Paul Barnett的动态

Maximise profit and avoid responsibility. That’s all that matters. This is just the self-checkout principle applied to social media. Why employ people to make the experience better, when customers will use the service anyway? Why regulate when users will do it themselves? #cx #customerexperience #customerservice #businessethics #profit #ethics

In recent months, a significant wave of criticism has been directed at Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, the owners of X (formerly Twitter) and Meta (formerly Facebook), respectively. The primary focus of this criticism has been their alleged refusal to censor content on their platforms. The majority of these critiques appear to be orchestrated and funded by political entities opposed to the incoming presidency team. This strategic move aims to undermine the credibility of platforms that have become instrumental in shaping public opinion and political discourse. What many fail to recognise is the irony inherent in this situation. The very criticisms being levelled against these tech moguls would likely have been suppressed under the previous administration's approach to content moderation. The current freedom to express dissenting opinions, including those critical of Musk and Zuckerberg, is a direct result of the changes implemented by these leaders. The loosening of content restrictions has created an environment where a broader range of perspectives can be shared and debated openly. This shift towards greater freedom of expression benefits not only those who agree with the current platform policies but also those who oppose them. The critics driving this narrative often present themselves as champions of responsible content moderation. However, their motivations may be less altruistic than they appear. Many of these voices represent interests that have experienced political setbacks due to the democratic expression of voter preferences. Unable to achieve their goals through traditional democratic means, they have resorted to pressuring social media platforms to restrict content that doesn't align with their viewpoints. Social media users who amplify these criticisms may not fully grasp the implications of what they're advocating for. By calling for increased censorship, they inadvertently risk limiting their own freedom of speech. The very platforms they're criticising are now allowing for a more diverse range of opinions, including those that challenge the status quo. The changes implemented by X and Meta have fostered an environment of increased transparency and open dialogue. While moderation remains necessary to combat illegal content and protect user safety, the current approach allows for a more robust exchange of ideas. This shift benefits all users, regardless of their political leanings, by providing a space where different perspectives can be shared and debated. These criticisms must be approached with a critical eye. We must consider the broader implications of content moderation policies and the potential consequences of excessive censorship. The freedom to express opinions, even those we may disagree with, is fundamental to a healthy democratic society. #socialmedia #censorship #politics #narratives #freedom #expression

Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement about Meta’s new approach to “free speech” has had me thinking about the decision to get rid of its fact-checking program and replace it with 'Community Notes', a system similar to what X (formerly Twitter) uses, where users add their own context to posts. ? It’s an intriguing idea that puts more power in the hands of users, but it also raises a big question: without proper oversight, how do we effectively combat misinformation? ? While 'Community Notes' on X has had some success in promoting transparency, it’s also been criticised for being inconsistent and potentially biased. ? Meta introduced its fact-checking program back in 2016 to address the rise of misinformation during the U.S. presidential election, so this feels like a significant shift considering the timing now. It’s hard not to wonder if it’s influenced by the incoming Trump presidency—particularly since the original fact-checking program was created to address the surge of misinformation leading up to Trump’s first term. ? Will this approach lead to more meaningful conversations, or will it simply pave the way for more misinformation and confusion? ? I guess only time will tell.

Here is my PR take on Zuckerberg's announcement about changes to Meta. Zuck was definitely trying to take control of the narrative early. I am sure that he has heard the chatter since he made the contribution to the inauguration fund and it hasn't been good. His framing of Meta pushing for more free speech and transparency is in hopes of appealing to a wide demographic of folks concerned about censorship. This post-election, post-Trump-meeting shift is Zuckerberg saying that he is trying to align Meta with current societal conversations. He's trying to make it seem timely. But the truth is, there is no good time to stop protecting facts and truth. In his anticipation of criticism, Zuck makes his decision to move content moderation teams to Texas signals and displays an awareness of accusations of bias. So now he's making an effort to decentralize. The best part of Zuck's announcement is his highlighting the flaws in the old system (e.g., censorship and mistakes). He is setting the stage for public understanding of the decision and hoping for support. The Community Notes is not a solution. The fact that Twitter has a bad reputation and low brand value shows that this was a bias move to appeal to certain people (Trump). There is no good reason to do something like this that brings down the trust and brand value of your product. If this was really about free speech, that would be great. What it's really about is Zuck hedging against potential regulatory pressure by portraying Meta as an advocate for open dialogue to appeal to 47. Let's see if it works out for him. What are your thoughts? https://lnkd.in/gEx5zJEx #PR #BrandValue #FreeSpeech #Spin

