453
Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, claims Human Rights Watch.
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
453 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
59148 readers
2261 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know right? Who would have thought centralised social media owned by surveillance capitalist billionaires could do this?
And we want to allow them to integrate with the Fediverse why, exactly?
Why it’ll make the Fediverse more popular so other big companies join them!
Because that will enable people to see and interact with the things their users post without themselves being under their control.
Because the fediverse is for everyone, even people you don't like.
It's not the people I'm concerned with, it's the objectively evil social media megacorporation.
is it for genocide enablers
Because we are not censorship happy pieces of shit. We judge every statement for what it is, rather than applying guilt by association in three steps.
Most people who want to block Meta from the fediverse want to do it because they want to block people's opinions and statements from reaching them. They want the fediverse to be a "safe space" (a term which thankfully has lost most of its momentum in the last few years) where no dissenting or nuanced opinion is welcome. Somehow you're trying to turn Meta's similar behavior into an argument against them, even though it's an example of both organizations doing similar things (prohibiting unwanted opinions).
No, sane members here just don't want to see pro-corporate horseshit, bots and Meta's psyop motherfuckers trying to shape opinions here with their corporate agenda like they already do on their own platform. If users themselves want to attempt this sort of thing, that's on them and we can deal with that. Meta is guilty preemptively, and we should not treat them as if they aren't. This is just yet more proof. The fact that Meta does this is not an "opinion." It's a fact. The type of agenda they're pushing, whoever they're pro or against is irrelevant. It's the attempt to push that matters.
And we already ban tons of content here. Try posting some pro-Nazi stuff, for instance, and see what happens. There are a whole host of actions and topics that are explicitly prohibited just in the lemmy.world ToS. Trying to claim that there's no censorship on this instance or in the Fediverse as a whole is such a monumentally stupid fucking statement that no one can take anything else you said seriously.
Go shill for your megacorporation somewhere else.
Why do all of you people reply like this as though you're objectively correct?
I am not claiming that there's no censorship in the fediverse. I'm claiming that there is censorship, meaning that the fact that Meta also uses censorship is no argument against them. You censor people you call nazis, they censor people who think three generations of occupation in Palestine is a bad thing. Both have problems. This piece of news about Meta censorship is not an argument against federation.
This piece of news is more proof (as if we didn't already have enough) that Meta specifically is an entity that cannot be trusted to act in good faith, and therefore integrating with them is a risk we should not take. In case you cannot understand this concept, remember that instances that are generally accepted as harmful due to their content, behavior, or just who operates them are already defederated with most/all other major instances, for good reason. This is no different. Except for one detail: We already have decades of experience with Meta/Facebook and their evil, monopolistic, and user hostile behavior. They are a known quantity to us.
You were the one who tried to narrow the goalposts to make the argument specifically only about censorship. All of Meta's bad behavior is valid cause for concern. Institutionalized politically motivated censorship is just one aspect of it. What we do and don't allow on our own particular instances has no bearing on it. Trying to bleat "both sides bad" is not a valid argument in this case.
You are not acting in good faith when you are arguing that your members should be blocked from communicating with anybody on Meta servers, because of guilt by association. What you don't allow on your particular instances has great bearing, because it shows that you are no different from them, other than in which opinions you consider to be worthy of suppressing.
Meta: Mass suppression of users and political topics, overt attempts at manipulation of public opinion via bots and paid shills, deliberate construction of their algorithms to display specific content targeted at users designed to sway their opinion or get them to buy something, ads, massive violations of privacy, spying, tracking, mishandling of user data, tacit approval of hate speech and fascist rhetoric, and flagrant violation of both domestic and foreign laws.
Me: Hey, we can see what they're doing over there and we really shouldn't let them bring it over here.
You: "YoU'rE BoTh ThE SaMe!!!!!!!!"
Do you actually believe the horseshit you're spouting, or are you just that out of touch with reality?
Grow up. It is not possible for you to hide from the real world. The suppression of opinion in the fediverse is real. You admit so yourself two comments above. You call them nazis and evil, which is childish and unproductive. Have you considered communicating with those with different opinions instead of attempting to ban them from participation in society?
You really just advocated for not excluding Nazis from society.
And, your true colors are shown. Good job.
No. I advocated for people that imbeciles call nazis to not be excluded from society. There is a significant difference, but if you live inside a bubble, like some fediverse serverse, you might be so brain washed that you think everybody who thinks a little bit different from you is a nazi. They're not.