I'm in Europe and I also have the democrat hashtag hidden but not the republican one. Between this and Musk salutes, it's very concerning.
Meta is obviously segregating has tags based on politics behind the scenes, the question is why?
Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
151–160 of 188 posts
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#152I understand that this post is flagged because it can start flame wars and “not curious conversations”, but I’m curious about what people here from different parts of the world are seeing for these search terms. If censorship is indeed happening either due to manual flags or “AI” algorithms, people need to know what’s happening and if this is just anecdotal or geography specific or could be spreading to other countri…
HN flags and removes lots of this sort of discussion for not aligning with their goals (imho, anecdotally). Censorship is a creeping disease that already has its foot over the winning line.
foot over the winning line? bratna, they've been dancing in the endzone for well over a decade, arguably since the mid 2000s when the W Bush media convinced the average voter to "support the troops" even if they're against fighting two wars at once.
this isn't foot over, this is consolidation. to quote a marvel movie: "we're in the endgame now"
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Decentralisation is a socio-political solution, not a technical solution. It directly addresses the problem of media ownership and proliferation.
It's a limited solution at best. You can't win a tech arms race with the very people who control the core infrastructure, write the laws and run the police. Just ask the pro-Democracy protestors in Hong Kong.
That wasn't a tech arms race, that was military & police domination.
We have a heavily contested information space, & so far we are still not an authoritarian state. It seems defeatist I'm extremely to say it's not worth trying to build a better less manipulable less privately controlled information space. It seems obvious that there's still time & patriotic as hell - fully committed to democracy & people, over large institutions & powers.
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#154This sounds like Zuck didn't understand the whole push-back on censorship from Big Tech. It wasn't about censoring "the other folk" it's about not censoring.
Allow discourse and stop putting your finger on the scale, dammit.
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#155#fuckbiden works, #fucktrump gets censored. They better have a good explanation for why this is a bug.
I doubt it's a bug. I do think it's stupidity.
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#156- "It violates freedom of speech!" - "This is a free market; if you do not like it use another platform!" - "I thought $conglomerate" had our back! They had rainbows and all; is that all it took them to fold"? - "No, this is not a systemic issue; conversation needs to be steered away from attacking the system and rather its a few bad apples! Go after them and stop asking for systemic changes!" - "Any attempt at regul…
I am against almost all kinds of censorship, the only times I personally believe things should be censored if it's inciting violence/death threats to people. And even then I feel like censorship is probably the wrong way to do it. And from that perspective, these quotes you're currently touting are ripped out of their context, making them sound asinine despite being mostly on point, fundamentally. Twitter, Facebook,…
Companies that try to turn themselves into the infrastructure of the internet and then control it can fuck right off, private or not. Here's an example of where the Supreme Court agrees:
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> salute Salutes. He did it more than once in that speech. In full, hand to chest and all.
Nearly half a trillion dollars of net worth must make him feel untouchable. The SEC can’t touch him when he says “funding secured” (it wasn’t). Nor can they do anything to him when he secretly bought Twitter shares. Because he’s so engrained with the government he’s untouchable. SpaceX is doing stuff NASA only dreams of. Nobody built out starlink to the volume that he did and so now he can play king maker in war zone…
Regarding Rome. I am thinking the same and what comes to my mind is Caesar. Trump crossed the Rubicon on January 6 and prevailed. Now history will tell how far this analogy will hold but what makes me think of it as fitting is that it marked the end of the Republic and from then on Rome was ruled by emperors and family clans.
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had this kind of discussions before but unfortunately it is usually a waste of time, as any consensus amongst experts is waved away. > He has shown support for free markets, reducing regulations, reducing taxes/gov. spending (within budget and small at that) and for limited government in general. How is that support for the National-Socialists? I think this sentence already is quite telling. For example, Nazi priva…
Why can't you discuss sincerely and directly to the point? Why do you start with: "it's a waste of time", "this is telling", "the ExP3rtz said this.." Stop moving the goal posts - I asked for direct examples, you say why didn't he supported parties in France and Spain. NAZI Germany had total control over the economy. If you are contesting this point, there is nothing for me to discuss further with you. They also had…
You keep pretending you know what you are talking about, and yet, you are strongly downvoted.
Your description of the nazi Germany is caricatural, and does not correspond to the reality. Funk was strongly pro-market, and was in disagreement with some of Hitler choices, and yet was not merely executed and was still 100% a nazi, because the reality is not a Disney movie with caricatural villains.
I have given direct example such as he supports for AfD that makes only sense if he adhere to some of their values (as demonstrated, if he does not adhere to some of their values, why did he single them out), and those values are recognized by "the ExP3rtz", aka people who know way better than you (thanks of proving me right that you would behave exactly that way, btw), as following in the tradition of the nazis.
As for the rest, your turn to provide some arguments. But don't worry, I will not answer, as nobody is reading this because you have been massively downvoted, not because of "bad censorship" but because what you say is poor and stupid.
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What about?"
Yes, precedent is actually important. Using "whataboutism" because it's a trendy buzzword doesn't make precedent any less important.
It's not a buzzword, using the precedent to actually expose how it applies is valid, using whataboutism to deflect from the main point as a red herring is just a fallacy.
It creates the false equivalence that because there was censorship against actual harmful speech then it's valid to censor a neutral term like "Democrats", without ever trying to differentiate how the level and degree of what was censored before is quite different from this instance.
If you don't see that I'm quite disappointed, whataboutism is a deflection, it's a "you too" argument which is rather pathetic.
Re: Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your internet provider is also a private company. Do you think it should be free to censor you and close your contract if you visit websites they don't agree with?
While youre touching on a real issue, your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly. What you're actually putting forth is wherever large social media platforms should be treated as utilities. (Which ISPs are). If the legislative decided to categorize it as a utility, then any censorship the company decided to do could potentially infringe on your free speech, yes. Howev…
> your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.
I've understood it very well, I find it very funny that people which say stuff like Google is a private company and should do what it wants are the same people which say Google should respect net-neutrality (peering agreements, ...) and not do what it wants when it's about core networking and not social media.