Olives @olives@qoto.org

For context, I only noticed the newer article after I started this thread.

In that light, it is tempting to promote something like this as a superior avenue to go down (or largely in part), however, this too has it's issues.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/metas-new-content-policy-will-harm-vulnerable-users-if-it-really-valued-free For the most part, the article is pretty good (I tend to comment on the negatives first).

Particularly, the more facts that they have to process, the higher the chances there are of things going wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep Scope creep can also be an issue.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/metas-new-content-policy-will-harm-vulnerable-users-if-it-really-valued-free Calling out the double standard (what they're focusing on) is smart, but I'd be hesitant to make a piece like this appear like it is calling for any particular kind of censorship.

I get it. No one wants Zuckerberg to be the arbiter of truth, and demoting content based on the say of a random third party org can be problematic. It would also always be a point of friction and contention, particularly when a fact check is considered to be inaccurate.

The EFF's proposed fact checking alternative isn't even that good. Let's suppose someone makes a post debunking an American myth like sex trafficking statistics. A small group of people might decide to "correct" that.

https://www.eff.org/tossedout/twin-horror-filmmakers-soska-sisters-suspended-twice-twitter
"Jen and Sylvia Soska are identical twin filmmakers known as The Soska Sisters. The sisters specialize in horror and have a cult following, with more than 50,000 fans on Twitter. But in July 2019, they faced a horror of their own: Their Twitter account was suspended right after they released the trailer for their upcoming film, a remake of 1977's "Rabid."

Stills from the film were featured on the cover of two magazines but were too much for Twitter's moderators, who suspended the account for containing too much "gore, violence, and hate,""

Making moves to lower the error rates (it's something which several civil society groups have called for for years), and addressing a politician's concerns is one thing (being diplomatic there is his job). Talking of moving to Texas is very specific.

On the other hand, it's hard to ignore the political moves which the company has made. We will have to see what happens. I suspect we might hear more in the coming days.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-metas-announcement-revisions-its-content-moderation-processes Since there have been enough comments on why this post isn't that good, maybe it's time to comment on why it's good.

I see quite a bit of discourse on free expression, which is frankly empty. For instance, "if only everyone used the fediverse, then we would live in a socialist utopia" or something, all the while ignoring how Facebook's algorithms censor people here in the real world (the fediverse has inter-instance censorship issues of it's own, although there aren't intrusive algorithms).

Facebook taking concrete steps to avoid relying on algorithms are real steps away from the techno-solutionist dream that Mark Zuckerberg has wrapped himself in for the past ten years (by his account, it might even be the past twenty years). They are not a dream. They are not an abstract concept. They are not a philosophical argument.

It didn't take long for me to pull up lots of examples of silly censorship on platforms (mainly focusing on Facebook).

https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/4/22519433/tiktok-intersex-ban-mistake-moderation-transparency "TikTok says the repeat removal of the intersex hashtag was a mistake"

https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/3/24311513/meta-content-moderation-mistakes-nick-clegg
We knew he was planning something a week ago, although there wasn't much to go on here (this mainly talks about the error rates of FB's algorithms / moderation processes).

Zuckerberg gets flack for so many things that you could almost substitute his name for the name Satan.

"It was Satan!"

"Zuckerberg!!"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/technology/mark-zuckerberg-meta-free-speech.html
"Fed up with what has seemed at times to be unceasing criticism of his company, he has told executives close to him that he wants to return to his original thinking on free speech, which involves a lighter hand in content moderation."
To be fair, he has a point. He gets a lot of flack for things which don't really have anything to do with him. Also, in a bid to take responsibility for *everything*, he has built a big censorship apparatus which hits people for all kinds of petty things.

Zuckerberg is probably a good example of someone who created impossible expectations by prohibiting so many things.

On the other hand, copying Twitter's CN idea could be seen as a political gesture. Moving teams to Texas would definitely be seen as this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/27/facebook-apologises-flagging-plymouth-hoe-offensive-term
"Plymouth Hoe is one of the most well-known sites in the UK’s seafaring history, the spot where Sir Francis Drake reputedly finished a game of bowls before heading out to fight the Spanish Armada.

But Facebook has found itself in hot water after challenging some posts from local people who innocently mentioned the Hoe, mistakenly thinking they were using a misogynist term."

Crucially, Facebook might attempt to justify restrictions on nudity (or other expressions) by conflating them with prostitution.