Meta and Zuckerberg never believed in democracy. Just the highest bidder.
This algorithmic filtering is almost certainly still in place, they just dialled it back from 100% ban to some lower percentage.
The only way to win against this is to close all your Meta accounts and never look back. It seems hard to do, but once you rip the plaster off it is actually quite a relief.
I keep Messenger though because some people I know from offline life keep using it and won't switch. Same with WhatsApp. These two don't have intrusive algorithms fortunately.
Did anyone successfully move away from instagram?
I have an account and sharing photos to a community there (people who I know irl and random strangers) brings me joy. I also have a pixelfed account but I know no people there and I was unsuccessful in switching.
I’d love to hear what others used or did that worked for them.
It’s really easy. You replace Instagrams and all other social media with NOTHING.
Delete all doomscrolling apps. They are not a necessity. You will live your life just fine without them. Just don’t use anything at all.
If there are people you wish to keep in touch with, contact them using a direct method. If you have work you wish to publish, use a normal old website with an RSS feed.
It's early days for pixelfed, it will take time for people to move, but you can be part of the change
Mastodon is fine for photo sharing too
Are you an active pixelfed user? If yes, how are you enjoying it?
You can do the same on any blogging platform like any Twitter clone or such, no?
Stopped looking at it more than once a week
Seems like an oxymoron.
I sincerely hope this attempt of a technocrat oligarchy to be the downfall of social media as we know it, we lived without them, everyone has been on and off at some point even after joining in, even younger generations, so everyone knows we can easily unplug with net positive impact in our lives. And that's all it takes for their power to vanish like smoke in the wind.
Technocracy means "rule by experts". What we have is a plain oligarchy. These people are not experts in the areas they dictate.
Mark Zuckerberg is a lizard, he made the right call to bow to Trump.
Now Meta will continue to destroy the world's mental health until the situation worsens more.
Trump was a hope that this Meta non-sense would end, but both became allies and forgot about the so many studies that shows how it's a toxic digital product.
It will now take longer for humanity to understand that Meta platforms are worse than cigarettes, but doesn't come with any labelling.
We should have never allowed tech companies to get this big. Nothing good comes out of media being centralised in the hand of the few.
Can Democracy be blocked by Instagram ?
As long as they do not run the voting, I think not...
Democracy starts long before voting. Voting is only the final act. Democracy can only function with knowledge. If you don't know what/who/why you're voting it's not a democratic decision anymore.
My (quite uninformed) take is that it was a show of loyalty from Zuckerberg or Meta to the Trump administration. Tech oligarchs have been trying to curry favor after Trump's win. Due to Meta's previous stance on fact-checking, Meta might have been asked to demonstrate its loyalty.
If that's true, this was just a test of a newly released "feature" rather than the "show of loyalty" itself.
Yes, I believe that. Probably showing what they're both capable of doing and willing to do.
Why has this been flagged and removed from the front-page?
It seems like a standard practice on HN nowadays. I am afraid some mods may be politically charged. See the following thread for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716926
Do you really need to ask?
[flagged]
After years of this same censorship targeting the political Right, it’s nice to see the Left finally acknowledge it and take it seriously.
Zuckerberg is a sociopath who will do what he’s told by the state, or by advertisers, no matter how unethical. He has no principles whatsoever.
We need decentralised social networking of sufficient quality that people will migrate
The only people who think that the political right is censored are the political right.
A few studies have been done on this topic, and consistently, they have found that right-wing messages get promulgated much faster and further than anything on the left or progressive sides.
https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/quick-take/more-evidence-that-cons...
Another reason why right-wings may think they are being censored is because of hate speech. Our AI overlords are already helping us identify hate speech sources, allowing us to sandbox them further.
https://www.psypost.org/new-machine-learning-model-finds-hat...
FTA: > Another interesting finding from the study came from applying the model to the PubFigs dataset. Of the 1,133 tweets classified as hate speech, 1,094 were posted by right-leaning figures, while only 39 came from left-leaning figures. In terms of abusive content, right-leaning figures contributed 5,029 out of the total 5,299 abusive tweets, with only 270 coming from the left-leaning group. This means that left-leaning figures accounted for just 3.38% of the hate speech and 5.14% of the abusive content in the dataset
If it was left-wing people spreading e.g. vaccine disinformation (which is now on the way of becoming official policy in the US - I hope not too many people will die because of this), I would want those fact-checked as well, but for some reason most lunatics seem to gravitate to the right side of the political spectrum. Maybe reading the Bible too literally already predisposes you to rejecting science, and from there it's just a small step to believe made-up stories on other topics too?
