Wish I Was in the Land of Facebook

@wildgrass said
Fact checkers added information.

Yeah yeah, and then what happened? Gimme a break. You're in denial.

@Sleepyguy said
@wildgrass
That's a lie. The "fact" checkers identified people and content that disseminated views, jokes, memes, and true facts that were counter to preferred government narratives, and then the the govt instructed social media companies squelch that speech.

I prefer the classical fairy tales like Goldilocks and the Three Bears to the ones right wingers have invented in recent years.

But I have learned that it is a useless endeavor to show a right wingers facts when they have chosen to believe such BS.

No one has yet shown how Zuckerberg was "forced" to do anything or any specific threats the "government" made if he didn't do .............................................. something.

@Sleepyguy said
Yeah yeah, and then what happened? Gimme a break. You're in denial.

I asked this of sh but you could answer it also:

no1: What entitles people who continually post false content to the perks afforded by a private organization? A free one at that.

@no1marauder said
I asked this of sh but you could answer it also:

no1: What entitles people who continually post false content to the perks afforded by a private organization? A free one at that.

I don't have a clue what you just said.

@Sleepyguy said
Yeah yeah, and then what happened? Gimme a break. You're in denial.

Whatever else happened I have no idea, but no announcement about those Facebook policies that aren't changing. They are just removing the fact checkers. As we saw with Twitter, removing the fact checkers only gives the company more arbitrary discretion to ban accounts for no reason at all.

When musk took over, the number of banned accounts went up, not down.

@Sleepyguy said
You make no sense. Who is "cancelled" by allowing free speech?

Everyone who publicly disagrees with Trump or even those he just doesn't like faces "cancellation" by the MAGA fools.

@no1marauder said
I asked this of sh but you could answer it also:

no1: What entitles people who continually post false content to the perks afforded by a private organization? A free one at that.

The government shouldn't be pressuring platforms to impose viewpoint-based restrictions on political speech.

Even if the government didn't cross the line to something that is clearly unconstitutional, it sets a terrible precedent.

In any case, the social media platforms went far beyond restricting content that is plainly "false." It censored jokes and satire and opinions backing certain strategies (e.g., the GBD) and opinions on questions that were unknown or unclear.

@wildgrass said
The things happened, but they were not biased against conservative political viewpoints (or at least, there's no non-anecdotal evidence of this). There are more than just one study. The hand picked journalists Musk assigned to handle the Twitter files also acknowledged that shadowbanning did not discriminate by politics.

And yet ultimately, evidence of systematic po ...[text shortened]... r Files did not change that

https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-twitter-files-nothingburger

I will concede that point and agree that, while the government shouldn't pressure social media platforms to impose viewpoint-based restrictions, it also shouldn't prevent them from doing so on their own accord.

@Suzianne said
Everyone who publicly disagrees with Trump or even those he just doesn't like faces "cancellation" by the MAGA fools.

you libs wish you hadnt started the canceling BS now dont you?

@no1marauder said
I asked this of sh but you could answer it also:

no1: What entitles people who continually post false content to the perks afforded by a private organization? A free one at that.

You continue stubbornly missing the point.

Social media is now the public square, and governments, publicly funded leftist NGO's, and the leftist media have colluded to control the narratives that are allowed to appear there. Go read the Twitter files and get a clue. I believe the phrase coined there was "Censorship Industrial Complex."

@Sleepyguy said
You continue stubbornly missing the point.

Social media is now the public square, and governments, publicly funded leftist NGO's, and the leftist media have colluded to control the narratives that are allowed to appear there. Go read the Twitter files and get a clue. I believe the phrase coined there was "Censorship Industrial Complex."

Was it the public square, then, that fired the fact checkers?

🤔

@sh76 said
The government shouldn't be pressuring platforms to impose viewpoint-based restrictions on political speech.

Even if the government didn't cross the line to something that is clearly unconstitutional, it sets a terrible precedent.

In any case, the social media platforms went far beyond restricting content that is plainly "false." It censored jokes and satire and opinions backing certain strategies (e.g., the GBD) and opinions on questions that were unknown or unclear.

The fact is the government is always trying to get favorable media coverage that endorse it's viewpoints and always has done so. Your implicit admission that no improper coercive measures were done in this instance makes it just another example of business as usual even if you and I think some officials were overzealous in their requests.

@no1marauder said
The fact is the government is always trying to get favorable media coverage that endorse it's viewpoints and always has done so. Your implicit admission that no improper coercive measures were done in this instance makes it just another example of business as usual even if you and I think some officials were overzealous in their requests.

neither of you have proven no coercive measures were used...a govt official ASKING as a govt official is a violation of the constitution.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
neither of you have proven no coercive measures were used...a govt official ASKING as a govt official is a violation of the constitution.

Of course it isn't; government officials recommend private citizens do things on a routine basis and there is no Constitutional provision banning such advice.

Check out any label on an item in a grocery store; you'll see recommended minimum daily requirements of various substances Is it unconstitutional for the FDA to make them as required by law?

@Sleepyguy said
You continue stubbornly missing the point.

Social media is now the public square, and governments, publicly funded leftist NGO's, and the leftist media have colluded to control the narratives that are allowed to appear there. Go read the Twitter files and get a clue. I believe the phrase coined there was "Censorship Industrial Complex."

Much of what passes for right wing "thought" currently in the US relies on self-pitying delusions of persecution, but the idea that their propaganda is so heavily censored that it is denied the "public square" is beyond ridiculous.