pull down to refresh

History will remember this era as the moment when America’s most sacred principles collided with unprecedented institutional power – and lost. The systematic dismantling of fundamental rights didn’t happen through military force or executive decree, but through the quiet cooperation of tech platforms, media gatekeepers, and government agencies, all claiming to protect us from “misinformation.”
Meta’s sudden dismantling of its fact-checking program – announced by Zuckerberg as a “cultural tipping point towards prioritizing speech” – reads like a quiet footnote to what history may record as one of the most staggering violations of fundamental rights in recent memory. After eight years of increasingly aggressive content moderation, including nearly 100 fact-checking organizations operating in over 60 languages, Meta is now pivoting to a community-driven system similar to X’s model.
In his announcement, Zuckerberg first suggests that the censorship was purely a technical mistake, and then changes his tune near the end and admits what has long been litigated: “The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government. And that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past 4 years when even the US government has pushed for censorship. By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further.”
The truth, as always, will come out and it is in horrendous quantitative and qualities. They were censoring heavily at the behest of the state contrary to the constitution’s first amendment. Biden’s gang did this and will get away with it. They did it and it weakened our rights and they will get away with it. FTS!!
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @nym 11 Jan
reply
The letter or whatever it is is just saying that Zuck and Meta must be responsible for fudiciary duty to increase the shareholders investment as much as they reasonably can. I would question the 2% in BTC, though. They could reasonably go to a higher percentage without taking on too much risk.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @nym 11 Jan
Good analysis, I wasn’t sure what to make of it
reply
They are only doing what they are supposed to do. If they didn’t do it, they could be removed from the board for malfeasance.
reply