Major props to those causing a ruckous internally there. That said, they likely fully expected a backlash and likely didn’t care. Anyone who cares can be replaced by another sycophant, at a reduced salary even.
You get what you pay for. They’ll be drawing from “the best of the rest” in a dwindling pool.
They don’t need the very best to make profit for a very long time, especially in a friendly regulatory regime. Check IBM for reference.
They own the social media market and have enough capital to acquire any plausible competitor, as have done in the past.
Losing top talent is only a significant price to pay if the firm or its competitors are still building new stuff that affects their bottom line. Meta is happy raking in the social media-ad profits. Google is happy raking in the search-ad profits. They’re all busy getting more money out of the markets they’ve monopolized, not competing.
They pay well enough to get anyone who doesn’t care about principles. Plenty people in tech like that.
Five people interviewed….
“It’s total chaos!!!”
I despise Facebook as much as the next person, but sensationalism hurts more than it helps.
You know what would be an effective ‘protest’? If employees started deleting important files…
Sorry, I can’t tell if you’re serious or not.
It’s extremely unlikely that facebook has in place a system that allows any lowly engineer to cause such damage alone. No hard drive hosting unique files no one else has, without backups, without security, and so on.
If you’re a billion dollar corp that depends on an important recipe to make your product, you’re not leaving the only copy of it on front desk with no oversight.
I don’t see how deleting files would work as a form of protest. Would probably get you in trouble, though.
Okay, so what are employees doing? The title says “employees protest”, by “protest” do they mean “complain but continue to follow orders”? Because that’s basically the norm for any job.
Don’t know. Article asks for sign-in, but much as I like 404’s reporting, I just don’t feel like creating one more account right now, so all I got is they’re unhappy and talking. Maybe they’re talking to people who can do something about it, maybe they’ll do more soon—organizing takes time, after all—or maybe they’ll do fuck all 'cause that’s what we usually do.
Its amazing how quickly these assholes have dropped any sort of facade they were keeping up towards their public image. At best they are doing whatever they think will get them the most money, more realistically they actually support this regressive bullshit. As a non-American I am so pissed at what a good portion of that country has voted for and those that stayed home instead of preventing this.
Supposing your team had won, these people would go back to only paying lip service. Better, no doubt, but not a solution. How long did fascists and racists and misogynists lay dormant in US culture before seizing control now?
You need cleansing and systemic change. People need to internalize “no one is free until everyone is free.” Fascists and ethno-nationalists need to be afraid and culturally eliminated over generations.
Fascism is enabled by liberalism, and its capitalist ideology, and it’s promoted by capitalists when capital is threatened. Capitalism is the underlying force here, and capitalists are behaving in exactly the same way they’ve done at similar points in history and as described and predicted by leftists.
Yes Democrats losing the vote sucks and we’re all paying for it, globally, but their win would have been a delay at best. That doesn’t mean winning votes isn’t important, but it means that it can’t be your one and only political action once every 4 years. It’s time to get serious.
They had a fun time while it lasted, however such inorganic promotion of hypersexuality had a cost and they’ll pay soon.
Tolerating & not suppressing it is tantamount to promotion?
Or what exactly are you talking about?
“Hypersexual” is a term I have heard used by anti-LGBTQ bigots as a pejorative, especially but not exclusively by the religious right. They think that a minority calling out to each other in solidarity or getting special protections equals a hyperfixation upon having sex.
The person above is welcome to tell me I have them all wrong, but based on their other comment in this post, they appear to think queer people on the internet (or maybe just the internet in general) are sex-crazed maniacs.
announced content moderation changes that will allow users to say that LGBTQ+ people have “mental illness,”
Someone gets triggered by free speech here.
Anyway, wind blows the other way now. Zuck doesn’t want to piss against it
Seriously, this is how the media is spinning this? “Facebook now allows people to post that LGBT people are mentally ill”?
The default behavior of any social media platform is to allow people to say anything they want. That’s what social media is for, to allow people to talk to each other. The things it doesn’t allow are, and ought to be, exceptions. Facebook has now decided that one of these exceptions will be slightly loosened. I somehow fail to see the big deal in this.
The default behavior of any social media platform is to allow people to say anything they want.
False, moderation has existed since literally the beginning.
That doesn’t contradict what I’m saying (“default behavior”), and also moderation is different from censorship.
You are an idiot.(*)
(*)See anything wrong with that statement? Think an order of magnitude worse and directed at minorities who already are targeted with hate, and you have the reason why such policies must exist.
I wasn’t actually expressing a substantive opinion on whether this policy change of Meta’s is a good thing or bad thing. The rules there are as arbitrary as anywhere else on the Internet; this slight shift does not make much of a difference.
But moderation is different from censorship: if you (or I or anyone else) do not want to read people writing about LGBT people being mentally ill, or calling me an idiot (and I certainly don’t, most of the time), or literally making any statement at all in the world, then none of us should have to. That doesn’t mean people who want to say these things to each other (necessarily) need to be prevented from saying them to each other; there are arguments for that too, but it’s a different issue.
Let me shorten your wording to make my next question clear:
if you do not want to read X, then none of us should have to
How does that make sense? I actually don’t get what you are trying to say. Are you advocating censorship as in “rules should be global”?
The point of moderation is: If companies make profit providing a social platform, they should be the ones leveraging the effort to keep illegal contents off their platform. Also, it provides a legal path for making them responsible for their contents (if they fail to moderate).
