Mark Zuckerberg Copies Elon Musk as Facebook to Become Free Speech Platform

[ThatRobGuy]

Mark Zuckerberg copies Elon Musk as Facebook to become free speech platform

Mark Zuckerberg has said he will get rid of Facebook's fact-checkers and replace them with a community notes system similar to the one used by X.

www.newsweek.com

Mark Zuckerberg has announced that Facebook will roll back a number of its censorship policies to become a free speech platform.
"The recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech,"
"So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms."

The Meta CEO said he would get rid of the social media platform's fact-checkers and replace them with a community notes system



It would seem as if the pendulum is swinging back.

The "big tech CEOs" in the realm of social spaces are often considered to be

• Tim Cook (Apple)
• Elon Musk (X)
• Sundar Pichai (Google)
• Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)
• Satya Nadella (Microsoft)

2 out of the 5 are no longer echo chambers...

 

[rambot]

I'm sorry.

To suggest that "x" is not an echo chamber seems at least imprecise.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sorry.

To suggest that "x" is not an echo chamber seems at least imprecise.

There are still progressives on X, correct?

Has there been any TOS changes made that would make it forbidden/grounds for removal for expressing progressive viewpoints about an issue? (not to be confused with attacking a conservative person as an individual)


For instance, will expressing a pro-environmental view or a pro-gay marriage view catch you a shadow ban on the platform the way expressing a pro-gun position on the platform used to? Or will expressing the progressive viewpoint on gender get you kicked off the platform the way expressing the conservative viewpoint would back under Dorsey?

 

[rambot]

There are still progressives on X, correct?

Has there been any TOS changes made that would make it forbidden/grounds for removal for expressing progressive viewpoints about an issue? (not to be confused with attacking a conservative person as an individual)


For instance, will expressing a pro-environmental view or a pro-gay marriage view catch you a shadow ban on the platform the way expressing a pro-gun position on the platform used to? Or will expressing the progressive viewpoint on gender get you kicked off the platform the way expressing the conservative viewpoint would back under Dorsey?

"Conservative views" or "Hate speech"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Conservative views" or "Hate speech"?

Conservative views...

Many younger progressives tended to conflate the two...

For instance, a person saying "there are only two genders" in an online debate about gender affirming care isn't hate speech.

 

[Chesterton]

"Conservative views" or "Hate speech"?

"Liberal views" or "hate speech"? Apparently Dorsey was cool with genocide.

 

[rambot]

Conservative views...

Many younger progressives tended to conflate the two...

For instance, a person saying "there are only two genders" in an online debate about gender affirming care isn't hate speech.

Younger progressives, sure.

Did Dorsey, in how he chose to deal with it, conflate the two?

ie.....was "there are only 2 genders" be considered hate speech on Twitter and it would lead to bans if that was ALL that was said?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Younger progressives, sure.

Did Dorsey, in how he chose to deal with it, conflate the two?

That was one of the bigger complaints against Dorsey at the time, is that he would basically structure the ToS in such a way on certain topics that one couldn't debate certain topics from a particular viewpoint without running afoul of the rules.

(that's what sparked a lot of that "it's a private company, he can do what he wants, go make your own Twitter")


Basically, the topics of elections, gender, covid, guns, and climate were only able to be debated from a very limited subset of the opposing viewpoint. Thereby squashing any actual debate.


To highlight the challenge that presents.

Imagine you were on a social media platform and debating healthcare systems.

If the ToS had rules that suggested that it was off limits to bring up
drug prices,
private health insurance company corruption,
or reference other country's healthcare outcomes


In essence, that would be kneecapping you and taking away 75% of your talking points you'd normally use in such a debate, correct?

...meanwhile, the "pro privatized healthcare" folks were being allowed to make any and all arguments they want in favor of their own position.

Or, like saying "let's debate guns, but you're not allowed to bring up murder or suicide when making arguments against guns", that would be a totally unfair debate environment.

 

[wing2000]

Is Christian Forums next?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Is Christian Forums next?

Really? That ship sailed years ago.

