The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

[Smoove_B]

I think this goes here?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company's moderation policies and practices Tuesday, citing a shifting political and social landscape and a desire to embrace free speech.

Zuckerberg said that Meta will end its fact-checking program with trusted partners and replace it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes.

The company is also making changes to its content moderation policies around political topics, and undoing changes that reduced the amount of political content in user feeds, Zuckerberg said.

The changes will affect Facebook and Instagram, two of the largest social media platforms in the world, each boasting billions of users, as well as Threads.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that yesterday Meta named UFC CEO Dana White - an ardent Trump supporter - to their board.

[Max Peck]

The enshittification will continue until morale improves.

[Victoria Raverna]

No more fact checkers?



Freedom of press is going to be history?

[LordMortis]

This feels a lot more like bending the knee. Meta/Zuck will fear retribution against his world citizeness a lot more than Bezos' Enterprises with the exception of Bezos' space toys.

[Max Peck]

This feels a lot more like bending the knee. Meta/Zuck will fear retribution against his world citizeness a lot more than Bezos' Enterprises with the exception of Bezos' space toys.

I'm pretty sure Bezos wouldn't like what a hostile MAGAdministration could do to Amazon via selective economic policies.

If you don't like the whole "bending the knee" characterization, just think of it as the billionaire class openly realigning with the authoritarians. The rich and powerful want to be richer and more powerful, so if the trend is toward dystopia then they're hopping on that train.

Case in point:

[LordMortis]

If you don't like the whole "bending the knee" characterization, just think of it as the billionaire class openly realigning with the authoritarians. The rich and powerful want to be richer and more powerful, so if the trend is toward dystopia then they're hopping on that train.

That much is clear as the air before the industrial revolution began.

[$iljanus]

I think this goes here?

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a series of major changes to the company's moderation policies and practices Tuesday, citing a shifting political and social landscape and a desire to embrace free speech.

Zuckerberg said that Meta will end its fact-checking program with trusted partners and replace it with a community-driven system similar to X’s Community Notes.

The company is also making changes to its content moderation policies around political topics, and undoing changes that reduced the amount of political content in user feeds, Zuckerberg said.

The changes will affect Facebook and Instagram, two of the largest social media platforms in the world, each boasting billions of users, as well as Threads.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that yesterday Meta named UFC CEO Dana White - an ardent Trump supporter - to their board.

Fact checking isn't a profit generator but letting people post unfettered opinions is. How many people will really quit Facebook because they're no longer moderating their content? Facebook isn't a news organization. It just happens to be a medium where people share news and pictures of grandchildren and cats. So why spend resources on moderation that isn't core part of their mission which is to profit off of people making connections? If the winds shift and people leave in mass then it's easy enough to re-institute fact checking. And where else are they going to go to get their online community? (they should check out this forum I know... )How many people say they ignore all the political stuff but are active participants in various non political groups (gaming, antique cars, knitting, etc.) on Facebook? Until then, feel free to share your recipes and conspiracies, America! This is the system you want! Are you not entertained...?

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, that's why I wasn't entirely sure if it was best placed here or some other thread (that I didn't see). Social media isn't *technically* the 4th Estate, but maybe it's in some other quasi-estate in the modern world where they aren't delivering news but instead controlling what news you see?

I dunno. It's pretty clear why Musk purchased Twitter. It's also pretty clear this will likely also shape how news is being shared (generated?) on Facebook and Meta.

We're in a weird spot, I think. My dad is spiraling because his daily newspaper has shut down print production and gone completely online. So now he's either going to try and read it online (doubtful) or get his news another way. It was already bad enough when he'd share information with me that I'd seen online days or weeks before; the idea that social media will become the defacto supplier of news is kinda scary as it's clear we do not have people at the helm that are interested in saving democracy.

[$iljanus]

I'll allow it this time Smoove...

In the 21st century Facebook, X, Bluesky, etc belong in this thread because they're distributing news but aren't bound by the journalistic norms. Even so, mainstream journalists use X all the time. And back in the golden age of Twitter, suppressed voices were able to report news from repressive regimes.

