this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
682 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

60341 readers
4346 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel conflicted. On one hand, people can regulate themselves, and Facebook becoming a bigoted cesspit may bring more people to a moderated Fediverse.

On the other hand, these major platforms having such user monopoly and influence can cause unfettered hate speech to breed violence.

I’m conflicted about the idea that an insidious for-profit megacorporation should be expected to uphold a moral responsibility to prevent violence; their failure to do so might be a necessary wake-up call that ultimately strips them of that problematic influence. Thoughts?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Accelerationism is ultimately burning the vulnerable at the stake to try and send a smoke signal, so I think it's hard to say that this is a positive development. We can hope that there is a silver lining here where corporate social media self selects itself out of the general populations' lives, but I think we probably have to be realistic about the low probability of success here and the human cost that is incurred in the meantime

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Too many people use meta's services.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

So what I see is, Meta first creates the problem of trans-metaverse by super aggressive inorganic promotion and then makes it even worse by cutting the expenses on such useless promotion. XD

L for all those who fell for it. Society eats you up (not sexually, keep your pants on) for getting mentally manipulated so easily.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

They always did

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the big reason they are allowing it is because they got to cut the entire cost of having moderation with an external vendor. Not because they have an agenda or anything. Its pure dollars.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah it's clearly ideological when you look at the details of their new moderation policies. They now allow you to call people crazy, but only if it's because they're LGBT.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I don't think so. Zuck never cared about people, he's cut-throat, egotistical and money/power focussed. He wouldn't take the time for thinking about insulting the little people (non-millionaires). He's done it to encourage more users to use the platform and create disputes/content which is cold hard cash to him. Remember when they experimented with users by showing them content that would trigger them to make them interact?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's freedom of speech. Being able to say what you want and suffer the consequences of your decisions is what it is all about.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Oh you mean like specifically disallowing people from calling someone crazy unless that person is gay or trans? How the fuck is that "free speech"?

I can post some violent fantasy online and meta won't allow you to call me crazy for it, but if you call me crazy because you think I'm gay that's just fine?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Except it’s not really “freedom of speech?” You can’t normally say someone is mentally ill - the verbiage is that you can specifically only call LGBT people mentally ill.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Soon as Trump gets elected, the disinformation campaign could resume.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

It's worth noting you're only allowed to insultingly say someone has a mental illness in relation to their gender or sexual orientation.

Do not post .... Insults, including those about: ... Mental characteristics, including but not limited to allegations of stupidity, intellectual capacity, and mental illness, and unsupported comparisons between PC groups on the basis of inherent intellectual capacity. We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like “weird.”

Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/hateful-conduct/

Edit: and the changelog is a hoot.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

So it's ok to say that zuckerfucker developed mental illnesses due to excessive zoophile orgies

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Fuck Mark Zuckerberg, evil motherfucker.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Rich men have a mental illness and are weird.

load more comments
view more: next ›