Meta Bend the Knee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

It does not. That’s the first thing you learn in law School. No right is absolute. That’s why the government can punish hate speech. And why you can be liable for yelling “fire” in a crowd when there is t one. Those are just examples and spreading false information about a public health crisis falls into that realm imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.

(Aclunc.org)

Does criticizing the vaccine that the government is forcing people to get count as free speech?

Because the government did censor that.

The government didn’t “force” people to get the vaccine unless you were a Federal Employee or routinely worked with Federal Employees. This is because although you *think* feds do nothing, they actually work hard doing a lot important things that the whole country relies on and a massively reduced force would have terrible consequences.

Any Facebook post that claimed the government was “forcing everyone” or made up stories about “chips” WAS misinformation and would have been deleted by any responsible site owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

It does not. That’s the first thing you learn in law School. No right is absolute. That’s why the government can punish hate speech. And why you can be liable for yelling “fire” in a crowd when there is t one. Those are just examples and spreading false information about a public health crisis falls into that realm imo.

You seem to be suggesting that false speech and misleading speech is per se outside the bounds of the first amendment. I suggest you reach NY Times v. Sullivan and RAV v. city of St. Paul

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.

(Aclunc.org)

Does criticizing the vaccine that the government is forcing people to get count as free speech?

Because the government did censor that.

The government didn’t “force” people to get the vaccine unless you were a Federal Employee or routinely worked with Federal Employees. This is because although you *think* feds do nothing, they actually work hard doing a lot important things that the whole country relies on and a massively reduced force would have terrible consequences.

Any Facebook post that claimed the government was “forcing everyone” or made up stories about “chips” WAS misinformation and would have been deleted by any responsible site owner.

That isn’t what I asked. I asked if criticizing the government for its vaccine mandate is free speech. I, and anyone who understands the 1A, would say yes.

The government censored that speech in direct violation of the constitution.

And btw, those feds and companies working with the Feds amounted to 80 million people. That is a lot of coercion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

It does not. That’s the first thing you learn in law School. No right is absolute. That’s why the government can punish hate speech. And why you can be liable for yelling “fire” in a crowd when there is t one. Those are just examples and spreading false information about a public health crisis falls into that realm imo.

What? No. Brandenburg v. Ohio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

It does not. That’s the first thing you learn in law School. No right is absolute. That’s why the government can punish hate speech. And why you can be liable for yelling “fire” in a crowd when there is t one. Those are just examples and spreading false information about a public health crisis falls into that realm imo.

It is legal to say untrue things. Are you suggesting it's not?

Also, MZ was clear that he was being pressured to censor true things so this is nonsequitor. We all know that censorship of things like Hunter's laptop and the lab leak theory were censored well after they were known to be true or at least plausible.

Masks are another good example, and one that MZ brought up in the interview. At first Fauci said masks were unnecessary and ineffective, because he wanted to make sure there would be enough for medical workers. Then he said they are absolutely necessary and everyone should wear one. So what is the right thing for social media companies to censor? Which of Fauci's contradictory statements? For a while on Facebook, you couldn't even *quote Fauci* on his early statements about masks because that was "misinformation." You can't pretend this isn't ridiculous. Everyone can see it's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.

(Aclunc.org)

Does criticizing the vaccine that the government is forcing people to get count as free speech?

Because the government did censor that.

The government didn’t “force” people to get the vaccine unless you were a Federal Employee or routinely worked with Federal Employees. This is because although you *think* feds do nothing, they actually work hard doing a lot important things that the whole country relies on and a massively reduced force would have terrible consequences.

Any Facebook post that claimed the government was “forcing everyone” or made up stories about “chips” WAS misinformation and would have been deleted by any responsible site owner.

That isn’t what I asked. I asked if criticizing the government for its vaccine mandate is free speech. I, and anyone who understands the 1A, would say yes.

The government censored that speech in direct violation of the constitution.

And btw, those feds and companies working with the Feds amounted to 80 million people. That is a lot of coercion.