In the end though, all these companies that had such lofty ideas in the beginning like "do no evil" Google, Twitter and even Facebook are there to make cash which isn't very surprising because we are a capitalist society. And sure there's quite a bit of sucking up to the new regime and reaping the benefits but I think they're happy to have an excuse to jettison their moderation staff because if it's not making money why pay em?

[Smoove_B]

What about this?

Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary said he wants to buy TikTok but he needs President-elect Donald Trump’s help to pull off the deal.

O’Leary, dubbed the reality TV show’s “Mr Wonderful,” said he has joined with the People’s Bid for TikTok project’s Frank McCourt in the potential multi-billion dollar deal as the Chinese company behind the app awaits its fate in the U.S. later this month. The People’s Bid for TikTok is a group looking to purchase the popular platform and save it from a ban.

“Trump will be who we have to work with to close the deal in the months ahead,” O’Leary said on Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum on Monday.

“So I wanted to let him know, as well as others in his cabinet, that we’re doing this, and we’re going to need their help.”

America. What a run we had, eh?

[El Guapo]

I mean, France is on its *fifth* republic, and it started on this democracy thing after us. So relative to that, we're doing pretty well.

[LawBeefaroni]

What about this?

Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary said he wants to buy TikTok but he needs President-elect Donald Trump’s help to pull off the deal.

O’Leary, dubbed the reality TV show’s “Mr Wonderful,” said he has joined with the People’s Bid for TikTok project’s Frank McCourt in the potential multi-billion dollar deal as the Chinese company behind the app awaits its fate in the U.S. later this month. The People’s Bid for TikTok is a group looking to purchase the popular platform and save it from a ban.

“Trump will be who we have to work with to close the deal in the months ahead,” O’Leary said on Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum on Monday.

“So I wanted to let him know, as well as others in his cabinet, that we’re doing this, and we’re going to need their help.”

America. What a run we had, eh?

O'Leary is a joke. He's begging for a handout here.

[Holman]

I mean, France is on its *fifth* republic, and it started on this democracy thing after us. So relative to that, we're doing pretty well.

To be fair, we've had a number of all-but-resets as well.

The Louisiana-Purchase opening of the West, the rush to California, the Civil War crisis, Reconstruction, the end of Reconstruction, the New Deal, the Great Society, and even the so-called "Reagan Revolution" and its neoliberal aftermath could all be considered reboots of the American political CPU. We just don't call it a new republic when we change the basic rules.

We're probably doing it again this month, and it's going to absolutely fucking suck.

[Zarathud]

O'Leary is a joke. He's begging for a handout here.

He is the guy who will steal all your profits through royalties.

[Skinypupy]

Fact checking isn't a profit generator but letting people post unfettered opinions is. How many people will really quit Facebook because they're no longer moderating their content? Facebook isn't a news organization. It just happens to be a medium where people share news and pictures of grandchildren and cats. So why spend resources on moderation that isn't core part of their mission which is to profit off of people making connections? If the winds shift and people leave in mass then it's easy enough to re-institute fact checking. And where else are they going to go to get their online community? (they should check out this forum I know... )How many people say they ignore all the political stuff but are active participants in various non political groups (gaming, antique cars, knitting, etc.) on Facebook? Until then, feel free to share your recipes and conspiracies, America! This is the system you want! Are you not entertained...?

As someone who has mostly purged their FB of anyone who talks politics, I have wondered how big of an impact removing their fact-checkers will be. I truly do only see "pictures of kids and cats" in my feed (mine is more "board games and metal bands", but the point stands) and honestly had no idea that FB even had fact checkers because I'm not connected to anyone who might post anything that requires it. On the very rare occasion that MAGA nonsense did happen to break through, it never seemed to had any sort of moderation or "community note" attached. So I just assumed that FB had always been fair game for whatever bullshit people felt like spewing without any restrictions. Had they been actively moderating that stuff before?

