this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
559 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
68349 readers
4579 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This just reeks of control.
Maybe, but it's an onion of a problem.
We all know how much FB spreads disinfo and brain rot. The positive effect of disabling it feels as significant as the negative effect on freedom of speech.
The dichotomy is very much analogous to how I feel about tiktok bans.
Is it really a problem for freedom of speech, if it's only a platform getting banned and not specific content?
If you are allowed to talk about anything still everywhere else on the web, I can't see the freedom of speech card being valid in this case about FB.
FB is already controlling what you see, making freedom of speech better without them.
Look at what's really happening though: the state is implicitly saying you can have free expression provided your reach is miniscule/ineffectual. The moment you get traction is the moment it will move to block use of your preferred platforms, or simply hard-/algorithmically ban you - it's functionally identical to suppression of speech/association
They rely on the public's credulity when they insist freedoms are intact because 'only one website' is verboten. It's a dirty exploit. In reality, all platform denial should be protested
Facebook exclusively promoted rage bait and is used as a propaganda machine, if anything they're circumventing a free and open space by not showing you everything in the first place.
If Facebook simply gave you a wall of every single thing pushed and didn't hide/promote things you would have a leg to stand on.
I really don't see any downsides, if anything they should ban all the major social media platforms and encourage diversity of platform ownership among the platforms used in the public discourse to strengthen freedom of speech.
Yeah, I understand. Meta is invasive, pervasive, and becomes endemic. I'm in Mexico looking for a place to live. The country runs on WhatsApp.
I agree that Facebook completely sucks, but I disagree that banning any service is worth it from a freedom of speech perspective. Once you let your country ban services it doesn't like, it's one bad administration from banning services critical of it. Don't go down that road.
Agreed. One layer of the onion peeled. Next layer is that all of the content you see is curated and you only are fed fits your profile as dictated by the algorithm. You are served more dopamine hits and churn a lot of nothing.
There's another layer of the onion next. Let's hear what it is.
Sure, and I bailed on Facebook and Meta products long ago because I found their services insidious. I still don't trust a government to decide which services to ban though.
Is my sentence so vague that it appears I'm saying that? Discourse is harder when you deviate from the format.
It's literally never for a good reason. This also includes bans targeted at specific sub populations