Are you referring to the Plandemic video that was boosted by FB’s algorithm ? Or someone posting “I don’t think feds should be required to get the shot”? There’s a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.

(Aclunc.org)

Does criticizing the vaccine that the government is forcing people to get count as free speech?

Because the government did censor that.

The government didn’t “force” people to get the vaccine unless you were a Federal Employee or routinely worked with Federal Employees. This is because although you *think* feds do nothing, they actually work hard doing a lot important things that the whole country relies on and a massively reduced force would have terrible consequences.

Any Facebook post that claimed the government was “forcing everyone” or made up stories about “chips” WAS misinformation and would have been deleted by any responsible site owner.

Biden didn't just impose a vaccine mandate on federal workers and contractors, but created an OSHA rule mandating private employers to do the same, and mandated health care workers at facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid be fully vaccinated.

So, no, not literally every single person, but the Biden administration's official position was that to use government authority to mandate the vaccine on as many people as the government could possibly include under any existing authority they had. And you can argue whether that's a good thing or bad thing. If someone calls these actions "forcing everyone," then that's not technically correct, but it's also just a bit of hyperbole that gets used in internet conversations. Essentially political speech.

It's not at all on the same level as someone posting information dangerous to the public health, like suggesting you drink bleach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on the other thread and wanted to move it here.

I've run FB ads for the last 5 years and have trained under some of the top in the industry. As part of the curriculum, often we'd look at what Trump did during the 2016 election - which was brilliant from a marketing and persuasion standpoint but highly unethical.

Cambridge Analytica harvest data from nearly 100 million FB users without consent and used that data for Trump's campaign in the 2016 election and build a psychologic and demographic profile for each voter - not just their political beliefs, but other beliefs, interests, even behaviors (like we can tell if someone likes to watch videos, click on links, write comments, etc and design ads catered to those behaviors).

They then used this data to run tens of thousands of ads *per day* to see what messages work with which groups. Often we tweak images, headlines, wording, etc. Even to the point where they'll take 20 different actors, have them give the same message, and see which actor people like best.

This is called micro targeting and A/B testing. They're standard practice in digital marketing, but obviously to get to the point where you are running tens of thousands of ads per day, you need insane amounts of money, which is where campaign financing and donations come in (because the average person can't do this).

And obviously, somebody who has the ability to raise this amount of money will very easily be able to get a large voter base from Facebook because of the way they slowly use propaganda to persuade people.

In marketing terms we call this a funnel, but it works the same. You align with somebody over a belief they already have, then slowly send them more and more content that starts to shape their beliefs in other things. This is why there are such strong pipelines from health, finance, relationships, etc to the far right: You start with a reasonable belief (XYZ diet is healthy, here's how to lose weight and get healthy, etc) then slowly introduce other ideas such as anti-vaxx (if you eat this diet you're so healthy you don't need vaccines!), introduce the concept of Big Pharma is out to get you, and so on.

Zuckerberg had to testify before Congress because of the illegal data harvesting, and FB put things like fact-checking and stricter data access in place to cover his butt. But ads are FB's source of revenue - they made $800 million from political ads in 2020 alone - so obviously they want to continue political ads even though it's highly unethical.

Now that Trump is in office, I suspect Zuck is being offered protection in exchange for other right-wing campaigns to have "free speech". Or at the very least, knows that a conservative-controlled government won't come after him. Which is extremely scary, because a massive amount of the right's campaign strategy is to spread misinformation and create outrage over things that aren't actually problems.

Sadly the average American doesn't stand a chance. Marketing is a trap that is intentionally set for you and there's no real way around it. Add in AI-generated images and it's terrifying; I see AI-generated images on FB daily where thousands of people comment not realizing it's fake.

Very scary time to be in the U.S.

Obama did the same in 2012. Facebook knew about it and looked the other way. Liberals celebrated the sophistication of the Obama campaign, then complained when Trump did similar things and made Cambridge Analytica to be a villain.

