zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
here we go again. another election cycle where some of the loudest voices with some of the largest platforms ever in history will be declaring they’re not being allowed to speak.

the reality is, they’re loud, they have easier and larger access to more people than anyone ever in history. the reality is also that they’re just mad people speak back to them.

people talking back to them is what they’re really upset about.

honestly i can’t wait for this election cycle to be over.

>>toofy+xc
Did Zuckerberg himself support conspiracy theories? Or does he regret succumbing to government requests for censoring that type of content? Sounds to me like he wants to allow certain kinds of speech on his platform, regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with them.

>>mypast+Ef
Which he was free to do and did.

Literally Zuckerberg is quoted as saying he didn't remove posts: "[USG] “expressed a lot of frustration” when the social media platform resisted.".

It would be much better if the article actually posted the contents of the government email. Everything we saw from say the Twitter files in this regard is some gov employee asking if X post complied with Y Twitter policy and if-not if the post should be removed. That gov employee didn't write Y policy, it was Twitter's own policy. I suspected a similar thing happened here where Facebook has a fake news policy [1] and a gov employee was asking them if given posts were in violation of it.

[1]: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/m...

>>lesuor+fv
I assume he’s familiar with the transparency standards of his own site. And he still calls whatever happened pressure. So it’s entirely possible it wasn’t as innocuous as you suggest.