Zuckerberg expressed regret for not being more vocal about "government pressure" to censor COVID-19-related content
(thehill.com)
from xelar@lemmy.ml to world@lemmy.world on 27 Aug 2024 07:38
https://lemmy.ml/post/19620993
from xelar@lemmy.ml to world@lemmy.world on 27 Aug 2024 07:38
https://lemmy.ml/post/19620993
Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials “repeatedly pressured” Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to “censor” content in 2021. “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken,” he wrote to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again,” Zuckerberg added.
#world
threaded - newest
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4849003-meta-mark-zuckerberg-biden-administration-government-pressure/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Asking them to take down stuff that is clearly false and can endanger people is not censorship.
not to mention, basically, he’s handing the platform to a very vocal minority.
A minority that probably hates his guts. because lets face it, everybody hates Zuck the Cuck
How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.
The platform is accommodating people- or trying to, anyhow- that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.
It’s patently stupid to alienate the vast majority of people, who look at antivax as rampant stupidity, to accommodate people who will inevitably prove to be too extreme.
Look at what’s happening on twitter, with advertisers leaving.
That’s about to be Facebook.
Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.
Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.
This isn’t argument for regulation social spaces.
This is me passing around the popcorn and watching Facebook go up in flames.
Zuck is being dementedly stupid here. That’s all I’m saying.
Okay, look: I really need you to knock it off with this argument, please. 'Cause if you keep going with it, you’re gonna start convincing me that maybe we should let Zuckerberg post all the anti-vaxxer bullshit his shriveled, blackened heart desires, after all!
(And that’s bad because, as much as I’d love to see Zuck fuck up, @RidcullyTheBrown is right.)
Unless they can infiltrate his underground bunker in Hawaii, I doubt he cares how much they hate him.
You can also not claim freedom of speech when yelling fire in a crowded Theatre. I don’t understand why this is different. In this case the platform is amplifying people yelling fire and even creates spaces for people yelling fire to gather and talk strategy.
Taking down anything is, by definition, censorship. Censorship doesn’t mean only taking down things you agree with.
The mistake people make is thinking censorship is inherently bad.
Wat? It’s literally the definition of censorship. I think you mean to say censorship is not, in and of itself, bad.
This seems to be the only concrete thing in here and it seems like a terrible idea to me. No information about what exactly the pressure was from the government or what specific content they took issue with, leaving us all to come up with the guesses that most comfortably confirm our own biases.
Considering Zuck and Meta’s track record so far, I am categorically unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Zuckerberg thinks Facebook should self regulate and that means in this case be free to allow posts of anti-vax propaganda and covid conspiracy theories that literally cost lives.
This is just a great example of why social media needs external regulation.
And “needs external regulation” here just means “needs to not be above the law”.
They are not above the law, because these is no law in the US that regulates how social media platforms should be moderated. This is new territory. The EU only recently passed the Digital Services Act that broadly deals with this topic.
And that is entirely coincidental and has nothing to do with the endless billions pouring into political bribery in the US. The EU started regulating it because the shit was piling up so high, it started to smell over the Atlantic.
What I mean by being above the law is both that they get to write the law, and that even if they run afoul of it, they get to get off with bullshit fines, often without admitting that they did anything wrong.
Can you picture a world in which an authoritarian like Trump is President and then immediately abuses this authority to choose what’s allowed to be said on social media? Because then you might begin to understand how this could be a problem.
But there is surely room between “controlled by the government” and “not accountable for the content on its platform.”
There isn’t. They’re the same thing. How is the government going to hold them accountable without controlling the speech?
Do you think the government has complete control over your speech now? Do you think you are absolutely free to say whatever you want? I don’t even know where to start with someone who doesn’t understand that it doesn’t have to be one or the other despite, right now, it not being one or the other.
…no? No one thinks that.
I don’t know where to start with someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a slippery slope or legal precedent.
Well, when you figure it out, let me know where because it’s clear you don’t understand either of those terms.
Let me know when you figure out how to answer the question I asked you…
Said the company who deleted a facebook post by Malaysia Prime Minister offering condolences to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, which Meta later apologised and restored the post. But sure, lets go ahead and defend misinformation that basically hindering the vaccination effort.
Deanna crashed the ship
Ah, the “express regret” module was installed yesterday. It’s nice to see his upgrades are coming along.
Remember on TNG when Data got his emotion chip? This could get hairy…
Which time? When he joined up with his evil brother or when he crashed the Enterprise into a planet?
Deanna crashed the ship
She just told him what to do. He was the super android flying the thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx_1UIWI_tY @1:18
She's at conn, literally engaging impulse engines. Data is at the OPS station (as always since he's the operations officer) separating the saucer section from the drive section.
