Obviously.
Facebook, Amazon etc....
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Obviously.
I remember hearing here that the WaPo non-endorsement editorial was just journalistic independence and business as usual, not Bezos defending his empire from the next president.
Dana White has also been appointed as a Meta board member.
Spineless prick
https://bsky.app/profile/dwillner.bsky.social/post/3lfdje2qdmm2e
Facebook is rolling back hate speech protections, assumably so they can aid in the persecution of trans people like they did with the Rohingya. Evil scum.
Facebook is rolling back hate speech protections, assumably so they can aid in the persecution of trans people like they did with the Rohingya. Evil scum.
I think the more important considerations are:
1. Being onside with the Trump admin/GOP once they start investigating COVID- and wokeness-related censorship.
2. Cost cutting
Bullying trans people, possibly to suicide, is a nice or regrettable side effect, depending on what Zuck thinks about them.
yeah the big one CNN pointed out is that women can now be referred to as property.
They're trying to avoid moderating Republicans' increasingly dehumanizing language given the explicit threats made by Trump and Republicans. What a country we have.
Just realized how trashy FB is right now. 2009 FB was tolerable. You can add people you know and get recommended their contacts to expand network. You can chat with them, share photos, music. Now it's shit shorts, garbage groups that have no purpose but to post unfunny memes, and people to scam when buying/selling something... a glorified craiglist. And ads everywhere.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-fact-checking
The rise and fall of "fact-checking"
"Fact-checkers" as the high priests of journalism had a political beginning at Facebook — and have met a political end.
Nate Silver
Jan 08, 2025
On Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of changes to Facebook and Instagram that will considerably dial down the level of content moderation on those platforms. As someone who tries to be non-hypocritically pro-free speech, my inclination is to welcome the changes. But Zuck’s motivations are questionable: there’s no doubt that Meta and other media companies are under explicit and intense political pressure from the incoming Trump administration. So perhaps it’s the right move for the wrong reasons.
The rise and fall of "fact-checking"
"Fact-checkers" as the high priests of journalism had a political beginning at Facebook — and have met a political end.
Nate Silver
Jan 08, 2025
On Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of changes to Facebook and Instagram that will considerably dial down the level of content moderation on those platforms. As someone who tries to be non-hypocritically pro-free speech, my inclination is to welcome the changes. But Zuck’s motivations are questionable: there’s no doubt that Meta and other media companies are under explicit and intense political pressure from the incoming Trump administration. So perhaps it’s the right move for the wrong reasons.
So Meta have just rolled back their DEI program. A week after the removal of fact checking and moving their moderation HQ from San Fran to Texas.
Meta? Maga more like, right?!
Meta? Maga more like, right?!
I'm surprised DEI didn't go first since that's whats going to happen throughout the entire government as soon as Trump gets in.
Of fecking course he thinks it's the right move. If only Nate Silver would stick to statistics, he wouldn't be so annoying. But oh boy won't he.
Dana White has also been appointed as a Meta board member.
I for one welcome our return to the origins of Facebook.... creepy hot or not votes on US college chicks, that shits right up my street.
Dana White has also been appointed as a Meta board member.
Ok Zuck, can you also stop spying my conversation on WhatsApp to give me ads about it? ya creepy human lizzer.
These companies’ stand for feck all other than making money and chasing clout.
TikTok ban could happen as early as next weekend.
Highly highly doubt it. It would cause so much outrage.
The Supreme Court have been alluding to a ban. They are the ultimate arbiters.
Some bits on how a ban would work.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/11/tech/tiktok-ban-what-next/index.html
The amount of people who don't give a shit about personal or national security is insane.
"How dare they remove something of high strategic threat! Now I can't watch my 20second reel of a dog befriending a squirrel!"
"How dare they remove something of high strategic threat! Now I can't watch my 20second reel of a dog befriending a squirrel!"
