I guess being an a-hole has always been cheaper than not being one.
Bye bye losers
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.
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 te 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.
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.
ok buddy
The paradox of tolerance is you have to be intolerant to intolerance
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.
Unionize tech and then it can happen.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels … upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all
Well, yeah, if tech workers unionized, maybe they’d have some leverage. Let’s hope they get to that before the next absurd move from big tech? Fingers crossed, 143rd time’s the charm.
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.
Now we’re doing headlines like this with tech companies in addition to politicians? These fuckers act with impunity because they can.
For some reason, it appears the unbreakable barrier for humanity is switching the fucking social media site you go to.
What would it take for people to consider not looking at Instagram and Facebook? A feed full of snuff videos?
“Total Chaos” feels a bit overblown…
It’s probably accurate. Imagine cubicles and desks smoldering in a filthy, smokey heap, copy machines smashed through the windows, sparking electrical conduit dangling from the ceiling. It’s likely madness.
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
I love this ahahah <3
Silent? I fucking wish you idiots were silent.
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”
That doesn’t happen to me. Maybe you’re just an asshole.
You fuckers are anything but silent.
Pretty sure it’s the zios and other fash crying about having their lies revealed.
Why do I hear so much bitching about wokeness from the silent ones? If they want to call themselves the silent ones they should shut the fuck up. I might be interested if they had anything to say beyond the vague ‘we’re getting behind’ and ‘everything is confusing’ which gives heavy old-man-yells-at-cloud energy.
“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.
We certainly wish you were silent
What does “woke” mean, when you say it? It used to refer to awareness of the existence of institutional racism. Does “anti-woke” refer to a lack of awareness, or a lack of concern? Would you argue that that would be a good thing?
What is “woke” to you? Not using racist slurs?
The word woke has been misused for so many years now its effectively meaningless other than meaning “dumb leftist”
Fuck we are a stupid species…
Ok there i go for the downvotes… Where there are people with which I disagree 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; like us) are tired of the constant whining
… We are above the fray. It is the they’s and them’s causing all the problem and doing all the complaining. This post isn’t the exact whining I’m talking about I promise. We us’s are just doing the lord’s work and never complaining.
Oh shut the fuck up with your false piety
Uhhh… what are you on about?
Just you whining about doing gods work and being mad at they/thems for existing
False piety. Jesus definitely wouldn’t do your performative bullshit.
OMG! I got the impression people were missing what I thought was obvious, on the nose sarcasm. I was pointing out the initial whinging about “woke” people was hypocritical.
Sorry as a queer person I got no patience these days and your sarcasm was too on the nose for me to pick up
I caught it, but tensions are high in this thread (I get why), an /s would help a lot.
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?
Variant is probably a better choice than abnormality, if you’re asking genuinely, that is.
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?
There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.
For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.
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?
That’s a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.
“Deviations from the norm” would imply that there is a specific baseline “norm” to point at, when it’s much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.
This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.
It’s not a
“You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label” kind of thing,
it’s more
“You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category”
Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs “some other thing” is a whole other giant kettle of fish.
And musical “talent” can have many sources, depending on your definition.
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
It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
Look up what they used to call “Hysteria” and what that enabled them to justify as “medical procedures”.
I’m sure there are people who legitimately think it’s some sort of illness but i’d put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.
but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.
My personal opinion is that anything we do is “natural” as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.
Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.
It also heavily depends on your definition of “abnormal”, for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?
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”
They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isn’t particularly useful here , it’s only when it’s given context that it makes sense.
My view is that the word “abnormal” when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.
If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by “normal”), then you might get more positive responses.
but that is the concensus is it not?
As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
“Deviations from the norm” would imply that there is a specific baseline “norm” to point at, when it’s much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.
I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
(Illness) It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isn’t particularly useful here , it’s only when it’s given context that it makes sense.My view is that the word “abnormal” when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by “normal”), then you might get more positive responses.
This is the conclusion I came to in a seperate comment here. That I am coming at the word abnormal from the statisctical point of view, as in it deviates from a known norm. A lower percentage of it happening compared to other outcomes. Other people are using the word abnormal as a way of shunning “the other”, which is unfortunate.
I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough. I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in. It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
“but that is the concensus is it not?” As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
Anyway, that’s enough rambling from me. Thanks for the reply.