Yes!
The further we go down the misinformation hole the more these guys do their best to make their platforms shitty in the US while they comply with every dictator’s political oppression policies outside the US.
Zuckerberg is dangerously stupid.
He’s dangerously sociopathic.
Meta really needs to be split up, along with Google and Microsoft. Nobody can be allowed to have this much influence on public opinion without it going terribly wrong.
People need to stop using Meta’s products. They can’t survive without users.
Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc. are all Meta.
Worst case scenario I see brewing is that Google gets split up and Meta and Microsoft just buy up their assets.
With Android near the top of the divestment list, that’s a scary notion.
That’s just not going to happen. Unfortunately the average consumer doesn’t much care about any of these things. It’s the job of governments to prevent excessive concentration in industry. They’ve been doing a piss poor job in recent decades.
Facebook has enough money and influence to just buy the next big social media. Hell, most people don’t even seem aware Instagram is owned by them.
Everything is owned by like 10 companies. They all need to be busted up.
Someone’s trying to become a right wing grifter.
He hired Joel Kaplan over ten years ago.
Kaplan was a Bush toadie who participated in the Brooks Brothers Riot that stopped the recount in Florida in 2000 letting the corrupt jackasses on the Supreme Court to steal the election for Bush.
Kaplan has personally exempted right wing “news” sources from Facebook’s truthfulness standards.
Well, I did need a good laugh this morning, I just didn’t expect it to come from the lies this fucker tells himself so he can
rechargesleep at night…Content? Hardly.
Disinformation. Lies. Etc.
Hunter Biden laptop being Russian Propaganda.
Disinformation. Lies. Etc.
The letter said it has all the hallmarks of Russian propaganda, not that it was. This is certainly something that certainly has not been disproven by a long shot.
It’s funny how often people need to turn to blatant disinformation in order in a desperate attempt to both sides the issue of disinformation. Quite telling, in fact.
The FBI knew for certain the laptop was genuine, because they had the original (not just the disc image). Yet they led twitter and Facebook to believe it was Russian Propaganda and made no effort to correct the public perception.
Incorrect. The serial number on the back of the laptop matches the serial number provided in Apple Inc.’s response to a subpoena for records.
It’s funny how a campaign of blatant disinformation by the FBI has been completely ignored. A campaign so successful that Hunter’s laptop is still mislabelled as Russian propaganda by most Americans.
The letter did not come from the FBI. More lies or spin to cover up previous lies and spin only further confirms my point.
The letter doesn’t say the laptop is fake. Are you sure you know at all what happened?
What letter are you being blinkered by?
Zuckerberg told Rogan: “The background here is that the FBI came to us - some folks on our team - and was like ‘hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that’.”
From your link:
Directly contradicting your point. Yet you used it as evidence of your point. Can you answer me why one would cite a article that contradicts their point by cherry picking part of it that doesn’t contradict their point?
Although, let’s also laugh at the absurdity of claiming that because Zuckerberg said it on the joe Rogan show…well, that means it’s absolutely true. Lol
But to answer your question, most people when they whine about people “lying” about the laptop being Russian propaganda are referring to the warning letter by ex spies:
www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-57…
Directly supporting. Look at the timeline
Laptop repair owner asks FBI why they haven’t done anything.
Says if FBI isn’t doing anything he will shortly release the copy he has.
FBI warn everyone that “Russian Propaganda” is about to be released.
Hunter Laptop story drops.
Everyone assumes this is the “Russian Propaganda” so all news and discussion is censored
FBI does not reveal that there is no “Russian Propaganda” related to that story.
FBI does not reveal laptop is genuine
FBI does not admit they’ve sat on evidence for 9 months and done nothing.
No. I’m accusing the FBI of media manipulation and misinformation.
But it is hilarious that you are trying to invent evidence using what professional misinformation creators didn’t say in a published letter which, we now know, was complete misinformation.
The main problem with misinformation is who gets to decide what is fact and what is fiction.
You still havent proven this. Did you read the letter i posted? This is where the whole “Russian disinformation” public perception comes from, not from some questionable timeline where the FBI plants some vague seeds and the public is smart enough to make the connection.
And this is the point. They warned Facebook about the disinformation, and Facebook saw that the laptop fit the pattern. Maybe this is because it was Russian disinformation, which is why the FBI never corrected it. Although, there are more reasons why the FBI wouldn’t hop in, such as it’s not their job to correct public opinion.
Your letter is not relevant. We are discussing why Facebook immediately started censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story published on the 14th October 2020. This has absolutely nothing to do with a disinformation letter released 5 days later on the 19th.
What are you questioning?
Referenced directly by Zuckerberg as the specific reason for censorship.
No, the Facebook content team were duped into connecting the laptop story to Russian propaganda.
