media is doing the same, posing it as a question or posing it as "looks like" and it's baffling. Then there's also the Anti-Defamation League coming forward protecting Musk and saying it wasn't a nazi salut. I don't even know how anyone, much less an organization meant to protect jewish interests, can come to that conclusion.
> I don't even know how anyone, much less an organization meant to protect jewish interests, can come to that conclusion.
Once you start differentiating between Zionist interests and Jewish interests, the last 80 years (and especially the last 15 months) makes a lot more sense.
Once you start differentiating between Zionist interests and Jewish interests, the last 80 years (and especially the last 15 months) makes a lot more sense.
I saw about the ADL's stance and just find it unbelievable. Are they just more interested in siding with Israel despite the atrocities?
I don't see how Musk's two Nazi salutes can be defended when he deliberately did it twice and has a history of supporting extreme right-wing views.
I don't see how Musk's two Nazi salutes can be defended when he deliberately did it twice and has a history of supporting extreme right-wing views.
ADL has been much more about pro-Israel than they have been about anti-antisemitism.
They know which way Israel's bread is buttered. Trump just removed all sanctions for the settlers, and allowed the sale of significantly bigger bombs to Israel on his first day.
Israel has a huge amount to gain from a Trump administration. ADL isn't going to blow that opportunity by calling out Elon's Nazi salute.
They know which way Israel's bread is buttered. Trump just removed all sanctions for the settlers, and allowed the sale of significantly bigger bombs to Israel on his first day.
Israel has a huge amount to gain from a Trump administration. ADL isn't going to blow that opportunity by calling out Elon's Nazi salute.
Do you really believe this? Sincerely and honestly?
You believe Elon Musk is somehow showing support for the National-Socialist party of the German working class?
How is it possible to get to this level? Truly amazing.
You believe Elon Musk is somehow showing support for the National-Socialist party of the German working class?
How is it possible to get to this level? Truly amazing.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Jean-Paul Sartre
He might not be pro gas chamber but he knows exactly what he’s doing. Continuing to give him the benefit-of-the-doubt is willful ignorance.
For starters, the Sieg Heil salute that Elon did was exactly the same as Hitler did it [1] and modern-day white nationalists do it [2].
Secondly, anyone who refers to Nazism as the "the National-Socialist party of the German working class" is clearly attempting to make an utterly specious claim that Nazism is really about Socialism and not about Fascism.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i6par1/elon_musk_vs_...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i6v521/for_those_not...
Secondly, anyone who refers to Nazism as the "the National-Socialist party of the German working class" is clearly attempting to make an utterly specious claim that Nazism is really about Socialism and not about Fascism.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i6par1/elon_musk_vs_...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i6v521/for_those_not...
Between this and people convicted for sedition being pardoned I'm curious. How much copium do you use to remain in denial?
> You believe Elon Musk is somehow showing support for the National-Socialist party of the German working class?
That's a bizarre comparison. Are you deliberately trying to build a straw-man and associate a known extreme right-wing, Nazi salute with socialism? You do realise that the Nazi party were not at all socialist - they called themselves that to trick and lie to the Germans.
That's a bizarre comparison. Are you deliberately trying to build a straw-man and associate a known extreme right-wing, Nazi salute with socialism? You do realise that the Nazi party were not at all socialist - they called themselves that to trick and lie to the Germans.
I am not building anything. Perhaps you need to study history and see what happened. There is no distinction of evil between the communists in USSR and NAZI Germany. They were both clear evil. I thank God they are both history now and we should not forget it, ever.
What? One moment, you're defending Musk's Nazi salute and the next you're stating that "we should not forget"?
Not forgetting implies that we must NEVER tolerate Nazi sympathisers and Nazi ideology. Musk has been promoting Nazi/extreme right-wing ideologies for quite a while now and his latest stunt is to perform a Nazi salute which insults the memories of everyone that fought against the Nazis in WWII.
What specific part of history are you alluding to? I'm reasonably knowledgable but not an expert in European history and I certainly found it very frightening when I visited the Holocaust Museum in Berlin and saw that the exact same methods were being employed by the Republicans/Trump.
Can you be more specific as it seems that you're just trying to obfuscate.
Not forgetting implies that we must NEVER tolerate Nazi sympathisers and Nazi ideology. Musk has been promoting Nazi/extreme right-wing ideologies for quite a while now and his latest stunt is to perform a Nazi salute which insults the memories of everyone that fought against the Nazis in WWII.
What specific part of history are you alluding to? I'm reasonably knowledgable but not an expert in European history and I certainly found it very frightening when I visited the Holocaust Museum in Berlin and saw that the exact same methods were being employed by the Republicans/Trump.
Can you be more specific as it seems that you're just trying to obfuscate.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
Yes.
> You believe Elon Musk is somehow showing support for the National-Socialist party of the German working class?
No, which is why nobody but people who want to downplay say this stuff. This is the second comment of this kind I saw.
He's doing the Hitler salute, with a snarl, once to the crowd and once to Trump. He has no clue who Hitler is or what he did, just like he has no clue what RPC are, or what item level requirements in Path of Exile 2 mean, but that doesn't change what we see with our own eyes.
No, which is why nobody but people who want to downplay say this stuff. This is the second comment of this kind I saw.
He's doing the Hitler salute, with a snarl, once to the crowd and once to Trump. He has no clue who Hitler is or what he did, just like he has no clue what RPC are, or what item level requirements in Path of Exile 2 mean, but that doesn't change what we see with our own eyes.
