I understand that the EFF strives to support free speech online, which this technically supports, but the EFF should also understand better than anyone that platforms beholden to advertisers choosing to allow harmful content only results in the decline of that platform's revenue from losing advertisers, which almost always directly causes enshittification of the platform. (See: Twitter, or "X" I guess.)
Meta is a rotten corporation, not a freedom fighting NGO. Everything they do is compromised and what you're signaling by your statement is trust in them? Are you for real?
@eff I love y'all. I’ve donated for ages both formally and throwing cash to your booths at various cons. I'm a fan and proud member.
But WTF. No. I can't think of a plausible way to describe Meta as "over-moderated”, nor can I think of a realistic scenario where they’ll actually do this in good faith.
If they want to earn a good reputation, they can begin by starting to act civilly for the first time ever. If that happens, and they keep it up for a few years, *maybe* then I’ll believe it.
@eff I'm looking forward to see ISIS and Hamas content being shared freely on their platform. Because if you're going to claim to be 'politically neutral', you better be politically neutral.
@eff moving their moderation team into a jurisdiction that intentionally endangers the lives of cis women and all trans people warrants condemnation, not applause
@why0hy The entire article is an extreme case of communication sandwich... "We really liked this one sentence in your book. Everything else sounded like garbage, here's a list: [...]. But then again, that sentence was very good."
@eff "We applaud Meta's effort" what, and i mean this sincerely, the fuck? you're either embarassingly naive in your take, or you're preemptively kissing the ring of fascism already
@eff You're saluting Meta for encouraging and monetizing hate speech and oppressing critics of American fascists posing as conservatives and libertarians. Are you that naive about the intention of the Zuckerberg, Musk, Thiel, Trump, the GOP, etc ?
@bloor@eff imagine that despite all this time and experience of how facebook functions someone like the EFF publishing a blog still giving them the "benefit of the doubt"
Update: After this blog post was written, we learned Meta revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address.
@eff You applaud Zuck's transparent efforts to kiss Trump's ass? Really? How embarrassing for you. "We sincerely hope that the lightened restrictions announced by Meta will apply uniformly, and not just to hot-button U.S. political topics" LMAO, you can't be *that* gullible
"Censorship, broadly, is not the answer to misinformation" Ah right, so Facebook could have avoided its role in the Rohingya genocide by… I dunno, community notes saying "some people think massacres are bad, actually"? 🤔
@dalias@eff Also, your post was wildly questionable even before the recent changes. You *do* know that absolutely nothing Meta (or any corporate SoMe platform) does can be remotely presumed to be in good faith, right? The evidence for this goes literally all the way back to their founding.
@jwcph@eff I want to know who the particular employee or officer or board member or whatever at EFF who wrote that was, because they are clearly pro-fascist and need to be ousted.
I doubt this is about high school validation or personality. Zuckerberg is being forced to this because if he doesn't his company will be in a bad place.
The connection between government and big tech is being smudged in this clip.
What I mean to say is that, because social media's algorithms are not transparent, they structurally allow for manipulations, making them a target for governments and other powers to influence people's opinions.
This is not a MAGA phenomena. But they surely make it very obvious what is happening.
Similar issues arouse with the TikTok ban, making it visible how certain politicians knew very the dangers of social media, but had decided to ignore them as long as it was on their side.
@aburka@jwcph@eff Oh, I missed that. I wonder if it's really by them or some staff. Unless their bios are embellished, this seems like a rookie mistake for ppl who should know better...
@eff it was a mistake to project good faith onto the company in this the year 2025?
8 years after the Rohingya genocide? You still gave them the benefit of the doubt?
Is there any kind of internal self-evaluation happening at the organization or even in your own heads asking yourselves why you made such a poor choice? In, and I cannot stress this enough…. 2025?
@eff If it was a mistake, take down the post, issue a retraction, and issue an equally enthusiastic condemnation of Facebook's role in welcoming fascism and undermining the core values EFF (purportedly) stands for.
Also, tell us what you're going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again. In terms of limiting the influence of (e.g. firing) whoever thought that post was a good idea. I doubt the senior names on the byline actually had time to write it. Whoever did is a plant compromising the EFF.
@eff I have tried to encourage people to leave Meta - so far with poor results. The way they make money with people's vulnerability and increase polarization of the society is just not right.
@eff Y'all will do or say anything to avoid OWNING YOUR SHIT, won't you?
Own. Your. Shit.
You've been simping for hate for a long time. Figure out how you're going to NOT DO THAT ANY MORE, apologize for doing it at all, and then don't do it again.
You get not one penny and not one word of praise from me until you fix your hearts and your practices.
@eff N.b. I'm a librarian. Libraries have totally pulled the same "we're neutral" and "the fix for bad speech is MOAR SPEECH" bullshit you've been pulling all this time.
I teach soon-to-be librarians now why this is not okay and how to move beyond it. The profession hasn't caught up with what I'm teaching yet, but I teach the way I do so that it will, someday.
You can change. You should change. Free speech absolutism is no longer acceptable. Grow up.
@eff you're flogging a dead horse by pointing out "oh yeah Meta is still bad actually oops" and suggesting what they must/should/could do as if they will ever in our lifetimes do it beyond protecting their bottom line and reputation in the press with performative and empty gestures. Stop wasting your energy with this, apologise fully and meaningfully for your repeated naivety and trust for Meta and finally encourage its abandonment and suffocation while elevating its community owned alternatives