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

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Frankly, I don't know how people do anything other than read stuff and write texts on those tiny screens.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Nothing ironic about Musk's site banning speech critical of President Musk's recent support for H1B visas.
A bit hypocritical for a site supposedly based on free speech, but not ironic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

1) for the popular social media apps, it's the version that they know most people use, and the version that has the most reach as everyone carries their phone in their pocket, very few lug their laptop around with them everywhere.

2) Even if someone wanted to limp through the non-mobile version of social media apps, they can't even do that if the webhosting companies collude and take away their webhosting. (which is what happened in the case of Parler)

That was nothing more than a situation where (then) ideologically aligned tech oligarchs colluded to determine which ideas would be amplified, and which ones would be relegated to obscurity.


If me and my buddies buy every local TV and radio station, and every available TV and Radio ad slot in town leading up to a local election, and then allow people & candidates who are ideologically aligned with us to advertise for free, while relegating the other side to having to try to hand out flyers in a grocery store parking lot, one can hardly suggest that the two factions have "equal access to expression"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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

Are you talking about targeted advertising? No, absent some paid ad-free version, I doubt we'll see that go away anytime soon.

In terms of connecting people with content that matches "what they're into".

I'd don't see how they'd be able to do that and keep social media around as an engaging experience.

If my Facebook feed consisted of random stuff about skateboard repair, basket weaving, and Steve Urkel trivia (3 completely random topics that I have no interest in), I wouldn't see much point in continued use of the app.

The problems that existed before were slightly different than just "showing people what they want to see". The issue was that they were showing group A what they wanted to see... and showing group B what group A wanted to see. (and filtering/burying group B's stuff that didn't align with the public policy agendas of one particular political party)


Ideologically slanted "fact checker" groups were also part of the problem, which is why Zuckerberg is moving his content moderation team out of San Fran, and into Austin/Dallas Texas where it's a little more possible to have a "balanced" moderation team.

It's nearly impossible to have a moderation team that is balanced or reflects "where the country is at, as a whole" when the ideological spectrum of a group only ranges from "smug, college know-it-all hippie" <-> "drum circle, LSD, free-love hippie"

 

[zippy2006]

Nothing ironic about Musk's site banning speech critical of President Musk's recent support for H1B visas.
A bit hypocritical for a site supposedly based on free speech, but not ironic.

Those who tell lies don't have sources for their claims.

 

[rambot]

Through all of this, it is interesting that social media website that are not "Free speech centres" seem to be FAR more popular than those that prefer to take that moniker.

IT's almost like most people aren't big fans of hate speech and don't care to be around or expose to it. But then everyone who loves hatespeech gets ornery that they don't get to yell it at EVERYONE.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Through all of this, it is interesting that social media website that are not "Free speech centres" seem to be FAR more popular than those that prefer to take that moniker.

IT's almost like most people aren't big fans of hate speech and don't care to be around or expose to it. But then everyone who loves hatespeech gets ornery that they don't get to yell it at EVERYONE.

I think it just has more to do with which ones built critical masses early on.

Content restrictions during the "massive uptake period" of these sites were minimal.

I remember seeing entire actual Facebook groups dedicated to conspiracy theories and anti-vaxxerism during that 2010-2014 time window on FB. And people used to say all kinds of slurs and actual hate speech on the platforms during that time window as well.

People were still flocking to the platforms in droves.

Pre-existing popularity of a brand isn't necessarily an indicator of the overall popularity of a recent policy. (once everyone is already on there, and has spent the last decade building a following and monetizing)


A good example:

How is BlueSky (the "Twitter: like it was 2016-2019", launched in response to the Musk takeover) doing in comparison to X?

Per the latest stats I can find, there's about 1-3M active daily users on the platform. Meanwhile X is still getting 200M active daily users on the platform.

Does that mean most people prefer the moderation style of Musk's X, to Jack Dorsey's moderation style on BlueSky? Or is it perhaps just because it's quite inconvenient to build an entirely new following and re-monetize on an entirely new platform?

And to put that into some perspective, when Dorsey banned Trump from Twitter, Parler experienced roughly the similar uptake and active daily usage as BlueSky has following a polarizing event...

To me, that indicates that when a platform is being ran in a way that people may disapprove of, only maybe 1-3% will leave in protest and go try something else out of principle, the rest will stay on the existing big platform out of convenience.

 

[zippy2006]

Through all of this, it is interesting that social media website that are not "Free speech centres" seem to be FAR more popular than those that prefer to take that moniker.

IT's almost like most people aren't big fans of hate speech and don't care to be around or expose to it. But then everyone who loves hatespeech gets ornery that they don't get to yell it at EVERYONE.

...This is yet another example of the way progressives can't decipher the difference between favoring free speech and favoring hate speech.