#Facebook #Instagram #Meta Meta Removes Independent Fact Checkers, Replaces With "Community Notes": Meta to remove fact-checkers Meta is dumping independent fact-checkers on Instagram and Facebook, similar to what X (earlier Twitter) did, replacing them with “community notes” where users’ comments decide the accuracy of a post. On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg in a video said third-party moderators were "too politically biased" and it was "time to get back to our roots around free expression". Tech executives are trying to build better relations with the new US President Donald Trump who will take oath this month, the new move is a step in that direction.?? Republican Party and Meta The Republican party and Trump have called out Meta for its fact-checking policies, stressing it censors right-wing voices on its platform. After the new policy was announced, Trump said in a news conference he was pleased with Meta’s decision to have? "come a long way". Online anti-hate speech activists expressed disappointment with the shift, claiming it was motivated by a desire to align with Trump. “Zuckerberg's announcement is a blatant attempt to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration – with harmful implications. Claiming to avoid "censorship" is a political move to avoid taking responsibility for hate and disinformation that platforms encourage and facilitate,” said Ava Lee of Global Witness. This organization sees itself as trying to bring big tech like Meta accountable. Copying X The present fact-checking program of Meta was introduced in 2016, it sends posts that seem false or misleading to independent fact-checking organizations to judge their credibility.? Posts marked as misleading have labels attached to them, giving users more information, and move down in viewers’ social media feeds. This will now be replaced by community notes, starting in the US. Meta has no “immediate plans” to remove third-party fact-checkers in the EU or the UK. The new community notes move has been copied from platform X, which was started after Elon Musk bought Twitter.? It includes people with opposing opinions agreeing on notes that provide insight or explanation to disputed posts.? We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations. We will take a more personalized approach to political content, so that people who want to see more of it in their feeds can.

Looks like Mark Zuckerberg stepped in and saved his company. American discourse has changed dramatically within the last 10 years. Censorship of harmless jokes, arguments, or unsettled information reached its peak after the 2020 election and it only tarnished the reputation of social media companies. Zuckerberg saw the writing on the wall and has corrected course by announcing the elimination of "fact-checking" that he and everyone knew was a biased policy. He also reportedly brought on dana white to serve on the board of Meta showing he is taking advice from the likes of Musk and even the incoming Trump administration. With the mass exodus of users who wish to go back to when X was called Twitter, we have seen platforms like Bluesky Social come into view. However, death threats and child exploitation seem to plague these "new-old" sites with other violent fringe ideas making them repulsive to your average American user. Let's hope Meta and Zuckerberg get this right after they have gotten it so wrong for almost a decade. https://lnkd.in/gddS_Wqz

After witnessing the aftermath of Meta’s decision to lay off thousands of content moderators and employees responsible for preventing harm and abuse in the last few years, it’s clear that the consequences are deeply troubling. Bullying, harassment, hate speech, violence, incitement, misinformation, propaganda, scams, and even sexual abuse have stormed on platforms like FB and IG. Allowing abusers more freedom to manipulate these spaces is not “helping communities”; it’s a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of billions of users. To think that “community notes” or similar functions will scare bad actors is naive at best. People who spread fraud, scams, harassment, or engage in illegal activities are fully aware of the harm they cause, they simply don’t care. Giving them more freedom doesn’t stop the abuse; it enables it. We’ve already seen the disastrous effects of similar decisions on other platforms, such as Twitter. Following this path will only further rub trust, safety, and the sense of community these platforms once claimed to champion. And let me be clear: this isn’t about politics. It’s personal. You cannot impose narrow political perspectives or individual ideologies onto billions of users without accountability. While governments impose regulations for a reason, bypassing these safeguards in the name of “freedom” only worsens misinformation, conflict, and harm across the globe. This is not about freedom of speech. It’s about responsibility. These decisions are not bringing people closer together—they’re tearing communities apart. It’s disheartening to see Meta take this route. Prioritizing cost-cutting and personal agendas over community safety will only ruin these platforms further.

Meta to get rid of fact-checkers, turn Facebook into a kind of X for Trump - Meta is abandoning the use of independent fact checkers on Facebook and Instagram, replacing them with X-style "community notes" where commenting on the accuracy of posts is left to users. In a video posted alongside a blog post by the company on Tuesday, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said third-party moderators were "too politically biased" and it was "time to get back to our roots around free expression". The move comes as Zuckerberg and other tech executives seek to improve relations with US President-elect Donald Trump before he takes office later this month. Trump and his Republican allies have criticised Meta for its fact-checking policy, calling it censorship of right-wing voices. Speaking after the changes were announced, Trump told a news conference he was impressed by Zuckerberg's decision and that Meta had "come a long way". Asked whether Zuckerberg was "directly responding" to threats Trump had made to him in the past, the incoming US president responded: "Probably". Source: Meta to replace 'biased' fact-checkers with moderation by users So apart from donating money to the Oligarchy, now there will be a kind of "free speech" where Trump amigo's and nutjobs can cry all they like whilst silencing actual intelligence. I wonder how fast people will leave FB for Bluesky. - https://lnkd.in/dXxCcQ_r

#fb #insta #factchecking #politics Facebook and Instagram get rid of fact checkers Meta is abandoning the use of independent fact checkers on Facebook and Instagram, replacing them with Elon Musk's X-style "free-for-all".? The move comes as Zuckerberg and other tech executives seek to improve relations with US President-elect Donald Trump (brown-nosing). Trump and his Republican allies had criticised Meta for its fact-checking policy, calling it censorship of right-wing voices. Interesting to note that Meta says it has "no immediate plans" to get rid of its third-party fact checkers in the UK or the EU. https://lnkd.in/dWuDGjTj?