“Meta blocks Western propaganda from reaching the Middle East” would be a good title
Lol at the idea of "Western propaganda" being opposed to these regimes. They are friends with Our Greatest Ally, so they are friends with us
Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
261–270 of 512 posts
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m taking it as a given that any sufficiently large social network is a gigantic propaganda machine of interest to domestic and foreign nation-state actors. Entertaining the thought experiment where all the normies join the fediverse: now you’ve got a big juicy target maintained by hobbyists. When it’s Lazarus Group vs Randall, the over-worked sys admin who stood up a node in his spare time, who do you think wins? S…
You are worrying about domestic nation state actors, and you are calling social media to be banned by whom? Some mysterious administrative entity that is surely not a part of the domestic nation state doing the very propaganda you are railing against? Surely the people with the power to ban the lot of social media don't have their own propaganda to shove down your throat. Surely they will only ban the bad ones where…
Shhh if you say too much you’re gonna rattle their “the government will save us if we vote hard enough” worldview
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#263What is a “human rights account”? Another reading of this headline is “Meta blocks western propaganda…l
If it was western propaganda, it would be pro-Saudi and pro-UAE
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#264Do folks have a suggestion for a Facebook alternative? I'm about fed up with the state of things, but still want to feel connected to social circles (even if they're online only) and politics (ideally without the hate spam bots).
For the politics part: join and volunteer for a local political party, even a small one, that aligns with your views.
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#265Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#266Remember when they told us that social media would "spread democracy" ?
“Spread democracy” means “manipulate public opinion to submit to USA”.
That includes censoring content that threatens puppet governments.
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#267Do folks have a suggestion for a Facebook alternative? I'm about fed up with the state of things, but still want to feel connected to social circles (even if they're online only) and politics (ideally without the hate spam bots).
Social is where the people are. If you’re using Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family, the only viable alternative is wherever your friends and family are. Chances are it’s going to be impossible to switch everyone (or even most people) over, so you’re stuck if you care about those connections. Or you can do what I did and simply say “fuck it”. Get rid of your account anyway and deal with the consequences…
The offline world is where the people are.
Social is where the accounts are, many of which have a nonhuman substrate with the goal of coercing alignment out of you.
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#268Social media companies post record earnings year after year from their ads business while increasingly proving to be harmful to society. They do the bare minimum in terms of content moderation and bots while priming the algorithms to maximize revenue. The good ol' privatized profits, socialized harm model. In a just world, would social media platforms be taxed higher on corporate revenue and how would that pan out? M…
> In a just world
In a just world what Zuckerberg and his cronies are doing - the sheer unrelenting tidal wave of destabilising societal damage (nationally, internationally, globally), not to mention the negative consequences of bullying and the exacerbation of mental health issues at individual and group levels over the course of, now, decades - would be considered crimes, and they would all be put on trial, held to account, and appropriately sanctioned for them.
What he's done to individuals, to marginalised and oppressed groups, to societies, and to global stability is far worse than any damage that, for example, Sam Bankman-Fried managed to do and yet somehow SBF is in prison for 25 years and Zuck walks free.
Not OK.
(Not to say SBF doesn't deserve his criminal penalty but to highlight the disconnect where we're not seeing similar treatment of these social media moguls who, at very best, are completely indifferent to the harm they cause but whom, one starts to suspect, are actually gunning for that harm in order to cement their own power and positions.)
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buddy... Are you a doctor? Are you a scientist? Why do you think that you have an inalienable right to proselytize your "health practices" on a public forum? My experience was that there wasn't nearly enough moderation on social media about Covid. The absurd amount of misinformation was the final straw that finally got me to leave Facebook and Instagram.
I see. So you employ the Ad Hominem style fallacies to attack my credibility. No thank you. Unlike you, I listen with an open mind and curiosity. It's led me to an obsession in my health practices as a nearly full-time job for about 10 years, I don't just blindly follow what I'm spoon fed by a doctor or some authority figure. And neither do I blindly call forth the label of "science" to win approval and credibility.
Science is literally the path towards understanding of the world around us through hypothesis, experimentation and study. That's definitionally being open minded and curious.
Your statements imply that we can't trust scientists because of their "authority" and that they just use that position as scientists to nefariously control you?
Why should anyone trust you? "Curiosity", having an "open mind" and "a nearly full-time job for about 10 years" aren't credentials anyone with critical thinking would recognize as reliable.
Whether you like it or not, scientists and doctors have to go through many years of rigorous study and full-time practice for their specific fields and are constantly challenged by their peers in their work place and in academia. That's a more reliable (tho not perfect) set of credentials.
Scientists are intellectually adversarial to each other by nature because all ideas must be challenged (eg peer review) in order for those ideas to become consensus. Science is constantly in a state of change and evolution as incorrect conclusions ideas are abandoned in favor of more correct conclusions, based on new learning.
That's the whole point. Science will get things wrong, it's impossible not to some times, but the global scientific community is constantly seeking to get closer and closer to base "truth" about the world.
Unless you have some other suggestion, I don't see any other way humans can get a clear understanding of the world other than the scientific process and I see no less reliable source than the current global scientific consensus.
Re: Meta blocks human rights accounts from reaching audiences in Saudi Arabia, UAE
#270Is HN just reddit now? The comments on this are beyond stupid and add nothing of value or thought.
No, it's not. There are a lot more thoughtful comments and some questioning the headline for its clickbait. I agree there are a lot more low quality comments, though. It depends on the article.
There has been a bit of a trend. I do appreciate dissenting comments on HN even when I've gotten a bit defensive over them