this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
1016 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

60560 readers
3509 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Baguette@lemm.ee 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I dont think fact checking was the main reason, moreso that they decided to allow hate speech (e.g. They're allowing targetted hate against LGBT groups).

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Never seen FB disallow fake news or hate speech as long as it is coming from the (extreme) right.

Either they just stop pretending now or irl somehow get even worse?

[–] Baguette@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

They censored certain phrases and words, which they plan on no longer enforcing. I agree that they leave hate speech on the platform (reports rarely do anything) but the looser restrictions mean people can post even more hateful content and that paves the way for discrimatory ideologies

[–] SolaceFiend@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The anonymous fact-checking is the main thing PEOPLE took issue with. Like, oh I'm supposed to believe your anonymous fact-checkers know better than me or my trusted sources on what's true/false, but you refuse to identify or provide the credentials of those fact-checkers, so their integrity and validity can be certified?

But it's not the anonymous strangers arbitrarily sifting the wheat from the chaff willy nilly, and with no evidence to support their claims, that were the problem /s. , The problem was CLEARLY the people who took issue with an anonymous rando who has the power to declare a reputable source of info is lying, can not be disputed on that front (even in the many instances of them being wrong), and whose credentials can not be verified but is still supposed to be arbitrarily accepted as the supreme arbiter of reality and fiction.

Bought and paid for by a soulless corporation. I'll take "extreme dought" for $500. I was more likely to believe in Santa Clause than an anonymous figure who had no credentials or checks and balances of any kind.