Japan Today

Here
and
Now

opinions

Meta's 'Musk playbook' fans misinformation concerns

16 Comments
By Anuj CHOPRA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2025 AFP

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

I'm just happy I haven't used any social network for more than a decade.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Abandoning industry-standard hate speech policies makes Meta's platforms "unsafe places," said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of the advocacy group GLAAD.

Speech that you do not like is not "unsafe". Her "safety" is a weasel word for censorship.

You are either deliberately misunderstanding or just plain don’t understand.

Hate speech (mentioned in the quote you chose to post) and free speech are not the same thing. This is very clear to almost everybody.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Oh really? Define "hate speech".

Sure.

“abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”

You can’t be just hearing about this. Debate about social media ‘censoring’ is a waste of time. They are private companies and can do as they please.

You don’t have freedom of speech on JT for example, but here you are.

Can I help you with anything else today?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

They haven't got a choice. New King on the throne. Expect more of this. Don't blame Meta, blame anyone you know who was too lazy to vote, or voted for you know who.

User-based group moderation can work much better than top down censorship, if you design it well. Even if it is badly done, you'll be doing well if you can spot the hate amongst all the adverts.

And of course you can always just lock down your feed and create a community with your friends, which is what social media was all about in the first place. I've been on Facebook since it started and haven't seen any 'harmful misinformation' or hate yet. I guess you only see these things if you go looking for them. So there is an easy solution there.

And you can always ditch social media if you want. Nobody is forcing you to be on it.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yes, so Zuckerberg should be free to make Fbook free speech again. What is your problem with that?

Did I say I had a problem with it? No.

How decides what is a "prejudice"?

Do you need a definition for that too?

Explain something to me; it’s your turn.

Why is it generally those who talk about ‘snowflakes’, ‘woke’, ‘triggered’ etc you know, the ones obsessed with this stuff, still need to be spoon fed about it?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Read on Facebook that Trump stole the election. He paid Russia to deploy bot farms to sway Americans to dislike the current people in charge and to claim the economy was failing and that the borders were all open. Clearly a Trump+Russia project and far too many Americans fell for.

And I believe it 100%. Just look at how vigilantly some of the posters here are in their Pro-Trump stance and their anti-Biden stance. There can't be any other reason. Trump+Musk paid Russia to steal the election.

Every year, I open up my home network to allow access to social network websites for a few hours as I re-new my accounts there, to be certain they don't expire so someone else cannot get them and claim to be me or a relation to me. Best to keep the access off at the network layer to prevent as much tracking as possible.

Facebook "Like" buttons are all created for tracking, if you didn't know that. Those buttons are created with individually unique URLs, so they know exactly which page you viewed to 'HTTP-GET' the specific button. Then they can snag a cookie or supercookie from your browser to track exactly where you've been across all "LIke" buttons and other Facebook tracking methods (like embedded videos and 1x1 pixel "bugs".

Google does the same thing AND gets website owners to actually embed the Google tracking for them.

There are lots of other trackers out there. Many hide as "content delivery networks", so at least we end-users get faster access to the information we actually want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meta is now announcing they will just push political excrement on you whether you want it or not.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjyd0297go

Social media was a mistake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Professional Fact Checkers" lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meta's 'Musk playbook' fans misinformation concerns

LOL

Like WMD's in Iraq, Russiagate, the "insurrection", Hunter's laptop and the 51 former intelligent officials, and all the other massive MSM BS?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Hate speech: anything negative conservatives say against non-conservatives.

Misinformation: anything conservatives say that liberals don't like.

How come Clinton was never jailed for calling half the population deplorable? Hate speech right there.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Bob Fosse

“abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”

OK. "Threatening speech" can be addressed legally, and if that is the definition of "hate speech" I am fine with it. The other ones are weasel words and an invitation to authoritarian censorship. How decides what is a "prejudice"? Public forums should not be forced to police opinion.

You can’t be just hearing about this. Debate about social media ‘censoring’ is a waste of time. They are private companies and can do as they please.

Yes, so Zuckerberg should be free to make Fbook free speech again. What is your problem with that?

You don’t have freedom of speech on JT for example,

Sadly, yes. That still does not mean that censorship is a good thing.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

So calling people mentally ill due to the lifestyle choices is wrong? Of course some may be offended but this par for the course, it’s life. You cannot be shielded all your life from other humans views like a baby.

Well, it’s easy to lock people on those platforms and from what I’ve seen those who complain the most are usually the less tolerant and more likely to be abusive to others.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Abandoning industry-standard hate speech policies makes Meta's platforms "unsafe places," said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of the advocacy group GLAAD.

Speech that you do not like is not "unsafe". Her "safety" is a weasel word for censorship.

"There was no time in history where the people censoring free speech were the good guys."

(Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Because hate speech is not governed by law in The US. 

Did you not know this?

I am just happy that Facebook is now a site everyone can once again rejoice in. Time to re-open my account.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

GBR48

And you can always ditch social media if you want. Nobody is forcing you to be on it.

She can go to "Bluesky" which has all the censorship she wants. No need to complain about the neighbours backyard.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Bob Fosse

Hate speech (mentioned in the quote you chose to post) and free speech are not the same thing. This is very clear to almost everybody.

Oh really? Define "hate speech".

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites