Popular shared stories on NewsBlur.
2774 stories
·
61963 followers

Mark Zuckerberg lies about content moderation to Joe Rogan’s face

3 Shares
Digital photo collage of Mark Zuckerberg overlayed with MAGA letters and hate speech bubbles.
Mark Zuckerberg takes his “no, really, Mr. Trump, I’m your guy!” tour to Joe Rogan | Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

I’ll spare you the experience of listening to one of the richest men in the world whine and just tell you straight out: Mark Zuckerberg’s interview on The Joe Rogan Experience is full of lies.

Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook’s parent company Meta, sets the tone at the very beginning: “I think at some level you only start one of these companies if you believe in giving people a voice, right?”

Unfortunately I wasn’t born yesterday, and I remember Zuckerberg’s first attempt at getting rich: FaceMash, a clone of HotOrNot where he uploaded photos of his fellow female students to be rated — without their consent. “Giving people a voice” is one way of describing that, I suppose. Personally, I’d call it “creep shit.”

Early on in the interview, Zuckerberg tests out the water to see how much pushback he’ll get; Rogan is a notoriously soft interviewer — it’s like listening to your dumbest stoned friend hold a conversation — but he does occasionally challenge his guests. So Zuckerberg says that there are limits on the First Amendment by saying, “It’s like, all right, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”

“Fire in a crowded theater” makes every lawyer I know foam at the mouth because it’s flat out wrong. It is not the law, and it never has been. And, obviously, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater — especially if, you know, the theater is on fire. Rogan says nothing in response to this, and Zuckerberg knows he’s got a willing mark. If you can get away with the small bullshit, you can get away with the big bullshit, right?

For his part, Rogan serves up Zuckerberg a series of softballs, setting his own tone by referring to content moderation as “censorship.” The idea that the government was forcing Zuckerberg to “censor” news about covid and covid vaccines, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the election is something of a running theme throughout the interview. When Zuckerberg isn’t outright lying about any of this, he’s quite vague — but in case you were wondering, a man who was formally rebuked by the city of San Francisco for putting his name on a hospital while his platforms spread health misinformation thinks that “on balance, the vaccines are more positive than negative.” Whew!

Misinformation on Facebook started well before the 2016 election — as early as 2014, scammers were spreading Ebola lies on Facebook. Shortly after the 2016 election, Adam Mosseri — then Facebook’s VP of product management — said in a statement that Facebook was combating fake news but “there’s so much more we need to do.” Facebook did receive criticism for spreading fake news, including misinformation that benefitted President Donald Trump, but even then, Zuckerberg wasn’t having it. “I do think there is a certain profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is they saw some fake news,” Zuckerberg said.

Still, in the 2020 election, Facebook — along with other social media networks — took a harsher stance on fake news, making it harder for Macedonian teenagers to make a profit off Trump supporters. During his Rogan interview, Zuckerberg now characterizes this intervention as giving “too much deference to a lot of folks in the media who were basically saying, okay, there’s no way that this guy could have gotten elected except for misinformation.”

Facebook implemented a fact-checking program, one that involved partners such as the conservative online magazine The Dispatch, Reuters, Agence France-Presse and USA Today. In a concession to Donald Trump’s second presidency, implemented before Trump even took the oath of office, Zuckerberg has said Facebook will end the program. “We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms,” Zuckerberg said in the video announcing the move.

On the Rogan show, Zuckerberg went further in describing the fact-checking program he’d implemented: “It’s something out of like 1984.” He says the fact-checkers were “too biased,” though he doesn’t say exactly how.

The problem wasn’t that the fact-checking was bad; it was that conservatives are more likely to share misinformation and get fact-checked, as some research has shown. That means conservatives are also more likely to be moderated. In this sense, perhaps it wasn’t Facebook’s fact-checking systems that had a liberal bias, but reality.