It seems like the "kids and cats" are far more the user norm these days, but perhaps that's only because it's all I see in my curated FB bubble.

[LordMortis]

I have no idea when they started fact checking or how pervasive it was. It was long after I purged my feed of propaganda from all directions. "Federalist" nonsense was the absolute worst but "Occupy Democrats" were no bastions of truth either. I left a good deal of friends and family from mindless posting from these two sources alone. It took a while but now the political feed I have left is at least real and has been for getting on a decade now, even as I had to checkout for a good chunk of it as even without propaganda I found myself getting wound too tight.

[Zarathud]

The unfiltered algorithm is only acceptable to Republicans because it reinforces their political strategy — driving voters to profit and electoral wins through fear and hate. If engagement was driven by liberal ideas, they would be first in line for bans and regulation.

[Kraken]

Apart from friends and family, I mainly follow science/tech and history pages. Already, the unmoderated pages -- which is most of them -- draw at least 1/3 of their engagement from flat earthers, moon landing deniers, EV haters, global warming hoaxers, etc. Hard to imagine that getting any worse since nobody's censoring them now. I've learned not to open the comments if the laughing emoji is present.

[$iljanus]

The unfiltered algorithm is only acceptable to Republicans China and Russia because it reinforces their political geopolitical strategy — driving voters to profit and electoral wins distrust their political system through fear and hate regardless of party. If engagement was driven by liberal ideas, they would be first in line for bans and regulation.

FTFY

[Isgrimnur]

Calling women ‘household objects’ now permitted on Facebook after Meta updated its guidelines

Users are now allowed to, for example, refer to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it,’” according to a section of the policy prohibiting such speech that was crossed out. A new section of the policy notes Meta will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”

[Skinypupy]

Calling women ‘household objects’ now permitted on Facebook after Meta updated its guidelines

Users are now allowed to, for example, refer to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it,’” according to a section of the policy prohibiting such speech that was crossed out. A new section of the policy notes Meta will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”

Further proof that modern conservatism is mostly just a competition to see who can be the biggest asshole in any given public space.

[hepcat]

I feel like the GOP decided to become the Libertarian party at some point and made their platform almost entirely "we should be allowed to do whatever the fuck we want".

[LordMortis]

I feel like the GOP decided to become the Libertarian party at some point and made their platform almost entirely "we should be allowed to do whatever the fuck we want".

And not pay for anything!

[Holman]

I feel like the GOP decided to become the Libertarian party at some point and made their platform almost entirely "we should be allowed to do whatever the fuck we want".

"And *you* shouldn't!"

Authoritarianism isn't liberty. It insists that there will be a in-group that the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group that the law binds but does not protect.

[Kurth]

Calling women ‘household objects’ now permitted on Facebook after Meta updated its guidelines

Users are now allowed to, for example, refer to “women as household objects or property” or “transgender or non-binary people as ‘it,’” according to a section of the policy prohibiting such speech that was crossed out. A new section of the policy notes Meta will allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality.”

I don’t frequent FB. Barely ever, in fact. But I wasn’t aware that those statements were previously being censored, and I wonder on what basis.

I read that headline on CNN, too, and it struck me as kind of odd. Why would FB censor those statements?

If you want to be some misogynistic asshat who thinks men should treat their women like household objects or property, why should FB be the one to stop you? If you want to be an asshole and misgender (or non-gender, I guess) trans and binary people, you suck, but I don’t think it’s FB’s job to censor your posts.

People have a right to hold offensive positions. They also have a right to share those offensive positions. Of course, FB is not the government, so it can institute pretty much whatever censorship policies it wants to with respect to positions it finds to be too offensive to tolerate. But do we really want FB or other social media platforms determining that for us?

I’m no FB or Zuckerberg fan, and I’m definitely not an Elon Musk-style free speech absolutist (even though he’s a total hypocrite on that point). But I think there’s a real danger in silencing views because you are offended by them.

[Max Peck]

It's weird that Meta seems to be specifically allowing this sort of thing if it targets LGBT+ people, but not for other targetted groups.