OK. I’d love to hear you arguing this. At what point were the Russians involved in repairing Hunter Biden’s laptop?
It’s not the FBI’s job to run PR interference for a politician’s son, but that’s exactly what they did. Court documents prove they had foreknowledge and proof that Hunter’s laptop was genuine.
Absolutely relevant because it explains how the laptop could be real and that it is still part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Of course the public can only respond to a story after it has been released.
Again, at no point have you established as a fact that it was not Russian propaganda. But that sentence was meant to be taken as a whole, contradicting your claim that the public misconception about it was due to FBI planting the seeds.
Lol I gave you a letter of a bunch of intelligence officially pointing out how it has the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. I don’t I know what the truth is, you’re the one maintaining you know for sure it is not, without providing any evidence other than “the laptop is his” which we agree is not in dispute, but leaves a ton of other questions opened.
Again, read the fucking letter.
We are discussing Facebook censoring (incorrectly identified) misinformation.
The response letter of ex spies had nothing do to with Facebook’s actions, which were actually based on misleading FBI warnings.
You want me to prove a negative? Ok. No russians were involved in fixing Hunter’s laptop.
I made no such claim. In fact the opposite is true. The lack of public communication by the FBI about the origins of the laptop story is what is damaging.
None of which were true, because it has been proven in court via serial numbers that the laptop is genuine. Claims of Russian propaganda are pure misinformation.
We agree this is true, so how then do the Russians fit into your conspiracy theory?
Again, the letter was sent 5 days after censorship began. It is not relevant.
Again, you’ve yet to actually establish that this is the case.
Again, it explains how even if the laptop is real, that it could still be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn’t make this go away.
No, you’ve repeatedly claimed we know it’s not Russia disinformation, which is a positive assertion.
It’s right in your timeline.
Holy shit I can’t believe you still haven’t read the letter. Amazing.
See Zuckerberg’s statement
Nothing raised in that letter is relevant. There was no hacking. E-mails have been independently verified. The story is independent of Giuliani.
There is absolutely no evidence of Russian involvement between the point that the laptop was submitted for repair in April 2019 and the FBI subpoenaing the laptop in December 2019.
The FBI suggesting to facebook and twitter that the laptop was Russian Propaganda is pure misinformation.
I’m not even sure he said what you’re claiming he said, but regardless are we really saying “well, zuckerberg said it must be true!”? Please tell me we’re not there.
Your language is so tricky. I wonder why. Yes, some emails have been verified. But not all.
Again, tricky language. There are questions about how it got there at all, and there are chain of custody questions too. So sure, if they planted it, there is no evidence of their involvement after doing so.
Except, again, according to the article you have posted and referenced multiple times, Zuckerberg says the FBI never said anything about the laptop. You seem to be picking and choosing when to believe Zuckerberg, conveniently when it suits your conclusion.
In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election. That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family, we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply. It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.
Well, he wrote that in a public letter to the House Judiciary committee. Let’s see the FBI disagree or arrest him for misinformation.
The damaging ones have. In particular the “10% for the big guy” email is genuine.
Notice the language here, he says “the reporting” was not disinformation, nothing about whether the laptop itself was part of any disinformation campaign. You’ve been very careful with your language, it’s surprising that you can’t see this deliberate use of language to sidestep any actual statement about the the laptop itself.
So we agree that they haven’t all been verified, exposing what was obfuscated in your claim.
And why have you abandoned the central theme of your claim that the FBI pressured them about the laptop? Again it appears you believe zuck when he kind of says something that confirms your point, but when he says something that contradicts it, you just ignore it.
What? If reporting the laptop contents is not misinformation then the laptop contents are not misinformation.
My claim that the FBI deliberately mislead Twitter and Facebook was detailed above with accompanying evidence. You’ve brought nothing new to contradict that claim.
He seems confident ® will win the next election. Either presidency or enough of congress.
He’s also trying to help make that happen
You have to have standards to be able to compromise them.
Like he said: no compromise!
The only reason this shitbag’s site is still relevant is because it is a boomer propaganda machine
He knows he’s complicit in the collapse, and just wants to make enough money to survive the world wide riots that will result. Every decision he makes is to guarantee that goal.
You are exactly correct.
“I did something shitty and shady and for that I’m truly sorry”
-some shit stain billionaire
In this case it’s
“I did something shitty and shady and I wish I did more of it”
He’s done shit like this before.
a billionaire would never say this
Shit I didn’t know Zuck was going the Elon Route.
‘They told me to keep it secret, but I regret not talking more about it.’ Some things are black or white, don’t try to fool us with the ‘grey area’. If you didn’t outspeak is because your whole purpose was to specifically avoid doing so!