What is there to downplay? This is why engagement hunters on Twitter/X.com made a side by side comparison of "Democrats doing Nazi salute" over the years, and there are like 10 pictures there doing the same exact thing. It would be as bizarre to say those people were supporting NAZI Germany, too.
> It would be as bizarre to say those people were supporting NAZI Germany, too.
The person you replied to said "nazi salute". In context, it's clear the gesture is meant. Everything else comes solely from you.
And far-right groups everywhere are totally celebrating it by the way, you're aware of that, right? In a way they never did and wouldn't celebrate some random "gotcha" photo of a Democrat that has nothing to do with them. So you're just underlining the point.
The person you replied to said "nazi salute". In context, it's clear the gesture is meant. Everything else comes solely from you.
And far-right groups everywhere are totally celebrating it by the way, you're aware of that, right? In a way they never did and wouldn't celebrate some random "gotcha" photo of a Democrat that has nothing to do with them. So you're just underlining the point.
[deleted]
rofo1(2)
10 out of context pictures are not the exact same as video of someone doing a full on Nazi salute in 100% form from start to end, twice. Show me a video of a Dem doing that...
[deleted]
Good that China has caught up US in tech, so at least us Europeans can escape the US oligarchical censorship. Not looking great for those left behind the great firewall of Muskerberg. When will PG fall in line?
My concern about PG isn't that he's "falling in line" so much as ripping the mask off and embracing right-wing authoritarianism:
So what do we do now? Wokeness is already in retreat. Obviously we should help it along. What's the best way to do that? And more importantly, how do we avoid a third outbreak? After all, it seemed to be dead once, but came back worse than ever.
In fact there's an even more ambitious goal: is there a way to prevent any similar outbreak of aggressively performative moralism in the future — not just a third outbreak of political correctness, but the next thing like it?
The more general problem — how to prevent similar outbreaks of aggressively performative moralism — is of course harder. Here we're up against human nature. There will always be prigs. And in particular there will always be the enforcers among them, the aggressively conventional-minded. These people are born that way. Every society has them. So the best we can do is to keep them bottled up.
>> Is there a way to prevent any similar outbreak of aggressively performative moralism in the future — not just a third outbreak of political correctness, but the next thing like it?
Of course there is.
Remove dissent from media, discomfort from libraries, and debate from schools.
Of course there is.
Remove dissent from media, discomfort from libraries, and debate from schools.
Yes, you can escape the US oligarchical censorship, and have the European form of it instead. The funny part is that DNS "great firewall" types of censorship and blocks are much more common in Europe, but European nationalists will always say that it's somehow different when they do it.
I can't reply to the sibling comment but yes, yes it is:
>In France, a new law dubbed "CREN" has already made its way through the upper house. It allows the French government to force DNS blocking of sites it deem to be non-compliant of the new law.
>In Spain, websites belonging to the Catalonian independence movement were all DNS blocked, back in 2017.
>Denmark has censored a wide-swath of content since at least 2011, including file sharing, mp3 converters and illegal gambling sites.
>As reported back in 2021, The EU itself is actively developing its own DNS, with the project named "DNS4EU". Its goal is to wrest control away from US based companies, and to gain greater control over access to online content.
https://vocal.media/01/norway-introduces-dns-blocking-of-ill...
>In France, a new law dubbed "CREN" has already made its way through the upper house. It allows the French government to force DNS blocking of sites it deem to be non-compliant of the new law.
>In Spain, websites belonging to the Catalonian independence movement were all DNS blocked, back in 2017.
>Denmark has censored a wide-swath of content since at least 2011, including file sharing, mp3 converters and illegal gambling sites.
>As reported back in 2021, The EU itself is actively developing its own DNS, with the project named "DNS4EU". Its goal is to wrest control away from US based companies, and to gain greater control over access to online content.
https://vocal.media/01/norway-introduces-dns-blocking-of-ill...
This sounds like Zuck didn't understand the whole push-back on censorship from Big Tech. It wasn't about censoring "the other folk" it's about not censoring.
Allow discourse and stop putting your finger on the scale, dammit.
Allow discourse and stop putting your finger on the scale, dammit.
Well I suppose that was inevitable. You don't have to have state-controlled media when you have a media-controlled state; Meta are simply protecting the investment which got Zuckerberg a seat near Trump at the inauguration.
When the mass deportations start and people are being disappointed into camps, you will not see the video evidence of it go viral.
What does "don’t CW this" mean?
Presumably "apply a content warning label"?
Which is a strange thing to write on Mastodon, which afaik doesn't let anyone except the author label their own posts.
Which is why people will frequently repost things wrapped in a CW. Hence the request not to do that, so people see it.
But why make the request to yourself?
Eh? It's a request to anyone reposting it.
Even a repost can't edit/add a CW (which is why adding a CW to your post, counter-intuitively, will often net your post more visibility, since many feel uncomfortable reposting un-CW'd posts)
No, you're talking about boosting (equivalent to retweeting).
As you say, you can't add a CW doing that.
So, people re-post manually (the content of the post, and/or a link to the post) with a CW.
The request is not to do that.
As you say, you can't add a CW doing that.
So, people re-post manually (the content of the post, and/or a link to the post) with a CW.
The request is not to do that.
Zuckerberg came out and explicitly said the far left Biden administration censored Facebook directly. That is the real concern, not random silly SEO'd results that will be fixed quickly.
NotGMan(1)
How the turntables.
That's not Meta censoring, they just switched from autocratic to democratic (based on user votes) moderation. So enough bots voted to ban that hashtag.
I don’t have an Instagram account to verify this myself.