Well, Zuckerberg’s out of the business of reality now. I am sympathetic to the difficulties social media platforms faced in trying to moderate during covid — where rapidly-changing information about the pandemic was difficult to keep up with and conspiracy theories ran amok. I’m just not convinced it happened the way Zuckerberg describes. Zuckerberg whines about being pushed by the Biden administration to fact-check claims: “These people from the Biden administration would call up our team, and, like, scream at them, and curse,” Zuckerberg says.

“Did you record any of these phone calls?” Rogan asks.

“I don’t know,” Zuckerberg says. “I don’t think we were.”

Rogan then asks who, specifically, was pressuring Facebook. And Zuckerberg has no answer: “It was people in the Biden administration,” he says. “I think it was, you know, I wasn’t involved in those conversations directly, but I think it was.”

But the biggest lie of all is a lie of omission: Zuckerberg doesn’t mention the relentless pressure conservatives have placed on the company for years — which has now clearly paid off. Zuckerberg is particularly full of shit here because Republican Rep. Jim Jordan released Zuckerberg’s internal communications which document this!

In his letter to Jordan’s committee, Zuckerberg writes, “Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down.” Emphasis mine. “Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”

Those emails also reveal Zuckerberg wanted to blame the Biden White House for how Facebook chose to moderate the “lab leak” conspiracy theory of covid origins. “Can we include that the WH put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory?” he asked in a WhatsApp chat. His former president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, responded, “I don’t think they put specific pressure on that theory.”

Joel Kaplan, the former George W. Bush advisor who has now replaced Clegg, said that blaming the White House for Facebook’s behavior would “supercharge” conservatives who believed the social media giant was “collaborating” with the Biden administration. “If they’re more interested in criticizing us than actually solving the problems, then I’m not sure how it’s helping the cause to engage with them further,” Zuckerberg wrote. This doesn’t seem to show that the Biden administration successfully censored anything.

In fact, many of the controversial moderation calls Facebook made in the pandemic were during the Trump administration. Take, for instance, the “Plandemic” video hoax: Facebook removed the video in 2020. Joe Biden took office in 2021. If Zuckerberg was dealing with an administration pressuring him about this, it was the Trump administration. The Biden White House may well have engaged in similar outreach, but it was joining what was already an active discussion about Facebook moderation.

Facebook was widely and obviously targeted by Republican lawmakers, including Jordan, Senator Ted Cruz, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, Texas governor Greg Abbott, Senator Marsha Blackburn, and incoming Vice President JD Vance. It was mostly conservatives who threatened him during the interminable and pointless Congressional hearings Zuckerberg sat through for years – often asking him to comment directly on conspiracy theories or demand that individual trolls be reinstated to his platforms.

But Zuckerberg didn’t mention any of that to Rogan. Instead, he was upset that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau started investigating him for improperly using financial information to target ads. What does Zuckerberg say about this? Well, let me give it to you straight:

They kind of found some theory they wanted to investigate. And it’s like, okay, clearly they were trying really hard, right? To like, to like, find, find some theory, but it, like, I don’t know. It just, it kind of, like, throughout the, the, the, the, the party and the government, there was just sort of, I don’t know if it’s, I don’t know how this stuff works. I mean, I’ve never been in government. I don’t know if it’s like a directive or it’s just like a quiet consensus that like, we don’t like these guys. They’re not doing what we want. We’re going to punish them. But, but it’s, it’s, it’s tough to be at the other end of that.

This is a compelling demonstration that jujitsu and MMA training (or hunting pigs in Hawaii or making your neck real thick or whatever) isn’t going to help you act aggressive if you’re constitutionally bitchmade. Blaming the CFPB for a witch-hunt when we’ve all watched Republicans target Facebook really is something! That’s what this whole performance is about: getting Trump, Vance, Jordan and the rest of the Republican party to lay off. After all, the Cambridge Analytica scandal cost Facebook just $5 billion — chump change, really. If Zuckerberg plays ball, his next privacy whoopsie could be even cheaper.

