Zuckerberg announces changes to Meta, no more Censorship, no more fact checkers

[ArbitraryWater]

Mentions feeling cultural change since Trump win.


https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/


:lol


**** is going on.



"liberals" fuming people will have more freedom of speech.

[Bill Gates]

I mostly agree with Zuck here, weird that he announces this at the same time that Musk announces that X will start silencing negativity. I think both are trying to expand to each other's crowds. Neither want to pin themselves as being only for the left or right.

I will say that I do not think censorship has ever been as noteworthy for Zuck as it is for Twitter. Because FB is more or less just families sharing baby pics with each other, and Insta is sharing photos and imagery. Whereas Twitter is sharing ideas/info and making statements which is much more prone to censorship issues. Twitter is so much more political by nature than FB or Insta.

[Hey Yo]

Funny how he says that the Biden administration made him do the censorship. Yeah, easy to say you had no choice or that you were forced now that the libs are out of office.

[Hey Yo]

RIP fact checkers


https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1876750173323329802?t=NuCZtPnNfiVCl-20VZ1jEg&s=19

[Bill Gates]

I'm with Zuck here. Everyone should want the "fact" but Meta is going "Community Note" style because the reality is that most debates have no clear fact and are grey in nature. And like Zuck says it is unfair for any entity to be the defacto "arbiters of the truth".

It was Jack Dorsey who spearheaded the Community Note system, because he saw the flaw in Twitter trying to decide what is or isn't the truth. He got that one right.

[Patrick Chewing]

How much more winning can Trump and MAGA get??

Off the Court and blade are on definite suicide watch.

[Bill Gates]

Even though I agree with the change, I do sense that Zuck fears Trump and Elon.

Government ruling over the media is not in our best interest. The media needs to be able to act on it's own, even if it has bias.

[Patrick Chewing]

I just remember how funny it was when fascists like RRR3, blade, and Off the Court used to come on here and defend Twitter and Facebook when they were obviously censoring Conservative voices by telling us that these were private companies and they could do whatever the hell they wanted. And look at how well that has turned out for them :oldlol:. Twitter was sold to Elon and the truth of their biases was discovered, and now Zuckerberg has had to apologize in front of Congress and change the way the platform operates. Proof positive that you cannot silence the will of the people, no matter how powerful you are.

[highwhey]

I just remember how funny it was when fascists like RRR3, blade, and Off the Court used to come on here and defend Twitter and Facebook when they were obviously censoring Conservative voices by telling us that these were private companies and they could do whatever the hell they wanted. And look at how well that has turned out for them :oldlol:. Twitter was sold to Elon and the truth of their biases was discovered, and now Zuckerberg has had to apologize in front of Congress and change the way the platform operates. Proof positive that you cannot silence the will of the people, no matter how powerful you are.

both platforms seem to be doing well. twitter sold for 44 billion dollars. and meta platforms has an all time share price as well as an all time high revenue for 2024.

[ArbitraryWater]

I mostly agree with Zuck here, weird that he announces this at the same time that Musk announces that X will start silencing negativity. I think both are trying to expand to each other's crowds. Neither want to pin themselves as being only for the left or right.

I will say that I do not think censorship has ever been as noteworthy for Zuck as it is for Twitter. Because FB is more or less just families sharing baby pics with each other, and Insta is sharing photos and imagery. Whereas Twitter is sharing ideas/info and making statements which is much more prone to censorship issues. Twitter is so much more political by nature than FB or Insta.


Facebook was peak covid censorship. There is a lot of political talk on facebook. Its really not much different than twitter.

[Bill Gates]

Facebook was peak covid censorship. There is a lot of political talk on facebook. Its really not much different than twitter.

It's completely different. I'm on both. Official statements by noteworthy individuals are much more common on Twitter. And seen and shared much more on other sites.

Niether had any censorship when it was one individual replying to another and generally speaking all opinions were readily found regardless. At any given time you could find people saying that I put microchips in the vaccine.

[Bill Gates]

Community Notes IS Fact Checking. It's just not done by Meta, so people can't accuse it of being biased. Which is why Dorsey created it for Twitter. Someone else has to do the fact Checking, and that's what Community Notes is.

And everyone should want the FACTs. If you're anti-Facts you've lost your way.

[StickyWice]

both platforms seem to be doing well. twitter sold for 44 billion dollars. and meta platforms has an all time share price as well as an all time high revenue for 2024.