Bold of you to assume most Christians have read the Bible. In my experience they only listen to what ever the pastor quotes.
TDS cope
> "The Day"
So it was fine when they were censoring republicans, but only became "the day of infamy" when blocking the left...
Zero acknowledgement or mention in the article about the history of censorship against the right.
I thought they believed in equity?
You might argue that forms of fact-checking or moderation of controversial content constituted censorship, but you cannot believe that that equates to such explicit silencing of political opponents.
When did they censor the republicans?
Did you forget that Meta chose to shut down the account of a democratically-elected sitting Republican president?
Or is that (and other scandals eg the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story) a distant and obscure memory?
They cited a reason for that didn't they? what was it now?
No the same case. Donald Trump's account was banned due to his role in inciting an insurrection but you could still find republican content posted by other users with hashtags. I'd expect the same treatement if a democratic leader tried to incite a violent mob to assault the capitol.
When the Capitol riot happened, Trump was tweeting to demand the protesters act peacefully and within the law.
If Trump was truly an insurrectionist, then that’s a very strange way to incite insurrection.
My "favorite" bit of misinformation about the Capitol riot (out of so, so many) is about Donald Trump Jr. For many, many months prosecutors and the media talked about him as being an unindicted co-conspirator, and how that that Nixonesque adjective would/should surely be adjusted any day now. Then ... it turns out that Jr. repeatedly begged his father (via messages to Mark Meadows) to do whatever he could to stop the rioting.
Ironically the downvotes of my (factual) post help illustrate the problem we have with online discourse in general - not just meta.
People upvote and downvote based on tribal instincts, not based on a sincere reflection of truth.
Or maybe they think your post is not of value? Lol
Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter. They didn't seem to have a problem with this. It's interesting how the brainwashing works: they always find a reason for whatever they do. "Empathy", "sympathy", "compassion" for whatever evil they do. "We are protecting innocent people from the Dangerous Thoughts".
When other groups do it to them, then they cry in the media in which they control.
The solution is simple: we should not censor free speech. IT WILL be turned against you. This should be a principled position, not one that depends on whether you like one party or another party...
Twitter and Facebook locked Trump's account because he committed policy violations while actively inciting an insurrection after having lost the presidential election. Regardless of the actions of private companies, I also believe that inciting violent treason is not covered under the First Amendment.
I'm not sure what similar argument can be made about the #Democrat hashtag, though. As far as I know, nothing actually happened that would warrant any restrictions on the hashtag.
> Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter
For misinformation and inciting violence. Not because of his politics.
The above is a proven factual statement that has been downvoted due to tribal politics.
Very sad to see, and indicative of the poor state of political discourse.
I didn't agree with the Trump ban and a lot of other "content moderation" (which affected the left wing too).
But in the case of Trump he was banned due to the incitement of violence/revolt in the Capitol Hill incident and the attempts to overturn election results.
Look at Clinton and Pelosi’s tweets when Trump won the first term. They also challenged the result and claimed it was a manipulated election.
May 16th 2017 Nancy Pelosi tweeted to her massive following “ Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
Does that mean she was removed from social media for “inciting revolt”? No, of course not.
Trump’s tweets on the day of the Capitol riot were to demand people behave peacefully and respect the rule of law.
Yet he was banned without appeal.
Consider that the differing results in each situation led to different actions taken.
In only one case was there an insurrection supported (as evidenced by pardons) by the tweeter.
[flagged]
I’ve seen a bit of how these sorts of things work and I’m going to give Meta the benefit of the doubt for the initial block, I’d like to think their leadership isn’t that brazen, and the fact this was fixed suggests an error. One bad piece of content (possibly related to critique of the incoming regime) tripped up an automated filter and took down a keyword at an unfortunate time.
What’s inexcusable is that it took so long to fix it. Taking so long caused the appearance of a strong political statement, and the fact that it took so long at least makes a statement about the importance of an issue like this in the company.
This is a very unlikely scenario, given how many hashtags were blocked and how specific they were.
And—more than anything—the timing.
and the timing...
Zuck lost any benefit of the doubt by publically removing fact checkers and the "the company needs to become more masculine" bs.