If a requirement to mental abnormality is that its unnatural, wouldnt that also exclude most mental illnesses?
I don’t think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?
but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.
If the answer to the question “is homosexuality a mental abnormality” depends on if you consider homosexuality natural, that would mean that being unnatural is a condition of a mental abnormality, which, since people are born with mental illnesses and not resulted from human activity, would also exclude mental illnesses
Am i misunderstanding something?
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 above 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.
The difference is being labeled “abnormal” by a person you know vs. by society. As a society, we used to beat children who used their left hand to write until they started acting “normal”.
The thought itself that left-handedness and right-handedness are different is not harmful. However, when you start labeling one as ‘normal’ and the other as a ‘generic abnormality’, you start shifting people’s perspectives and suddenly we get a situation where we call left-handed people “Sinister”. (The word literally means left-handed. We added the evil connotations afterwards because of the prejudice against left-handed people. We also did the same in reverse for “dexterity”.)
You might not see the harm immediately in the small scale, but it’s absolutely intended to be a step towards dehumanizing queer people. As others have said as well, homosexuality is incredibly common in nature. Most giraffe sex is gay sex. It’s just not taught in school because… say it with me… “It’s abnormal.”
It’s really not though. It’s just different, and different doesn’t mean bad.
I think we’re on the same page then, we just have different taste when it comes to using certain words. I can certainly appreciate your slippery slope point where anbnormalities can be twisted by society into being negative. That’s a very real thing and you have some good examples. I suppose I’m just disappointed that we as a society are choosing to step around words and not confront the elephant in the room that abnormal things happen all the time and they aren’t bad.
I wish we lived in a society where people aren’t always looking to paint people in a bad light, where we could speak factually and not take offense to everything. At the end of the day the more I try to explain myself in these comments it appears to be the definition of normal that I’m getting hung up on. When I think “normal” I’m thinking statistically average, this is a fairly probably outcome. Others are thinking of “normal” as in socially accepted, not a big deal.
I think homosexuality in humans is abnormal (statistically) and normal (socially). I’d never heard that most giraffe sex was gay though, so that’s interesting. Time to get lost in Wikipedia.
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
Yes, this is exactly my point. For example, I have ADHD which has some downsides, but a lot of upsides that make me who I am. I’m also partially red-green colorblind. Both of these are abnormalities, and I don’t take that as a personal affront.
Now, apart from being the butt of a couple jokes, being colorblind has not been a major hardship for me, so from an emotional level it’s not the same as growing up ostracized for being gay. Perhaps that’s why I don’t perceive my abnormality to be something I would take offence to.
That’s really what I’m trying to get down to. Are we trying to say being LGBT is “normal” as in, every child being born has a very high, or just as average a chance of being born LGBT as heterosexual? Because I don’t think any facts support that. Or are we saying an LGBT child would be an abnormality that we as a society simply don’t care about because we don’t attribute large importance to sexual orientation.
This is where I feel that saying homosexuality is a mental abnormality is not actually incorrect, but our connotations of the world abnormal are still such that people attribute negativity towards it.
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.
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.
The oligarchs have paid their tithe to king Trump and feel like they are immune to consequences. So far they have been correct.
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.
That’s not at all amazing. What’s amazing is that a large number of people thought it was a great idea to hand over the power to decide what’s true or not to private companies. When they rolled out this “content moderation” used mostly against Trump the political left was beside itself with joy. I remember the taunts of “haha it’s a private company, they can publish whatever they want.” So incredibly stupid and short sighted.
I think “thought it was a great idea to hand over the power […] to private companies” is a misrepresentation. Some moderation was better than no moderation, but obviously "the political left"would have preferred regulation rather than self regulation.
What’s the point you’re making? That nothing should have been done?
I mean, I feel thats still true. And because it’s true, we need to get the f off of it, as a society.
The “it’s a private company lolz” thing was itself a reaction to when Republicans were refusing to make gay wedding cakes, and the loss of the Fairness Doctrine long before that.
Yeah, it is absolutely crazy how much the tide has shifted with trump’s reelection. These so-called “woke” companies (it was always performative, but they performed for the more just side) have all turned 180 and dropped to their knees to kiss the ring.