 

[rambot]

That was one of the bigger complaints against Dorsey at the time, is that he would basically structure the ToS in such a way on certain topics that one couldn't debate certain topics from a particular viewpoint without running afoul of the rules.

(that's what sparked a lot of that "it's a private company, he can do what he wants, go make your own Twitter")


Basically, the topics of elections, gender, covid, guns, and climate were only able to be debated from a very limited subset of the opposing viewpoint. Thereby squashing any actual debate.

Define "only able to be debated from a very limited subset of the opposing viewpoint".

Were these people deplatformed? Lose posting priviledge? Kicked off Twitter altogether?

I ask because I never liked twitter, was never on it, and am unfamiliar with the conservative experience on there.

 

[Pommer]

Mark Zuckerberg copies Elon Musk as Facebook to become free speech platform

Mark Zuckerberg has said he will get rid of Facebook's fact-checkers and replace them with a community notes system similar to the one used by X.

www.newsweek.com

Mark Zuckerberg has announced that Facebook will roll back a number of its censorship policies to become a free speech platform.
"The recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech,"
"So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms."

The Meta CEO said he would get rid of the social media platform's fact-checkers and replace them with a community notes system



It would seem as if the pendulum is swinging back.

The "big tech CEOs" in the realm of social spaces are often considered to be

• Tim Cook (Apple)
• Elon Musk (X)
• Sundar Pichai (Google)
• Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)
• Satya Nadella (Microsoft)

2 out of the 5 are no longer echo chambers...

It’s probably cheaper to allow the river one owns to accept all forms of refuse thrown into it.

 

[Pommer]

Define "only able to be debated from a very limited subset of the opposing viewpoint".

Were these people deplatformed? Lose posting priviledge? Kicked off Twitter altogether?

I ask because I never liked twitter, was never on it, and am unfamiliar with the conservative experience on there.

I’ve been attempting to deactivate my X account for months but always get an error message at the last step.

 

[rambot]

I’ve been attempting to deactivate my X account for months but always get an error message at the last step.

Maybe you should work on posting some stuff that will get you kicked off?

I think I do actually have an account with 1 tweet from 2019....maybe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The "big tech CEOs" in the realm of social spaces are often considered to be

• Tim Cook (Apple)
• Elon Musk (X)
• Sundar Pichai (Google)
• Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)
• Satya Nadella (Microsoft)

How are Apple and Microsoft in the "realm of social spaces"?

 

[Laodicean60]

Maybe you should work on posting some stuff that will get you kicked off?

I think I do actually have an account with 1 tweet from 2019....maybe.

That's the only way to find out if it's true. Give me your handle so I can watch and be a witness.
I would have been kicked off these forums if it wasn't for Pommer and Hans letting me know when I violated rules.

 

[rambot]

That's the only way to find out if it's true. Give me your handle so I can watch and be a witness.
I would have been kicked off these forums if it wasn't for Pommer and Hans letting me know when I violated rules.

@RemcoDal I think it was....have at er.

Let me know if anything is happening at all. lol

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How are Apple and Microsoft in the "realm of social spaces"?

When you control platforms and app stores, you control content.

For instance:

When people were saying "if you don't like it, make your own Twitter"

So someone did (and named it Parler) and then Apple banned Parler from the app store.

 

[rambot]

When you control platforms and app stores, you control content.

For instance:

When people were saying "if you don't like it, make your own Twitter"

So someone did (and named it Parler) and then Apple banned Parler from the app store.

But it can be accessed elsewhere right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Define "only able to be debated from a very limited subset of the opposing viewpoint".

Were these people deplatformed? Lose posting priviledge? Kicked off Twitter altogether?

For example, on the topic of gender, "Misgendering" became a ToS violation that led to escalating forms of bans.

Another example, you could catch a temporary ban (permanent if you did it 3 times) when discussing the topic of vaccine mandates and requirements, if you brought up the topic of natural immunity, or in some cases, even if you merely posted that young people were less at risk than elderly.

So how does one have an honest debate about whether a vaccine requirement make sense for everyone, if one is not allowed to bring up "how at-risk is this age group?" and "has this person recently had covid?"


That's just a rigged debate at that point...