Thank you. I feel like I'm the only one who remembers this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on the other thread and wanted to move it here.

I've run FB ads for the last 5 years and have trained under some of the top in the industry. As part of the curriculum, often we'd look at what Trump did during the 2016 election - which was brilliant from a marketing and persuasion standpoint but highly unethical.

Cambridge Analytica harvest data from nearly 100 million FB users without consent and used that data for Trump's campaign in the 2016 election and build a psychologic and demographic profile for each voter - not just their political beliefs, but other beliefs, interests, even behaviors (like we can tell if someone likes to watch videos, click on links, write comments, etc and design ads catered to those behaviors).

They then used this data to run tens of thousands of ads *per day* to see what messages work with which groups. Often we tweak images, headlines, wording, etc. Even to the point where they'll take 20 different actors, have them give the same message, and see which actor people like best.

This is called micro targeting and A/B testing. They're standard practice in digital marketing, but obviously to get to the point where you are running tens of thousands of ads per day, you need insane amounts of money, which is where campaign financing and donations come in (because the average person can't do this).

And obviously, somebody who has the ability to raise this amount of money will very easily be able to get a large voter base from Facebook because of the way they slowly use propaganda to persuade people.

In marketing terms we call this a funnel, but it works the same. You align with somebody over a belief they already have, then slowly send them more and more content that starts to shape their beliefs in other things. This is why there are such strong pipelines from health, finance, relationships, etc to the far right: You start with a reasonable belief (XYZ diet is healthy, here's how to lose weight and get healthy, etc) then slowly introduce other ideas such as anti-vaxx (if you eat this diet you're so healthy you don't need vaccines!), introduce the concept of Big Pharma is out to get you, and so on.

Zuckerberg had to testify before Congress because of the illegal data harvesting, and FB put things like fact-checking and stricter data access in place to cover his butt. But ads are FB's source of revenue - they made $800 million from political ads in 2020 alone - so obviously they want to continue political ads even though it's highly unethical.

Now that Trump is in office, I suspect Zuck is being offered protection in exchange for other right-wing campaigns to have "free speech". Or at the very least, knows that a conservative-controlled government won't come after him. Which is extremely scary, because a massive amount of the right's campaign strategy is to spread misinformation and create outrage over things that aren't actually problems.

Sadly the average American doesn't stand a chance. Marketing is a trap that is intentionally set for you and there's no real way around it. Add in AI-generated images and it's terrifying; I see AI-generated images on FB daily where thousands of people comment not realizing it's fake.

Very scary time to be in the U.S.

Obama did the same in 2012. Facebook knew about it and looked the other way. Liberals celebrated the sophistication of the Obama campaign, then complained when Trump did similar things and made Cambridge Analytica to be a villain.

Thank you. I feel like I'm the only one who remembers this.

They were not the same thing. All of it was a FB problem that friends lists were used too. That was true for all apps on Facebook at the time.

Obama used an app and users consented to have their data collected for campaign purposes.

People who took the Cambridge Analytica quizzes did not know their data would be used to form a psych profile and then sold to political campaigns. And when FB discovered it, they asked them to delete it and they didn’t do it.

Obama’s campaign used it to target people for campaign materials. Cambridge Analytica built psych profiles and sold the data all without users consent.

It’s dishonest to say these are the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Ok, fair, but isn't that essentially what retailers are doing all the time? Building a profile on us figuring out what we want and trying to get us to buy it? I remember a story about Target knowing women were pregnant before they did and sending pregnancy coupons to their houses, leading to uncomfortable conversations. I think it should all be illegal, but since it's not, it's basically more sophisticated political ads, a similar idea to putting more conservative ads on Fox News and ads about Social Security on daytime TV, but personalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone watch was Zuckerberg said? He said that they would specifically start pushing political content in "recommended" videos. They are tweaking the algorithm to push MORE political content under the guise of "free speech."

I love it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law- breaking.

(Aclunc.org)

Does criticizing the vaccine that the government is forcing people to get count as free speech?