And this is because of the very real feeling that trump will abuse his power and unconstitutionally stay in office. The guardrails seem to have come down, and these fuckers are rushing to get on the fascist’s good side.
That should alarm everyone, so I’ll say it again: these companies are positioning themselves on the side of fascism because they don’t think we can stop them anymore. They are making business decisions that bolster fascists because there’s a fuckin dollar in it.
With the power of these fucking megacorps behind the fascist movement, it’s like sticking a rocket engine on its ass.
Something something 1930’s Germany.
LOL welcome to corporate America. The only reason they paid lip service to causes like you mention is because it was temporarily a pathway to more profit. Now that Trump is in office (or nearly so, anyway) they have read the room and realized these beliefs are actually a liability now. So, surprise! They dropped em like a rock in the pursuit of more profits. Never never never trust a corporation to do the right thing. They sometimes accidentally do it in the pursuit of profits, but tying your hopes and dreams to a large corporation is a foolish plan. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU THEY CARE ABOUT THE MONEY IN YOUR WALLET.
He knows which way the wind is blowing…
Not just social issues.
It’s easier if people quit than you firing them.
So do shit like this so people “protest resign” and fill their positions with H1B’s who can’t resign because they’d be deported and take a fraction of the pay.
Resigning in protest is never a good idea.
Stay, obstruct, make them fire you.
Fuck the wind. Stand tall against the gale of hate
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
we can only hope fb implodes sooner rather than later. I personally know multiple people working there who are very decent human beings who need to pay bills. I just hope their current trajectory will force employee action and paralyze fb long enough to hurt. Unlike other places it’s not so simple to just hire a load of IT professionals and have any meaningful results short term, esp. if they have not been ramped up to speed by their colleagues. So it’s not impossible, bowever tolerance threshold is kind of high for any action to take place. Wads of cash, unpaid mortgages and all. Employees of big tech are truly living in gold cages…
Tell your friends to quit and find something better if they can get hired there they can get hired anywhere
Protest quitting would require a large amount of people to do it at the same time. If only a few people quit it’s a net loss because then the percentage of bad people is higher.
Excuses
Lots of evil is done by people who “just need to pay the bills”
With meta on your resume you can easily find employment or freelance. Tech people have widely applicable and desired skills. Hell they could even move to a non 3rd world country and be better off.
As someone in the tech industry i can say that now is a pretty terrible time to lose your job.
The market was booming during covid but is very dry right now. Many companies have had lots of layoff and the market is saturated with candidates
Yes but at Facebook they make more money, and money speaks louder than morals 🤡 I’m not sorry for the people working at Facebook. They are part of the problem. Facebook didn’t just suddenly become evil yesterday.
I recently quit facebook due to rampant russian propaganda, unmoderated communities full of far left or far right (same thing really) bots and constant, rampant scams and ai posts. It’s not that platform has it, any platform with 5 digit userbase has them. It is that FB has used it consistently across all their platforms to drive “”“”“engagement”“”".
unmoderated communities full of far left or far right (same thing really)
No, they are not the same thing at all 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Both wanna solve problems with violence and shit up the internet.
The left: we want fair wages, working conditions and healthcare
The right: we want to enslave minorities and murder lgbtq people
This moron: they’re the same!!!
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.
CW: transphobia
trans are the most sus even within the LGBT. Its a broad category of mostly nonsense identities or simply just people unable to cope with how they are born and lamenting over it and passing on that stupidity to children. There are trans who act and blend like any other human being but most are just plain psychological disaster. The unnatural spike in identity disorder proves it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/3157331
I think you’re right.
I wonder what their thoughts on the unnatural spike in left-handedness are?
It’s an absolutely sinister plot by the left wing to make people less right /s
Anyone that works for meta is a fucking sellout chump but if they cause chaos maybe they’ll be slightly cooler
Five people interviewed….
“It’s total chaos!!!”
I despise Facebook as much as the next person, but sensationalism hurts more than it helps.
“Internal conversations and five people interviewed.”
Let’s be honest. For current employees, it’s probably 10-100 times that. If my company did something controversial and then the press asked me for a reaction, I’d say “no comment” like it’s my catch phrase. Unless you already have a job lined up (that can’t be undone by “badmouthing your employer”), no one’s being open and truthful.
Getting five employee accounts on record is impressive.
There is not a zero-risk of retaliation.