What chu talking bout? Valuation down 80% after elon buy

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-fidelity/index.html

no good. business and politics no good mix. it like concrete and oil for you mexicans

[ArbitraryWater]

What chu talking bout? Valuation down 80% after elon buy

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-fidelity/index.html

no good. business and politics no good mix. it like concrete and oil for you mexicans

how did they mix in politics? :D

[ArbitraryWater]

It's completely different. I'm on both. Official statements by noteworthy individuals are much more common on Twitter. And seen and shared much more on other sites.

Niether had any censorship when it was one individual replying to another and generally speaking all opinions were readily found regardless. At any given time you could find people saying that I put microchips in the vaccine.

thats a ludicrous claim that they dont care to fact check.

they dont fact check someone saying the sky is green.

they only fact check debatable things where they decide what the narrative is.

[Bill Gates]

thats a ludicrous claim that they dont care to fact check.

they dont fact check someone saying the sky is green.

they only fact check debatable things where they decide what the narrative is.

You missed my point. ONLY posts/tweets that got lots of attention were fact-checked. That is the same situation with Community Notes.

Nobodies with only 100 followers could still reply with whatever claims and not get checked. And if someone noteworthy posted or tweeted "the vaccine is safe" there were always a thousand replies saying "no it isn't".

[j3lademaster]

Meta up 183%. Their engineers bout to make 7 figs this year.

[ZenMaster]

You missed my point. ONLY posts/tweets that got lots of attention were fact-checked. That is the same situation with Community Notes.

Nobodies with only 100 followers could still reply with whatever claims and not get checked. And if someone noteworthy posted or tweeted "the vaccine is safe" there were always a thousand replies saying "no it isn't".

I wonder if you're being disingenuous or you just don't know any better.
Groups for people with vaccine injury were deleted, doctors who argued for ivermectin had their accounts deleted, and you couldn't share links to certain sites in your posts or through messenger.

[highwhey]

I wonder if you're being disingenuous or you just don't know any better.
Groups for people with vaccine injury were deleted, doctors who argued for ivermectin had their accounts deleted, and you couldn't share links to certain sites in your posts or through messenger.

and for good cause, that was all blatantly bad information. where are all the vaccine deaths? and ivermectin did not cure covid.

[Bill Gates]

I wonder if you're being disingenuous or you just don't know any better.
Groups for people with vaccine injury were deleted, doctors who argued for ivermectin had their accounts deleted, and you couldn't share links to certain sites in your posts or through messenger.

You're the one being disingenuous, "Ivermectin" was probably trending on Twitter 100 different times during covid. It was HIGHLY debated all over, by millions of users. But here you are pretending like it was some secret cure that you couldn't find on social media. Give me a break.

[ZenMaster]

You're the one being disingenuous, "Ivermectin" was probably trending on Twitter 100 different times during covid. It was HIGHLY debated all over, by millions of users. But here you are pretending like it was some secret cure that you couldn't find on social media. Give me a break.

i didn't say it was some secret cure that wasn't discussed, I said that doctors were censored, same as with the US President who was banned from both platforms in 2021, that groups with people discussing vaccine injury experiences were deleted, and that you couldn't link to certain sites in posts and messages.

[Bill Gates]

i didn't say it was some secret cure that wasn't discussed, I said that doctors were censored, same as with the US President who was banned from both platforms in 2021, that groups with people discussing vaccine injury experiences were deleted, and that you couldn't link to certain sites in posts and messages.
You're just repeating my point then. Tweets and posts that got lots of attention were either fact checked or deleted, BUT overall it did nothing because there was tons of attention to the subject by millions. The whole world knows what Ivermectin is and it was all over social media.

Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Streisand effect started to become understood and I'm sure Zuck is aware of it. Every time something was banned, all it did was put it under a microscope. It often had the opposite effect of what they wanted.

Overall Zuck is just making a business move, which is why all this stuff is being announced by him AFTER the election. Had Kamala won, he would not being doing this. He is bowing down to Trump and Elon, and honestly a conspiracy guy like yourself should be concerned.

[ZenMaster]

You're just repeating my point then. Tweets and posts that got lots of attention were either fact checked or deleted, BUT overall it did nothing because there was tons of attention to the subject by millions. The whole world knows what Ivermectin is and it was all over social media.

Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Streisand effect started to become understood and I'm sure Zuck is aware of it. Every time something was banned, all it did was put it under a microscope. It often had the opposite effect of what they wanted.