Because the government did censor that.

The government didn’t “force” people to get the vaccine unless you were a Federal Employee or routinely worked with Federal Employees. This is because although you *think* feds do nothing, they actually work hard doing a lot important things that the whole country relies on and a massively reduced force would have terrible consequences.

Any Facebook post that claimed the government was “forcing everyone” or made up stories about “chips” WAS misinformation and would have been deleted by any responsible site owner.

Biden didn't just impose a vaccine mandate on federal workers and contractors, but created an OSHA rule mandating private employers to do the same, and mandated health care workers at facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid be fully vaccinated.

So, no, not literally every single person, but the Biden administration's official position was that to use government authority to mandate the vaccine on as many people as the government could possibly include under any existing authority they had. And you can argue whether that's a good thing or bad thing. If someone calls these actions "forcing everyone," then that's not technically correct, but it's also just a bit of hyperbole that gets used in internet conversations. Essentially political speech.

It's not at all on the same level as someone posting information dangerous to the public health, like suggesting you drink bleach.

This. It was massive government coercion through every possible means and anyone who says differently is gaslighting.

The repercussions of covid policies are going to be with us for a very long time.

[Anonymous]

The people on here who are trying so hard to defend their right to believe and share misinformation is simply mind-boggling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zuck thinking he was the authority in determining what pandemic information was true while the too health experts all over the world were still trying to figure it out.

Remember the “Plandemic” video that he allowed to go viral all over his platforms? Yeah, that’s what was circulating during the time in question.

People need to learn what free speech actually means. It does not mean you get to pick your truth and spread it far and wide with no consequences or pushback.

It does when you are talking about consequences or pushback from the government, and Zuckerberg has made clear he was pressured by the Biden team to silence voices on his platform.

It does not. That’s the first thing you learn in law School. No right is absolute. That’s why the government can punish hate speech. And why you can be liable for yelling “fire” in a crowd when there is t one. Those are just examples and spreading false information about a public health crisis falls into that realm imo.

It is legal to say untrue things. Are you suggesting it's not?

Also, MZ was clear that he was being pressured to censor true things so this is nonsequitor. We all know that censorship of things like Hunter's laptop and the lab leak theory were censored well after they were known to be true or at least plausible.

Masks are another good example, and one that MZ brought up in the interview. At first Fauci said masks were unnecessary and ineffective, because he wanted to make sure there would be enough for medical workers. Then he said they are absolutely necessary and everyone should wear one. So what is the right thing for social media companies to censor? Which of Fauci's contradictory statements? For a while on Facebook, you couldn't even *quote Fauci* on his early statements about masks because that was "misinformation." You can't pretend this isn't ridiculous. Everyone can see it's ridiculous.

In your very first science lesson in elementary school, the first thing you learned was that science is ever changing. That is why medicines and treatments change. That is why Pluto is no longer a planet. That is why we know the earth is round. That is why we now have to get a colonoscopy at 45 instead of 50.

It was a brand new virus. It took time to learn about it. That is how science works. The scientific process is designed to adapt and evolve as more information becomes available. Only an extraordinarily simple-minded person would think that they could take one look at the virus and immediately know everything about it and give the public a perfect set of guidelines.

And yes, all vaccines have a risk of side effects. So does every medication and treatment. It is called weighing the risks. While the side effects were greatly exaggerated and misrepresented on sm and by RWNJ, I do know that people experienced them. That is normal and expected and is stated on the forms we sign for every shot, prescription, etc.

As far as my personal experience with the guidelines and vaccines, my family and I followed all of them. To a T. We got the shots as soon as possible and get the boosters. Of the 5 of us, only one has had covid. So I am beyond grateful for Fauci and his ever-changing guidelines. It worked for me and my family.

Also, you realize this scenario played out all over the world, right? The changing guidelines, the vaccine requirements for work? Was it a worldwide conspiracy?

Oh, and then there’s the fact that Trump threw out the pandemic playbook that Obama left. That certainly didn’t help.