151–160 of 1001 posts
now it's been normalized and the other party is doing it. but the news outlets have waited until now to start crying wolf?
Will this totally end content moderation? That could be a small silver lining, as content moderation for FB appears to be extremely hazardous to one's mental health: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/22/business/facebook-content-mod...
Obviously exposing the same content which was proven to cause harm to the content moderators to absolutely everybody on the platform will be worse.
Also: perhaps the occasional soul-destroying post would help people break their social media addictions.
From bad to worse. Meta is probably one of the single largest funders of fact checking. Now that appears to be coming to an end. Third parties will no longer be able to flag misinfo on FB, Instagram or Threads in the US. This is not good imho.
Who was checking the fact checkers, when they were wrong quite often?
They've also said there will be more harmful (but legal) content on there as they'll no longer automatically look for it, but require it to be reported before taking action. As someone who worked on harmful content, specifically suicide and self injury, this is just nuts - they were raked over the coals in both the UK by an inquest into the suicide of a teenage user who rabbit holed on this harmful content, and also…
This exactly mirrors my thoughts, although I don't work in your field. One quote: "For example, in December 2024, we removed millions of pieces of content every day. While these actions account for less than 1% of content produced every day, we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes (i.e., the content may not have actually violated our policies)." That is first order data and it's in…
Meta is giving up on the (impossible by design) task of policing their own platform. The result will be even more poisonous to users. Just like cigarette companies using chemicals in the papers so that they burn slower. Does it improve the product? Maybe, along one dimension.
It's a bit more than giving up. They are also going to push more political contents on feed.
during the biden administration they were expected to shift their moderation policies to fit in with the political ideology currently in the white house now it's been normalized and the other party is doing it. but the news outlets have waited until now to start crying wolf?
You can't argue with someone who thinks their beliefs are merely "reality." At least the other side recognizes it as religion, etc.
What I think I just read is that content moderation is complicated, error-prone, and expensive. So Meta is going to do a lot less of it. They'll let you self-moderate via a new community notes system, similar to what X does. I think this is a big win for Meta, because it means people who care about the content being right will have to engage more with the Meta products to ensure their worldview is correctly represent…
The pressure has just shifted from being applied by the left to the right. There is still censorship on Twitter, it is just the people Elon doesn't like who are getting censored. The same will happen on Facebook. Zuckerberg has been cozying up to Trump for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably they don't go both ways. The distinction is action vs inaction. If someone wants action from someone else, they need to argue the case for that action. Arguing for not doing something on the other hand is never necessary. To see why, consider that the space of possible actions someone could not take is infinite. If there's an expectation that someone do a ton of research and work to argue for why they are no…
Choosing not to act is an action. The choice not to moderate certain content is a choice to permit certain content.
during the biden administration they were expected to shift their moderation policies to fit in with the political ideology currently in the white house now it's been normalized and the other party is doing it. but the news outlets have waited until now to start crying wolf?
Maybe, just maybe, it's because most people in the media are Democrats, and therefore inherently self-biased in their concerns and worldviews, and they have a belief that prevents any critical self-examination easily summed up by the Stephen Colbert line that: "reality has a liberal bias." You can't argue with someone who thinks their beliefs are merely "reality." At least the other side recognizes it as religion, et…
https://en.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_we...
I speculated what Zuckerberg wanted and what he'd do when he visited Mar-a-lago[0]: * Push to ban Tiktok * Drop antitrust lawsuits against Meta * Meta will relax "conservative" posts on its platforms * Zuckerberg will donate to Trump's cause So far, Zuckerberg has already donated to Trump's cause. Now he has relaxed "conservative" posts on its platforms directly or indirectly. When Trump comes into power, he'll likel…
I would be really interested in how someone could spin advocating for less moderation and at the same time asking to ban the competitors' social media platforms.