Can you explain exactly how TikTok is a "personal or national security" risk any more than any other big tech company that has been collecting our data for years? Live Ramp can already identify so much that most people would be in shock at how much they track and know and have for decade+. This mostly just a farce so Facebook and Twitter can force their biggest competitor out of the most lucrative markets and so Trump can whine on about his America First BS. "High strategic threat"? Sorry, that feels like massive hyperbole.
Oliver had an episode about this, you're spot on.
Because I would rather have Meta and Google know my favourite sex position, where I can go to eat, where I go to work, my exact fecking bank details, than have CCP know my first name. It's that simple.
Western Big Tech seeks to maximise my data for profit - TikTok's parent company is owned partially by the CCP and they want to undermine my entire way of living. It's pretty straight forward to be honest...
The days when your newsfeed was 99% friends posts definitely feel like a different age.
Now you seem to get about 20% of their stuff and the rest is links / adverts for stuff you've viewed on the net, group stuff, many of which is utterly irrelevant to your tastes and random clips.
However, it still just about serves what I want, so i'm sticking.
Those companies have zero problems supporting fascist policies wherever they are if that gives them a little bit more profit, so the result of their actions is as harmful as what the ccp might intend to to with all the information they get from teenagers.
In summary: The US and China are adversaries and are each quietly preparing for conflict with one another by 2030 because that is the general timeframe when the US thinks Xi will attempt to move on and annex Taiwan, thereby drawing the US and China into conflict.
There are currently something like 170m US Tik Tok users who are uploading their data to the platform on a daily basis, and the US government and military don't want that data to be accessible to the CCP by way of their control of Tik Tok, because its parent company ByteDance is a Chinese company headquartered in Beijing, which means the CCP can access the data of 170m Americans by way of the Chinese National Intelligence law and do whatever it wants with it. This is especially problematic because a big war between China and the US would largely be executed from Space and Cyber and the US government doesn't want to give the CCP such a massive advantage.
John Roberts not buying into things seems to suggest SCOTUS is going to uphold the ban on the 19th.
Brett "I like Beer" Kavanaugh as well
Brett "I like Beer" Kavanaugh as well
What's pretty straight forward are that you have very clear and subjective biases that shape your personal views.
The reality is, Facebook collects vastly more personal information than Tik Tok ever has or ever will. If you are talking personal security threat, Facebook is by a massive margin a larger personal security threat than Tik Tok and its not even close. And Western Big Tech is not just maximizing your data for profit, its allowing it to be weaponized so autocrats like Trump can manipulate it to help get elected based on misinformation which is exactly what happened in 2016. I view Trump (and Musk) a far, far greater threat to liberal Western Democracy as we know it than China right now and over the next 4 years.
Which applies to pretty much every business TBH
Horse, stable etc springs to mind, these companies have been selling data to anyone who wants to pay for it for years, the CCP, FSB etc will have had the info for years if they were really interested
yeah, what has Facebook ever done to anyone?https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...st-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/
Let’s see if they all abandon Dei, posh etc and call out “too much feminity” at the work place
Zuckerberg urges Trump to stop the EU from fining US tech companies
https://www.politico.eu/article/zuc...-from-screwing-with-fining-us-tech-companies/What to even say
What to even say
they all sensed an opportunity to go full techno-feudalism and they jumped right through that open door. They know he hates Europe/all US allies, thus focus on the biggest threat which is EU regulations (and probably Australia soon), and use economic/military threats to their purposes.
And he does this on the Joe Rogan podcast. Of course.
it's a bit insane how comprehensively not just liberal norms, but even more basic norms about what can be said in public, where power is, and how policy changes (by quietly bribing politicians while hiding why you want that policy) are being overturned by one win.
mao: power flows from the barrel of a gun
2025: power flows from 3-hour video podcasts where you explain that policy changes will win you, a billionaire, personally, more money.
It’s so brazen. Only just found out he’s put Dana White on the board of Meta. Apparently Meta’s been deleting articles with critical comments about this from their intranet sites. Which is a delicious irony, given the shapes he’s throwing about free speech.
Yeah, that is never ever gonna happen