@NetMassimo the

There is certainly something going on here, both the EU/UK have now got laws to try and reign in social media, so it is meant to be safer, Australia has banned under 16s from using social media. This in the view of Trump harms America, and from big tech bosses view point it harms them. So this is a chance to get in to bed with Trump and do something about it, fight back, President trump has the power to threaten sanctions, taffifs and make it much harder for countries or businesses to operate within the US, where as the EU needs the agreement of about 27 nations, it takes time, Trump can just do things very quickly. It takes long enough to pass some laws in the UK.

Trump is good at opening his mouth and getting what he wants as he is a bully and countries can either cower down in terror and give in or stand up and say NO to him, then face the consequences.

So yes, by removing moderation you change the status quo as to how content is presented, this benefits Trumps maga supporters, anti vaccination and anti climate rhetoric,

By ensuring social media companies can't also be sued over content you create a environment where one group of people can say / post what they want with no consequences or anyone held to account.

Isn't the whole point of moderation to step in before harmful content goes out to the wider user base, as I said before given the stories from the moderators, we could see a lot of nasty / illegal and harmful content which cannot be unseen.

This could be the unintended consquence, of trying to give more of a voice to the anti vaccination groups or climate deniers, which I think is the intention here. Most people can view a post that says climate change is fake news and ignore it.

@NetMassimo

I am sure that I read back before Trump won the first time, that facebook would show posts to people in certain areas, for example high immigrant area, would promote content that suggests immigrants commit a certain number of criminal offenses. Trump had a solution, build a wall.

So even that is election interferance, it favoured trump. BUT is it? If you take content at face value, don't fact check and just think of facebook as the oracle of the truth, then surely as a user who chooses to use facebook you really are to blame. It is not as if how the platform works is not well known, does not need to be fully understood as such. We had cambridge analytica which hardly really dented the user base of facebook that much.

@NetMassimo

I am sure that I read back before Trump won the first time, that facebook would show posts to people in certain areas, for example high immigrant area, would promote content that suggests immigrants commit a certain number of criminal offenses. Trump had a solution, build a wall.

So even that is election interferance, it favoured trump. BUT is it? If you take content at face value, don't fact check and just think of facebook as the oracle of the truth, then surely as a user who chooses to use facebook you really are to blame. It is not as if how the platform works is not well known, does not need to be fully understood as such. We had cambridge analytica which hardly really dented the user base of facebook that much.

@zleap it's not a surprise that Facebook is even more rotten but it was already rotten before. It was pointed out that negative news is favored by the algorithm because arguments keep the users on the social, so there's a cynical choice. Zuckerberg was always an opportunist.

@NetMassimo
As are most of the super rich, current and former big tech CEO's but also people Like Epstien, Al Fayed, they make their money by seeing an opportunity to exploit others.