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

[ThatRobGuy]

But it can be accessed elsewhere right?

No, because the google play store and AWS marketplaces blocked it as well.

And the only way it could be accessed was if you found some unapproved installers...and even then, ISPs blocked it in many cases as well.


it was a classic case of "enjoying the benefits of a platform while they build a critical mass", and then as soon as they control the market (for all intents and purposes), do the bait and switch and change the rules so that they then enjoy the editorial benefits of being a publisher.

 

[Laodicean60]

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

Let me know if anything is happening at all. lol

How can I, I don't use X except when financial people post that I follow which are 3 people.
I'm not into group think.

 

[timothyu]

Ever notice how shysters and their backers shift with the tides?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Ever notice how shysters and their backers shift with the tides?

No goals at all. It's whatever way the wind blows.

 

[timothyu]

No goals at all. It's whatever way the wind blows.

Two faced serves only themselves.

 

[High Fidelity]

I'm sorry.

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

Yup. It’s just switched from a left-leaning echo chamber to a right-leaning one.

Those on the left had years of being the hammer that hits the nail sticking out, and when that changed and there were differences of opinion, they jumped ship and went to Bluesky or whatever it’s called.

Either way, X is a cesspool.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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...

I'm sorry.

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

lol, yeah, seriously. Facebook, too. The content feeds are still driven by algorithms that keep feeding you the same stuff over and over again.

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

Some mild criticism of Musk ought to do it.

 

[rambot]

No, because the google play store and AWS marketplaces blocked it as well.

I wonder why? Because I think it had something to do with what happened 1459 days ago.

And the only way it could be accessed was if you found some unapproved installers...and even then, ISPs blocked it in many cases as well.


it was a classic case of "enjoying the benefits of a platform while they build a critical mass", and then as soon as they control the market (for all intents and purposes), do the bait and switch and change the rules so that they then enjoy the editorial benefits of being a publisher.

This take makes it sound duplicitous as opposed to simply sound business decisions. And if apps are used to perpetrate high profile crimes (to say nothing of the many threats and instances of appropriate moderation steps being nonexistent), why should the "suppliers" of apps be beholden to anyone to provide them? MAybe they feel they have a duty to promote safety.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This take makes it sound duplicitous as opposed to simply sound business decisions. And if apps are used to perpetrate high profile crimes (to say nothing of the many threats and instances of appropriate moderation steps being nonexistent), why should the "suppliers" of apps be beholden to anyone to provide them? MAybe they feel they have a duty to promote safety.

It's because they're enjoying certain benefits and protections of being "platforms"

And the types of censorship went beyond "safety precautions".

They were already shielded from liability. Amazon webhosting wasn't going to get in any trouble from something an individual Parler user said, no was Apple for merely having Parler on the App Store.

Safety precautions was a nonsense excuse to cover for the real reason, which was that all of the tech big shots were ideologically aligned at the time, and that was their way of letting dissenters know "we rule the sandbox, and we'll decide who plays in it, and if you build your own sandbox, we'll make sure people can't get to it"



For instance, AT&T's cellular and internet service is a platform of sorts.

The protection they receive and enjoy, is the fact that if someone rando phones in a bomb threat using an AT&T line or someone uses their internet service to look up something illegal, AT&T is not liable for it, the actual person using the platform is. However, that also means that AT&T can't intentionally drop phone calls and throttle internet speeds of people who disagree with them politically as a means of suppressing certain viewpoints or preventing the other team from being able to organize.


For what it's worth, Jack Dorsey (the guy who made the decision to ban Trump from Twitter, which was the catalyst for Parler exploding in popularity overnight), regretted banning Trump, and made reference to "an unnamed activist" being behind some of the actions and moderation policies.

Twitter Co-Founder Jack Dorsey Expresses Regret Over Banning Trump, Other Moderation Choices

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who served as the social media company’s CEO, has expressed regret over banning former President Donald Trump from the platform.

www.mediaite.com

 

[rambot]

It's because they're enjoying certain benefits and protections of being "platforms"

And the types of censorship went beyond "safety precautions".

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, CF has standards that they have decided to uphold, why can't those other providers?

They were already shielded from liability. Amazon webhosting wasn't going to get in any trouble from something an individual Parler user said, no was Apple for merely having Parler on the App Store.

Safety precautions was a nonsense excuse to cover for the real reason, which was that all of the tech big shots were ideologically aligned at the time, and that was their way of letting dissenters know "we rule the sandbox, and we'll decide who plays in it, and if you build your own sandbox, we'll make sure people can't get to it"

So nothing to do with January 6 hey? Despite them saying that was it?
Is it not possible do download an app like Parler from a simple website in lieu of an app store?