 

[rambot]

...This is yet another example of the way progressives can't decipher the difference between favoring free speech and favoring hate speech.

I'm pretty dumb.

Help me understand how those two are, functionally, different.
As I see it, all hate speech is free speech, but not all free speech is hate speech.

Am I incorrect?

 

[Hans Blaster]

1) for the popular social media apps, it's the version that they know most people use, and the version that has the most reach as everyone carries their phone in their pocket, very few lug their laptop around with them everywhere.

Perhaps they should post less.

2) Even if someone wanted to limp through the non-mobile version of social media apps, they can't even do that if the webhosting companies collude and take away their webhosting. (which is what happened in the case of Parler)

That doesn't make webhosting companies into "big social" either.

That was nothing more than a situation where (then) ideologically aligned tech oligarchs colluded to determine which ideas would be amplified, and which ones would be relegated to obscurity.

And the same tech oligarchs (or same platforms) are choosing what is permitted or not in the other direction (see OP).

If me and my buddies buy every local TV and radio station, and every available TV and Radio ad slot in town leading up to a local election, and then allow people & candidates who are ideologically aligned with us to advertise for free, while relegating the other side to having to try to hand out flyers in a grocery store parking lot, one can hardly suggest that the two factions have "equal access to expression"

 

[zippy2006]

I'm pretty dumb.

Help me understand how those two are, functionally, different.
As I see it, all hate speech is free speech, but not all free speech is hate speech.

Am I incorrect?

There is nothing necessarily wrong with the division you give, although I don't know that "hate speech" has a clear definition such that all hate speech is free speech. For example, a death threat looks to be hate speech, and yet is unprotected speech.

But the question is perhaps whether someone can consistently reject hate speech while promoting free speech (or, similarly, whether someone on the anti-hate-speech platforms you referred to is uninterested in free speech).

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Native apps provide a better experience than a website. This is because the web was designed for computer browsers whereas apps are custom-fit to a device's operating system.

Two basic considerations here are equal access and public square. Two equal persons (including corporate persons) should generally have equal access to a distribution system (including both social media platforms and app distribution systems). This is especially true insofar as the distribution system approximates the public square, as for example Twitter/X does.

Think of it this way: does the Christian baker have to bake gay cakes? The general rule is, "No, as long as other bakers are available who are willing to do so." Similarly, does the Apple App store have to bake apps for companies they dislike? Yes, because they are the only baker in town. In fact Apple excludes other bakers from baking and distributing Apps, and given their majority share of the U.S. market and the cost of moving off the iOS ecosystem, there is no reasonable workaround for the company that Apple dislikes.

Your idea that, "Oh, but Parler can leverage web browsers," overlooks equal access. Why does Twitter/X get an app, but not Parler? Why are Parler users second-class citizens who are not allowed the superior experience of a native app? Granted, a court might rule that web browsers are a sufficient enough workaround such that Apple is not required to provide services to Parler, but that question depends entirely on the app vs. browser relation at the time of the ruling.

 

[KCfromNC]

Those who tell lies don't have sources for their claims.

That's nice, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my post.

 

[zippy2006]

That's nice, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my post.

You provided no sources for your claim.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

"Conservative views" or "Hate speech"?

To most liberals, conservative views are hate speech.

 

[rambot]

To most liberals, conservative views is hate speech.

Some bits of it. But not all of it.

Of course, then there is also just undeniable hate speech as well.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think mine was deactivated due to inactivity.

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

I stopped posting on Twitter and Facebook both over censorship until a few months before the election when I got back on Twitter actively.

I like it for the town square feature. I like knowing what our politicians and such are saying straight from the horses mouth.

The lies about Trump in 2016 proved to me we can't trust media, and they've done nothing to redeem themselves.

I keep my Facebook account but I don't but post the occasional meme. I do like the recipe groups that aren't found anywhere else, but I can't stand Zuckerberg....

He's all about censorship, and is just blowing in the wind right now - I don't trust free speech is some kind of moral for him, if it was he wouldn't have sat around censoring people.

 

[timothyu]

He's all about censorship

Perhaps that is because his backers wish to control the narrative. Now that government has changed it is time to cozy up to a new leader in ordered to maintain that control of narrative to suit the powers behind the throne who hold their enemies close. Turncoats constantly spin in the breeze.

 

[rambot]

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

Fair enough. Given that it's "escalating forms" that suggests that you receive warnings. You can choose to heed those or not. "Misgendering" is not a "conservative view" on gender; that's a personal interaction.

Saying "I don't think men can be women" is different than saying "I will never call Poster X a woman". Were people getting banned for comments like the former and/or the latter?

 

[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.

And then they made Truth Social.

So what's your point?