Post ApvlycGYAwds9hSiAq by eff@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by eff@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #ApsXobOz2EVKxZ1yNs by eff@mastodon.social
       2025-01-07T22:31:10Z
       
       2 likes, 0 repeats
       
       We applaud Meta’s efforts to try to fix its over-censorship problem but will watch closely to make sure it is a good-faith effort and rolled out fairly and not merely a political maneuver to accommodate the upcoming U.S. administration change. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-metas-announcement-revisions-its-content-moderation-processes
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvK9Gw11kv6T09MMy by SantaAnna@beige.party
       2025-01-07T22:37:27Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @eff Don't hold your breath. Facebook has always been a deeply unethical company.
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvKA8il3GOvHWMXCa by duncan_bayne@mastodon.bsd.cafe
       2025-01-07T22:40:49Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @eff I admire your optimism but feel safe betting more than a few pints that everything following "not merely" in your post is true.
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvKAHbzzlLGrAGlPs by duncan_bayne@mastodon.bsd.cafe
       2025-01-07T23:01:07Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @eff Some relevant evidence for this being a political move: there's no constitutional mandate for either the FCC, nor the NLRB (in that the powers exercised by both are most certainly not reserved for the Federal Govt).The incoming administration has signalled its intent to (a) attack the NLRB on the basis of constitutionality, but (b) keep the FCC, and weaponise it against tech companies to force them to disseminate propaganda favourable to that administration.If they were serious about matters of constitutionality, they'd be casting a critical eye at all institutions equally.  But they're not: they're aiming to shut down those they find inconvenient, and weaponise the others.I don't think much good will come of this.
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvKH4bsjaOoYiS7BQ by rickpelletier@toad.social
       2025-01-07T23:54:51Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @eff I love the optimism, but come on, applauding the change before you've seen the effects?
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvKHW7iRKuFtGYQ3E by vitriolix@mastodon.social
       2025-01-08T00:00:02Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @eff this tone is a bit... naive
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvKPSI0ZvTeJf9aOu by ineiti@ioc.exchange
       2025-01-09T07:34:03Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @eff The article is in fact not as bad as most people point out. The worst part is the last paragraph, which is also used as intro in this toot. It goes against the rest of the article where the EFF points out censorship against minorities, which should effectively not be done.Unfortunately, having listened to Mark's ramblings in his 6-minute video, what Meta calls "Free Speech" is mostly "Free Hate". Combining with algorithms which push for more engagement, and the human brain which lusts after controversies and hate, this is just a recipe for disaster.Anyway, time to write that last message on WhatsApp and ditch my final link with Meta...
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvlybiWDTQ6S9XX84 by eff@mastodon.social
       2025-01-08T17:59:37Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Update: After this blog post was written, we learned Meta revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We are analyzing these changes, which this blog post does not address.
       
 (DIR) Post #ApvlycGYAwds9hSiAq by eff@mastodon.social
       2025-01-10T01:20:06Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       By the time we shared this statement, the conversation had understandably shifted toward Meta's dangerous new content policy. It was a mistake to project good faith onto the company, which quickly showed it was not deserving of it. For a full analysis, see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/metas-new-content-policy-will-harm-vulnerable-users-if-it-really-valued-free