Censorship - leaving all questionable aspects aside - puts the efforts entirely on the censoring party (typically a state entity). And while I am definitely not arguing in favor of censorship, I absolutely object to investing a single tax Euro into censoring (or moderating) privately owned for-profit social media.
Now to your first point:
[…] whether this policy change of Meta’s is a good thing or bad thing. The rules there are as arbitrary as anywhere else on the Internet; this slight shift does not make much of a difference.
Please call the stupid incel pieces of shit what they are - Facebook assholes. because fuck them, and they are not entitled to telling us how to call those useless wastes of oxygen. Meta is a word, it has a meaning, and it has nothing to do with the Facebook assholes. Least of all Fuckerberg.
To the point: This policy change is evil as it gets. They explicitly invite hatred targeted against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no grey area here, this is evil, period. And thanks to the new fascist administration divided states of southern northern america, it will succeed, business wise. But I still get to spit into the face of every person who uses their platform anyways.
Moderation = not showing things to people who do not want to see these things. If you are an LGBT person and do not want to ever see people calling you and people like you mentally ill, then hiding those things from you is moderation, completely legitimate, an important part of making the platform a more welcoming place. I don’t usually want to see people doing that either in my feed (and in fact I don’t, because I follow entirely different things on Facebook).
Censorship = not showing things to people even though they want to see these things. If a group of people who believe that LGBT people are mentally ill are talking to each other about these beliefs, then preventing them from doing so is censorship, it doesn’t make the platform a more welcoming place because the people it would make feel unwelcome weren’t seeing it anyway.
That is what I (and the linked blog post) am trying to say. You may still think censorship is in some cases a good thing, but I think it’s important to make the distinction.
Censorship = not showing things to people even though they want to see these things. If a group of people who believe that LGBT people are mentally ill are talking to each other about these beliefs, then preventing them from doing so is censorship, it doesn’t make the platform a more welcoming place because the people it would make feel unwelcome weren’t seeing it anyway.
That is a very weird explanation / example.
Hiding abuse from the targets but letting the abusers talk freely is a concept by morons for morons. Once could say that people who generalize that “LGBTQ [you forgot a Q there] people are mentally ill” are mentally ill themselves. Anyone thinking that it is okay to make a judgement about a group of people based on their gender identity should probably see a therapist themselves because they are definitely NOT NORMAL.
Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?
I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?
The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever, but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal” but that is the concensus is it not?
Your argument has been used countless times in history for a number of “abnormalities” that turn out to just be differences without distinction.
“Listen, I’m a supporter of red-heads, but don’t we basically understand that it’s a genetic abnormality? Maybe ‘illness’ is a bit harsh, but they’re just not common enough in society to be considered normal.”
It’s not an argument, I’m asking in good faith if my current viewpoint is correct. I’m reading your reworking of my words and I don’t actually see a problem with it. Abormality just means a difference with a much lower chance than normal. I think this actually proves what I’m trying to say because I don’t think anyone legitimately believes there’s anything wrong with people who have read hair.
Again it seems to be the word that’s chosen that causes a bad reaction. If I say being a redhead is a genetic deficiency then I’m implying it’s a bad or unwanted trait (which it is not) similar to the word “illness”. However if I say it’s a genetic abnormality, I don’t think that has any negative connotations because it is a difference, as you say, but one not seen as often as any other differences.
Again, I can’t prove to you that I’m approaching this in good faith, the downvotes seem to say most people think I’m not, but I am just trying to understand if it’s the words we’re using that people take offense to, or the actual meaning behind them is wrong.
Other animals exhibit homosexuality, we’re the only species to exhibit homophobia. That should tell you all you need to know about which behavior is abnormal.
Right, but those other animals do not exhibit homosexuality in high numbers. It’s still a small subset as far as I know, making it an abnormality that those animals simply don’t care about.
This isn’t about homophobia, I’ve already stated that I’m pro LGBT, it’s about the meaning of words and understanding if a lot of the backlash is due to the perception of the words or the meaning of the words. I also agree that illness is a negative word that implies a correction is needed and I do not support it.
Consistently observed behavior in a population subset is not an abnormality.
I’m not going to downvote you and assume this is a genuine question. You appear to be aware that calling someone “abnormal” would be considered insulting. If you support the idea that someone having different sexual preferences is their own business, why would you want to use these labels? If one person likes math and the other likes literature, would you call one or the other abnormal? We all deviate from the norm because there is no norm.
Why would abnormal be an insult?
I would consider myself abnormal, it isnt a negative or positive thing
Ok there i go for the downvotes… Where are woke people there is always confusion about everything, if you dont think or do things like they do they start scream and protest all the time. Thats why they are getting behind, the majority of people (the silent ones) are tired of the constant whining
Silent? I fucking wish you idiots were silent.
“Do things the way they do” like accept people’s right to exist and be themselves. You’re the ones enforcing things on people, your revulsion at seeing a black person isn’t equal to that person’s suffering under a racist system.
You entitled piece of shit.
is me wanting to exist really too “woke” for you?
No, but if you work in a place and dont like the way the company is going, for personal or profissional reasons, just resign and go for another job, stop wasting everyone time and patient
if a company was allowing people to say they want YOU dead, you’d be pretty upset as well.
Just running away from discrimination and oppression doesn’t help. I value the well-being of humans WAY before I value your “time and patient”“value the well-being of humans” that is a subjective thing thats why there is this kind of conflits, just because you think you are defending the world with no cape that doesnt mean you are right and the contraditory is not true as well. What i mean is that they have different views and there are not a good or bad view, they are different, so no you cannot say that you are right and the other is wrong. Just move on