“We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’” In other words, it is now permitted to call gay people mentally ill on Facebook, Threads and Instagram. Other slurs and what Meta calls “harmful stereotypes historically linked to intimidation” — such as Blackface and Holocaust denial — are still prohibited.

The Menlo Park, California-based company also removed a sentence from its “policy rationale” explaining why it bans certain hateful conduct. The now-deleted sentence said that hate speech “creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and in some cases may promote offline violence.”

It boggles my mind that they don't associate hate speech targetting LGBT+ people with "harmful stereotypes linked to intimidation" but I guess they get to pick and choose depending on whatever keeps the Magadministration off their back.

Anyway, if Zuck wants to make his platform as much of a sewer as Leon's, it's a free world (more for some people than for others, naturally).

[Alefroth]

If you want to be some misogynistic asshat who thinks men should treat their women like household objects or property, why should FB be the one to stop you?

Why shouldn't they? Why can't they have the freedom to make whatever business decision they want?

[Kraken]

If you want to be some misogynistic asshat who thinks men should treat their women like household objects or property, why should FB be the one to stop you?

Why shouldn't they? Why can't they have the freedom to make whatever business decision they want?

They've made their decision. (And "they" are Zuck.)

[LordMortis]

Anyway, if Zuck wants to make his platform as much of a sewer as Leon's, it's a free world (more for some people than for others, naturally).

With my feed so culled I don't see the sewer anymore. It was very much full of garbage before the culling. I would have had no idea things changed and I would guess that it changed so little I wouldn't have noticed or if all of this "fact checking" or banning of hatred was present back then, then it did a pretty bad job.

[Max Peck]

The problem isn't that they're getting rid of fact checking. The problem is that they are specifically altering policies so as to allow hate speech targeting all those groups that the Magats hate, and by drawing attention to it they're implicitly encouraging it.

Meta's new policies open gate to hate

Under Meta's newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called "filth," users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an "it."

Why it matters: Meta's move to do away with third-party fact checkers made headlines, but some experts are even more troubled by policy shifts they say could chill online speech and lead to more real-world violence.

Zoom in: Meta's revised policy around hateful conduct (previously referred to as "hate speech") removes some prohibitions entirely, while also making new exceptions that allow people who are women, transgender, gay or immigrants to be targeted in ways prohibited for other groups.

Apparently you still can't do a Holocaust denial, so at least they aren't quite at the point of catering to the actual Nazis just yet, so I guess that's good.

[Smoove_B]

So weird that these policies are only affecting Facebook and Meta accounts in the United States. If you live elsewhere, they're still fact checking and restricting hate speech.

Can't imagine why that would be.

DO NOT OBEY IN ADVANCE

[Zarathud]

If you want to be some misogynistic asshat who thinks men should treat their women like household objects or property, why should FB be the one to stop you?

Why shouldn't they? Why can't they have the freedom to make whatever business decision they want?

It used to be called “polite society.” The old social networks were brutal in punishing those who offended. You can be an asshole, but you can take the consequences too.

[El Guapo]

So weird that these policies are only affecting Facebook and Meta accounts in the United States. If you live elsewhere, they're still fact checking and restricting hate speech.

Can't imagine why that would be.

DO NOT OBEY IN ADVANCE

In Europe at least a lot of countries have laws requiring this type of network policing.

[Smoove_B]

...and clearly America is better as a nation for not having similar laws and restrictions.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[baelthazar]

DO NOT OBEY IN ADVANCE

This, this right here. When the government (Trump) comes to punish those he doesn't like - make it visible, uncomfortable, and highlight how petty he is. Sunlight is the best disinfectant against tyranny.

But these media owners know where their bread is buttered, which is why they are bending the knee. They don't want to fight the government on our behalf. They want to ally with the government to screw us out of more of our money for shittier products. Enshittification is the new motto for the US.

[Alefroth]

If you want to be some misogynistic asshat who thinks men should treat their women like household objects or property, why should FB be the one to stop you?

