Zuckerberg Admits White House Pressured Facebook to Censor COVID-19 Content

[Hardkill]

I am glad that Facebook has conceded this. 

If anything, there needs to be even more regulation of content and information on the internet and social media.

Look at the chaos what has happened to the since the 2010s with the rise of the internet, social media, right-wing media echo chambers, and Trumpism. All of it has tremendously contributed to widespread chaos, division, and brain rot in the US.

The spread of false information on social media has led to the manipulation of public opinion, influencing elections and policy decisions.

Conspiracy theories and fake news have become rampant, eroding trust in institutions and fact-based discourse.

Social media algorithms prioritize engaging content, often creating echo chambers that intensify polarization and reduce constructive dialogue.

The amplification of extremist voices has contributed to increased hate crimes, white nationalism, and social unrest.

Excessive social media use has been linked to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.

The constant exposure to misinformation, negativity, and sensationalism can lead to a decline in critical thinking skills and a decrease in cognitive abilities.

Online Harassment and Cyberbullying: The lack of regulation has enabled the proliferation of online harassment, cyberbullying, and hate speech.

Privacy Concerns: The unregulated collection and use of personal data have raised concerns about privacy and surveillance.

I believe that our country should ideally go back to having the kind of free and fair speech we had before the fairness doctrine was repealed. Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. 

That's why I think that the government needs to implement a lot of reasonable regulation of content and information on the internet and social media ASAP until all discourse and free speech returns to normal more like it was during the late 1900s and early 2000s.

Plus, overturning buckley v. valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission would further return more real freedom of speech back to the people.

In the mean time, the progressive media ecosystem needs to keep getting larger and more influential to fight back against misinformation and to win the messaging war.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Hardkill

[What Am I]

25 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I am glad that Facebook has conceded this. 

If anything, I'd imagine this will shift public sentiment in the opposite direction of additional regulation. Zuckerberg himself seemed remorseful that he went along with it. A large number of people will see this as a betrayal, especially so since it had been vehemently denied and occurred secretly outside of public view.

I agree with large parts of your assessment after the first line though. Social media in its current form is a scourge on humanity.

Actually, I agree with your first line too. Actions like that done in secret have helped lead us to exactly where we are.

Edited August 27, 2024 by What Am I

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Weather if it's true or not - is not actually relevant. 

Maybe in your mind it's not relevant but in my mind it is.

Not everyone sees the world as you do or holds your standards of communication.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, Raze said:

But you’ve been saying Trump is going to end democracy? If governments have free reign to shut down speech so would a trump like figure if they get in office.

Trump is a unique threat which I was not talking about here.

But even with Trump, he's not going to have enough power to seriously stop free speech. Trump's toxic impact would be in other domains.

[Yimpa]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

It would be very wise to contemplate why governments censor people.

And why you censor others.

[questionreality]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Maybe in your mind it's not relevant but in my mind it is.

It is not relevant to narcissism.

If it happens to be true, it doesn't make you any less of a narcissist is my point.

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not everyone sees the world as you do or holds your standards of communication.

Funny you say that, when a lot of the time you expect others to see the world that you do or to hold your standards.

[Raze]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Trump is a unique threat which I was not talking about here.

But even with Trump, he's not going to have enough power to seriously stop free speech. Trump's toxic impact would be in other domains.

Demagogues and dictator wannabes aren’t unique, there are endless examples in history, including ones that take over democracies.

Even if he wouldn’t now, if more and more of behavior like this is normalized, a future president can. 

[Davino]

@questionreality If you don't value Leo's feedback you are welcome to have your opinion, although that doesn't make it true either. Why are you so sharp with him? I think you are missing a great opportunity here with your behaviour. If you want you could take a totally new attitude on the matter, based on respect and seeing value in what others have to offer, guiding the conversations towards insightful inquiries instead of diagnosing personality disorders and acting like you know more than what you actually do on the matter. Just know your place.

Please take it as a respectful feedback, it's all it is.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

And why you censor others.

They could certainly go together, yes.