Overall Zuck is just making a business move, which is why all this stuff is being announced by him AFTER the election. Had Kamala won, he would not being doing this. He is bowing down to Trump and Elon, and honestly a conspiracy guy like yourself should be concerned.

That's funny because I remember you donkeys at the time pointing out over and over how "all the experts say", which is a talking point made possible based on other experts being censored.
Now you're sitting here trying to change the definition of censorship, but your logic only works when
https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/03/14/7f61c88c-b526-4f4f-8bcc-6caf0b961f3e/thumbnail/640x693/ae3d070f94dad1ecb3269c5c6b9ec570/f3-large.jpg?v=fa9977353833f46f40b07abcd9d5240b

[Bill Gates]

Huh? I'm not arguing the definition of anything, and this is supposed to be about "FACT CHECKING" anyway, not censorship. What you are doing is called a strawman.

[ZenMaster]

Huh? I'm not arguing the definition of anything, and this is supposed to be about "FACT CHECKING" anyway, not censorship. What you are doing is called a strawman.

Literally from the very first response in the thread by you, talking about censorship:


I will say that I do not think censorship has ever been as noteworthy for Zuck as it is for Twitter. Because FB is more or less just families sharing baby pics with each other, and Insta is sharing photos and imagery. Whereas Twitter is sharing ideas/info and making statements which is much more prone to censorship issues. Twitter is so much more political by nature than FB or Insta.

[ILLsmak]

It's all hype anyway. It's like the NBA getting caught with refs. They are like oh we will make sure this doesn't happen again! haha. But it's better than them acting like it wasn't happening at all. They still are aiming for WORLD DOMINATION.

-Smak

[Media Moderator]

Professional disaster chasers Harry and Meghan want us to know they are not ok with these changes

“It doesn’t matter whether your views are left, right or somewhere in between—the latest news from Meta about changes to their policies directly undermines free speech,” it read. “Contrary to the company’s talking points, allowing more abuse and normalizing hate speech serves to silence speech and expression, not foster it.”

[Bill Gates]

Professional disaster chasers Harry and Meghan want us to know they are not ok with these changes

“It doesn’t matter whether your views are left, right or somewhere in between—the latest news from Meta about changes to their policies directly undermines free speech,” it read. “Contrary to the company’s talking points, allowing more abuse and normalizing hate speech serves to silence speech and expression, not foster it.”
Regardless of what Harry and Meghan are saying here, it is pretty much proven that when forums or online communities of any kind are left un-moderated it kills real debate and leads to exodus of those not interested in trolling or back and forth insults.

The reality is that trolls and people who are just there to be toxic or disrespectful harms real debate. And the environment is better off without those people so that the ones who are actually interested in the topic can move forward.

That opinion should be viewed as unbiased, lefties can call righties stupid rednecks and all that does is cause the conservatives to lash back and hate. And then at that point the real issue is left in the rear view while the two sides are just trying to prove that the other is low-IQ.

[Bill Gates]

Zuck didn't even say he was going to allow "hate speech" either.

He basically just said he is going to replace fact checkers with community notes, which is still fact checking.

It's really not that much of change TBH.

[ArbitraryWater]

It's all hype anyway. It's like the NBA getting caught with refs. They are like oh we will make sure this doesn't happen again! haha. But it's better than them acting like it wasn't happening at all. They still are aiming for WORLD DOMINATION.

-Smak


I thought this, but at least theyre being somewhat specific:


https://i.gyazo.com/8e075a21ef527d3b86675ef2e97b9b84.png


https://i.gyazo.com/e62d930249b0505cf9fb531cd8fcb78d.png

[Off the Court]

FINALLY! ArbitraryWater is free to post that Mexicans are trash! About time!

[ArbitraryWater]

Im not surprised youd take the bait

[Patrick Chewing]

Im not surprised youd take the bait

He’s been getting very emotional lately.

[warriorfan]

He’s been getting very emotional lately.

Thank goodness he got some fresh tampons boofed courtesy of his salon.

[hiphopanonymous]

FINALLY! ArbitraryWater is free to post that Mexicans are trash! About time!
Even if that's a consequence of deleting censorship... you seriously think silencing people wearing their opinions on their sleeve is in any way beneficial to you or everyone else?

You ...don't wish to know who believes what?


...how would you deduce who you feel are good or bad people if you lived in a world where every controversial opinion was silenced?

...and who decides what's controversial or not?

Have you thought this through?