Why shouldn't they? Why can't they have the freedom to make whatever business decision they want?

It used to be called “polite society.” The old social networks were brutal in punishing those who offended. You can be an asshole, but you can take the consequences too.

It just makes sense that a business would want to curtail behavior that offends or intimidates a large portion of their customers. A restaurant wouldn't tolerate someone standing on a table yelling slurs.

[Kurth]

If you want to be some misogynistic asshat who thinks men should treat their women like household objects or property, why should FB be the one to stop you?

Why shouldn't they? Why can't they have the freedom to make whatever business decision they want?

They obviously have that freedom, as we are seeing right now.

The question is whether we, as a society and consuming public, should want them to be censoring offensive content.

And then, the further question is, if we do or do not want them to be taking that action, will we vote with our virtual feet and leave if we don’t like what they are doing?

[Smoove_B]

They obviously have that freedom, as we are seeing right now.

The question is whether we, as a society and consuming public, should want them to be censoring offensive content.

And then, the further question is, if we do or do not want them to be taking that action, will we vote with our virtual feet and leave if we don’t like what they are doing?

Here's the thing. Like it or not social media (Facebook, Twitter/X, etc...) has become a sort of quasi public utility. I'm not sure if that's the best descriptor, but it has replaced (for a large number of people) the way they get public information. Here, I'm talking about local and regional news and more importantly, emergency notifications. I guess in some ways they're functioning a bit like a public access cable channel, but even that isn't quite right.

My point here is that since Musk took over Twitter/X and starting doing Musk things, government agencies, utilities, non-profits, emergency management, etc... has absolutely fled the platform - and we're collectively diminished for it. It was readily obvious during the Hurricane that hit the mountains of North Carolina where you had people actively sharing misinformation plus emergency information was just *gone* because those agencies (and individuals) have left the platform. This just happened again with the Palisades fire - misinformation and a lack of good, useful information being shared on social networks.

I've mentioned it before, but what was built on Twitter over a decade was unparalleled in terms of public agencies sharing information - good information. But Elon accelerated the poisoning of the service and there's just no way to re-create that same network on BlueSky (or anything else) currently. They're trying - and it's better than it was a year ago - but it's going to take a long time.

I think my point is, for a long time these social networking apps behaved in a way that suggested they understood they were contributing to overall society in a positive way. I know that can be argued for various reasons, but there seemed to be an understanding that it was in their best interest to act like community members and at least try to make sure they weren't actively working against social order.

That restriction (or obligation) has seemingly disappeared over the last year and it actually seems to be accelerating - how quickly they're letting the bad actors take over.

So you say "walk away" with our virtual feet and sure, I guess if you don't want to stay connected with Aunt Helen or see your 50 year old cousin Cynthia post updates about her 25 year old boyfriend, I guess walking away is reasonable. But as someone that used Twitter professionally (like as in used it to get information about my profession, not that I was being paid to Tweet) I can tell you we've slid backwards. I have no doubts the response in North Carolina and now in California have been impacted negatively and that people suffered as a result of not having access to good, useful information during an emergency.

Anyway, that's where I stand.

[Alefroth]

The question is whether we, as a society and consuming public, should want them to be censoring offensive content.

Personally, I want them to. Without it, a social media platform is useless.

And then, the further question is, if we do or do not want them to be taking that action, will we vote with our virtual feet and leave if we don’t like what they are doing?

If I don't like an unmoderated platform, I can leave. By the same token, someone that doesn't like not being able to say whatever they want can leave. Let the consumers decide which model they prefer.

[GreenGoo]

They obviously have that freedom, as we are seeing right now.

The question is whether we, as a society and consuming public, should want them to be censoring offensive content.

I think the real question is whether you want bots, foreign governments and right wing extremists flooding the marketplace of ideas until everything else is drowned out.

I don't have an answer to what happens when Freedom of Speech results in the promotion of evil, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't wait to see how it all plays out, given, you know, history. Freedom of speech is turning into Freedom to propaganda. Should there be limits on propaganda?