[Raze]

38 minutes ago, ryandesreu said:

Implementing temporary censorship to protect public health and save many lives during a once-in-a-century pandemic is a justified measure. 

How did censoring the hunter Biden laptop story save lives

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

How did censoring the hunter Biden laptop story save lives

By preventing Donald from becoming a dictator.

*quack quack*

[BlueOak]

Good. Saved a lot of lives. People didn't act quickly enough, I lost an uncle, but I am glad that is the only person I lost.

Panic had to be contained in a crisis situation. Uncertainty on fundamentals like health, food, water, security, and power have to regulated on a standard day, let alone when a crisis is occurring. Understanding this, I like the boundaries to be tested and my bias is to hear all views, but when large amounts of people are dying and nobody knows what is occurring, information has to be tight and to the point. Wars, Diseases, Natural disasters etc all operate under different rules.

People prioritizing free speech in a crisis is irresponsible and dangerous.

Now we can talk about how people overuse security to spy and monitor the public to insane degrees and censor things like the words 'political compass' on YouTube, I'm all for that discussion, but pick your battles because this one isn't helpful.

[BlueOak]

The fundamental disagreement lies in the fact that many people have embraced a fascist conspiracy theory that downplays the seriousness of the pandemic. Because they didn't, and some still don't, see it as a crisis, they believe the censorship wasn't justified.

From that perspective, I can understand their view.

I could point to the death toll, but they would likely dismiss it as part of the conspiracy, perpetuating an endless cycle of circular reasoning looking at the (self) only. This illustrates a core issue with fascism: the use of conspiracy to selectively accept or reject facts. While everyone does this to some extent, conspiracy thinking leads us into delusional mindsets, where we actively rewrite reality to fit our own (self) agendas, strictly ignoring any feedback from the world that contradicts our beliefs. This feedback can usually keep us grounded if we are not surrounded by people sharing the conspiratorial mindset!

Both of America's political parties align with capitalism and authoritarianism, and as long as this continues, fascist themes like conspiracy will keep resurfacing in politics. The Republicans are currently deeper into these fantasy narratives, though a small shift away from them seems to be happening now.

Edited September 1, 2024 by BlueOak

[Raze]

53 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Good. Saved a lot of lives. People didn't act quickly enough, I lost an uncle, but I am glad that is the only person I lost.
 

What is the evidence it saved lived? 

[BlueOak]

29 minutes ago, Raze said:

What is the evidence it saved lived? 

Several Millennia of recorded human history in dealing with crises.
Countless thousands of virus and disease outbreaks before it.
Most dangerous situations the public are exposed to.

If you give me a more specific question I'll answer it with a more specific answer.

Is the question, why does controlling the information given to the public in a crisis or even dangerous situation save lives? I can also focus it specifically on disease or virus outbreaks if that's more useful.

Edited September 1, 2024 by BlueOak

[What Am I]

1 minute ago, BlueOak said:

Is the question, why does controlling the information given to the public in a crisis or even dangerous situation save lives?

I don't necessarily mean for this to be a gotcha, but more a genuine question of how far we should go in the West. During covid in China, the doors to some peoples' domiciles were welded shut to prevent anyone from coming and going. There's a possibility this saved some of their lives, as they may have otherwise left home and became infected and/or spread it to others. Is this something you'd be in favor of? If not, why not?

[Human Mint]

It is really easy to make it a "they're trying to control us" type of thing. 

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

It is really easy to make it a "they're trying to control us" type of thing. 

It's not easy at all. You have to delude the fuck out of yourself to turn it into that. 

Many of the same people who are saying it's government overreach/authoritarian censorship/control are the same people who thought the government was overstepping with mask mandates. 

Edited September 2, 2024 by Joshe

[Human Mint]

13 minutes ago, Joshe said:

It's not easy at all. You have to delude the fuck out of yourself to turn it into that. 

Many of the same people who are saying it's government overreach/authoritarian censorship/control are the same people who thought the government was overstepping with mask mandates. 

Then why so many people are deluded?

[Joshe]

24 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Then why so many people are deluded?

I guess you're right. It is easy for many. I guess I just wanted to lash out against it.