For instance, AT&T's cellular and internet service is a platform of sorts.

The protection they receive and enjoy, is the fact that if someone rando phones in a bomb threat using an AT&T line or someone uses their internet service to look up something illegal, AT&T is not liable for it, the actual person using the platform is. However, that also means that AT&T can't intentionally drop phone calls and throttle internet speeds of people who disagree with them politically as a means of suppressing certain viewpoints or preventing the other team from being able to organize.

Any thoughts on Musk's versions of this that are being utilized by "X" now?

For what it's worth, Jack Dorsey (the guy who made the decision to ban Trump from Twitter, which was the catalyst for Parler exploding in popularity overnight), regretted banning Trump, and made reference to "an unnamed activist" being behind some of the actions and moderation policies.

Ok.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

So, Facebook won't stop lies, from the right anymore. This is a sad world , when news organizations and forums allow people to lie. And make it seem true.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Some mild criticism of Musk ought to do it.

Ironically enough, the most recent high profile punitive action that's taken place was a post that was from Laura Loomer that was bashing Indians and immigrants.

Other high-profile bans have included people guilty of doxxing, people violating in the impersonation policy, and Kanye after posting a swastika.

Meanwhile, all of Cenk Uygur's posts that are critical of Musk are still intact. (many of which, Musk himself has interacted with)


If we want to look for feature parity in terms of restrictions and bans.

Has Musk blocked anyone for any pro-Trans or pro-Vaccine posts or pro-abortion posts?


Even if we pretend for a moment that there was perfect parity between "ideologically-driven account restrictions", what exactly is the complaint?, that the same thing is happening, just in the other direction for a change?

 

[timothyu]

Ever notice how the national security behemoths kowtow to whatever group is in government? We see it in their agencies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, CF has standards that they have decided to uphold, why can't those other providers?

Is CF in a position where they've become the de facto "town square", and does CF have the type of reach and influence that it can swing elections?

Is CF the platform in which politicians and candidates use as one of the primary vehicles for connecting with voters?

Did the owners of CF get called up to the Senate to testify and get "strongly encouraged" to adopt certain content moderation policies?

The answer is a resounding "No".

Comparing CF to Meta/X/Google is, with all due respect, like comparing walkie-talkies to the internet on the basis that "both are system that allow people to communicate with each other"

So nothing to do with January 6 hey? Despite them saying that was it?
Is it not possible do download an app like Parler from a simple website in lieu of an app store?

Oh it certainly was, in part, due to that...but that being said, it's not illegal to for someone to falsely suggest "the election was rigged"...it's inaccurate, but not illegal. Platforms (enjoying platform exemptions and benefits) shouldn't be policing and banning legal speech or trying to prevent someone else from hearing incorrect theories.

If they're going to enjoy the benefits of being a platform and have built a critical mass that reaches "de facto town square" level, their content moderation policies should end where the law begins.

 

[RileyG]

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

I think mine was deactivated due to inactivity.

I find twitter/x kinda dumb, in my opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Why do you need an app to access a website? People need to learn how to use an actual browser. I don't need a CF.app to get here.

 

[RileyG]

Why do you need an app to access a website? People need to learn how to use an actual browser. I don't need and CF.app to get here.

That's true, but some people find apps more convenient? I don't know.

 

[wing2000]

lol, yeah, seriously. Facebook, too. The content feeds are still driven by algorithms that keep feeding you the same stuff over and over again.

...a bigger problem IMO. And I doubt Zuckerberg will give those up...

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why do you need an app to access a website? People need to learn how to use an actual browser. I don't need a CF.app to get here.

I used to be of that opinion, but IME, when on mobile, apps offer a far and away better experience than browsers. Designing a UI that scales to multiple resolutions and aspect ratios is hard enough just in an app where you control everything. Doing it in a browser (where each platform is a bit different) adds another layer of complexity. I’d prefer a CF app because this site is an absolute turd on my phone. It feels like I’m constantly filing tickets because of broken ads. The Facebook mobile site is at least as bad.

 

[zippy2006]

it was a classic case of "enjoying the benefits of a platform while they build a critical mass", and then as soon as they control the market (for all intents and purposes), do the bait and switch and change the rules so that they then enjoy the editorial benefits of being a publisher.

"We now identify as a publisher. Please respect our identity."