Meta’s recent layoffs have impacted the team that is responsible for tackling disinformation on the platform, per CNN.

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meta’s platforms want engagement, not truth. They are positively incentivized to get rid of anti-disinformation teams, since the spread of disinformation will increase engagement on their platforms.

    Just one of the ways Meta (and Twitter, which is actively doing something similar) are bad platforms.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but this likely has more to do with the first amendment lawsuits that conservatives are pushing through the courts not that the SC is a 6/3 right wing majority. A lot of tech companies are doing this so they don’t get dragged into that.

  • db2@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess they didn’t do enough debasing then because the Taliban still likes Twitter better.

    • baked_tea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If by news they mean actual articles, it doesn’t matter because its all happening in discussions

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I haven’t been on fb in a long time. How would one influence someone’s political opinion there aside from targeted ads or news?

  • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    okay, okay, okay, okay… So hear this… We don’t even hold our elected officials accountable for what they say, but we’re pushing restrictions on what citizens can talk about?

    Fuck that shit.

    People are pissed about Trump, and anti-vax, and whatever else, and are scared of the effect of misinformation, but have you notice our demographics haven’t actually changed? Neither Republicans nor Democrats really have a hand up in elections.

    So why are we restricting people’s freedoms of what information they consume?

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Misinformation has a direct cost in lives and money. So it seems to me to be morally good to stop it.

      Either way, no one is a citizen of Facebook or Meta. Those platforms can police their content in whatever lawful ways they desire, and if they want to police misinformation that’s no one’s business but their own.

      People can still consume any information they like. But expecting and requiring Facebook or Meta to be that place seems pretty silly to me.

      • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I’m going to try to be less argumentative 😅

        Misinformation has a direct cost in lives and money. So it seems to me to be morally good to stop it.

        I personally consider things like freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom of expression to be pretty sacred, and to restrict those is a massive ethics issue.

        Either way, no one is a citizen of Facebook or Meta. Those platforms can police their content in whatever lawful ways they desire, and if they want to police misinformation that’s no one’s business but their own.

        The problem is we do have government putting pressure on tech companies to implement these polices. Zuckerberg has been infront of Congress multiple times. To me that’s just a loop hole.

        And why can’t I have an opinion on how Meta polices their information?

        People can still consume any information they like. But expecting and requiring Facebook or Meta to be that place seems pretty silly to me.

        In this instance though Meta is downgrading their department.

        • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No right or freedom is absolute or without limit. I’m okay with you choosing to do pretty much anything up until it harms someone else, and that’s the limit. When your expression harms others, express it privately.

          • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s different degrees of harm. We all live in society, that means our choices impact other people. The electronics powering the infrastructure we’re using are full of cobalt picked by child hands. You can’t eat almonds without contributing to death.

            There’s a significant difference between punching someone in the face vs posting a Facebook article. And in my opinion, trying to exert control over the expression of others is a much more deliberate and direct act.