cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/35973449
Archive article: https://archive.is/a602u
The platforms “are all facing this problem where the right wing has been on them repeatedly about content moderation and how they [shouldn’t] control any content,” said a lobbyist for Meta, who was granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak for the company. “And now the tables are turned in some fashion, and people are all over them, saying you can’t allow this kind of content and that kind of content.”
It’s almost like these fascists never gave a shit about so-called “free speech” but the credulous MSM continually gave them an open and unquestioned platform.
Eh, it’s the usual “free speech but only if i like it” theater. What’s different from last week?
Nothing to see here, just the government abridging the freedom of speech.
The only amendment they seem to care about is the 2nd, and only when it isn’t minorities arming themselves
As usual, Politico’s whitewashing the significant Democrat contributions to the tech censorship regime. This isn’t something you can fix with party politics.
Hang on I thought the complaint was that there was no content moderation, but thanks to the democrats there is content moderation. So what’s your complaint?
The social media companies have been burying Gaza news for years now, with both parties in full participation. Who the fuck said there’s been no moderation?
How are they finding these critics? If you are dumb enough to put your name on it, you deserve to be hammered, just for being stupid.
Wasn’t their entire thing that we needed free speech and shouldn’t let big tech be in charge of that?
Oh that only applies when people say things they want to hear? Got it.
As far as I’ve ever been paying attention, conservatives only argue in bad faith. It’s always been about elevating their own speech and suppressing speech that counters theirs. They just couch it in terms that sound vaguely reasonable or logical in the moment if you don’t know their history and don’t think about it more deeply than very surface-level.
Before, platforms were suppressing their speech, so they were promoters of free speech. Now platforms are not suppressing speech counter to them, so it’s all about content moderation to protect the children, or whatever. But their policies always belie their true motive: they never implement what research shows supports their claimed position of the moment. They always create policies that hurt their out-groups and may sometimes help their in-groups (helping people is optional).
As far as I’ve ever been paying attention, conservatives only argue in bad faith. It’s always been about elevating their own speech and suppressing speech that counters theirs.
That’s not conservatives, that’s most humans.
Now yes, conservatism is about skepticism of any proposed system of interpreting reality to bring solutions. Sort of a chaotic ideology. There are ideologies chaotic too, but opposite in sign about optimism, ancom and ancap similarly for this purpose, or maybe even Soviet communism (which didn’t specify what “communism” itself is other than “no money, no hierarchy, no government”, because that had to be ascertained). These are all about not knowing what specific system is good or bad, generally, but having an idea of approaching that good or avoiding that bad.
There are also orderly ideologies, like that bog standard liberal democracy that was supposed to always work, or constitutional monarchism, where the “ideal” system is very precisely described and should just be implemented. This also includes Catholic distributivism, which seems somewhere between ancom and ancap, except it’s clear on how it should work.
Fascism notably is all over the place, though, that’s its only definitive trait. Fascism differs from mainstream in a different dimension than most ideological extremes. Its point is that there’s no point, just vibes and will transcending reality. It’s can be skeptical or it can be optimist, it can be progressive or conservative, the point of fascism is that these don’t matter, only what you need and want right now. Truth doesn’t matter, only the dream.
There are also orderly progressive ideologies. US progressives are such. Or leftists who think that Soviet system is their dogmatic ideal, while I have already written before than in Soviet communism it was just a mechanism. The dogmatic ideal was somewhere at some point making that ideal society, quite similar to kingdom of heaven for Christians in perception.
Social media was biased against the left more than the right since before the Republicans went on their big Crusade against social media censorship. The Democrats welcome the actual left getting banned off social media, they hate and fear the left more than they hate and fear Republicans, while the Republicans fight for the right when they get banned.
Dems relished using the far right to get cause to also remove their left ctitics under both sideisms, convinced as they are if we all just pretended they were good they would win.
It is our fault, we did not believe hard enough, but I digress.
Right wing, you can’t control or censor social media.
Right wing, you need to control and censor media
You mean Nazis, that’s how the Nazis operate. Don’t ever sugar coat it.
Schrodinger’s internet.
These nazis are desperate to share Kirk’s fate.
Imagine what would happen if it happened again to another nazi in the near future. They would have no idea who to talk about or what to say.
Of course they would. Hitler himself could appear and do the deed and those mouth breathers would still be like “the left did it!” Hell they’d probably think Hitler was a liberal.
Fuck Charlie Kirk, I hope hell is real so he can burn in it.
Hopefully the idiots who run these tech companies will learn their lesson soon.
“If the thing is free, you’re the product” applies just as much to dinners at the White House as it does to social media apps.
You might have misunderstood what the idiots who run these tech companies want.
Their goal is to make money, preferrably now more than tomorrow. So if licking some boots now will make them money, they will gladly do so.
Do you really think Zuckerberg has an actual stance on content moderation? He doesn’t like it because it costs money, but if it costs him more money to not do it, he will gladly do it.
There is no lession to be learned by those parasites.
Part of my point is that the damage Trump is going to do will cost them tons more money than if they had helped to prop up the fairly safe and civil society they previously were allowed to exist within, under which secure umbrella they’ve been able to rake in money like leaves in autumn on a wide country estate.
And I don’t think it will cost them tons of money. Yes, Trump does and will continue to do a ton of damage, no question about that. But the ultra-rich have money enough to weather the storm, and they have money enough to buy out every competitor who cannot weather the storm for discount prices.
Look at any major crisis in the last 50 years. Every single time without fail the rich benefit from the crisis and make it out with more money and more wealth inequality than before.
I think the crisis of Trump is likely to be worse than any crisis in the Western world for the last 50 years. I think the closest analogue is probably the collapse of the USSR. So yes, some of the rich people upped their wealth by orders of magnitude, and honestly you might be right that Zuck might manage to be one of that category, but also some of them lost everything or got thrown out windows, or had to survive in reduced capacity within their new walled fortresses in the horrifying new meta. I feel like more likely is that the MAGA world will remember Facebook censoring their posts about ivermectin, and not feel like Zuck needs to have a seat at the table, no matter how many ass-kissing sessions he shows up at the White House to do.
For example I feel like breaking up Meta and mandating Truth Social and TikTok as the only new sanctioned social media going forward might be one possible outcome. It’s kind of hard to say and I won’t swear that you’re definitely wrong that he might come out way ahead in the end. I’m just saying that this type of crisis is a very different type of crisis.
and placating right wing Users which the shooter was on SOCIAL media, isnt going to help them.
Is that a surprise? Don’t we know enough that when they talk about freedom of speech, they mean they should be allowed to insult and incite violence against minorities, but critics against them should not be allowed?
I never knew who this prick(kirk) was until he got shot in the neck and died instantly after a disgusting defense of gun rights. I’m glad I know who he WAS now. It’s soothes me when I think about his final words
im not surprised it was CONservative on conservative violence. someone more puritanically conservative kirk killed him.
To me, it’s kind of disappointing that its just another basic bitch right wing turd. I don’t care about image, I just care about brave people acting like chemo therapy and taking out tumors
The thing with chemo is that it’s pure poison.
What about 🥶 🍑