In fact, Zuckerberg even offers Republicans another target: Apple. According to Zuckerberg, the way Apple makes money is “by basically, like, squeezing people.” Among his complaints:

  • Apple’s 30 percent commission on App Store sales
  • Airpods work better with Apple phones than all other headphones
  • Apple wouldn’t let Zuckerberg’s Meta Ray-Bans connect to iOS using the same quick-setup protocol Airpods use
  • iMessage is a walled garden, and groupchats go wonky if there’s a person with an Android phone in there
  • “I mean at some point I did this like back of the envelope calculation of like all the random rules that Apple puts out. If you know, if they didn’t apply, like I think you know, it’s like — and this is just Meta, I think we’d like, make twice as much profit or something.”

At least some of these Apple issues actually matter — there is a legitimate DOJ antitrust case against the company. But that isn’t what’s on Zuckerberg’s mind. The last point is the important one, from his perspective. He has a longstanding grudge against Apple after the company implemented anti-tracking features into its default browser, Safari. Facebook criticized those changes in newspaper ads, even. The policy cost social media companies almost $10 billion, according to The Financial Times; Facebook lost the most money “in absolute terms.” You see, it turns out if you ask people whether they want to be tracked, the answer is generally no — and that’s bad for Facebook’s business.

But Zuckerberg wants us to believe this isn’t about politics at all. Getting Rogan’s listeners riled up about Zuckerberg’s enemies and finding Republicans a new tech company target is just a coincidence, as are the changes to allow more hate speech on his platforms happening now, changes that just happen to pacify Republicans. All of this has nothing to do with the incoming administration, Zuckerberg tells Rogan. “I think a lot of people look at this as like a purely political thing, because they kind of look at the timing and they’re like, hey, well, you’re doing this right after the election.” he says. “We try to have policies that reflect mainstream discourse.”

And did this work? Did Zuckerberg’s gambit to talk about how social media needed more “masculine energy” win over the bros? Well, Barstool’s Dave Portnoy isn’t fooled by this shit.

I don’t know. I did think it was pretty funny that after all these complaints about government “censorship,” Zuckerberg didn’t say a word about Trump and the Republicans’ efforts at it. After all, Trump, the incoming president who has on occasion threatened to put Zuckerberg in prison, was recently asked if the Facebook changes were in response to his threats.

“Probably,” Trump said.

Read the whole story
acdha
1 hour ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

The Trouble With "January 6th" - by Julian Sanchez

1 Share

Four years after Donald Trump’s unprecedented scheme to nullify his defeat in a presidential election and cling to power culminated in a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol, perhaps the most shocking thing about it is how little it ultimately mattered.

In a pattern that had, even then, already become depressingly familiar, an initial outpouring of outrage from elected Republicans gave way to predictable accommodation. Was impeachment really procedurally appropriate for a former president? Better to let the criminal justice system handle the matter. But then, of course, a Justice Department already once bitten by the political blowback from previous investigations of Trump dragged its heels launching a probe. When the indictments finally began rolling out, a supine Supreme Court further assisted Trump in running out the clock by fabricating a novel doctrine of presidential immunity, not only absent from but starkly at odds with the text of the Constitution. While hundreds of individual rioters and several administration officials have faced consequences for their role in the coup attempt, Trump’s reelection finally killed off any remaining hope of criminal accountability for the ringleader.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, however, is how little it seemed to matter to voters. Polls in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol Riot showed that 60 percent of the electorate thought it should disqualify Trump from holding office in the future—a number that surely should have been even higher, and presumably would have been but for a large majority of Republicans continuing to believe Trump’s conspiratorial lies about the election being stolen. By Election Day of 2024, however, many of those voters had evidently changed their minds. A scheme to seize the presidency by fraud and violence was no longer an obstacle to handing Trump the keys to the Resolute Desk for a second term. For the truest of true believers, surreally, the January 6th riots had even become something of an asset: Either another Deep State false flag operation to discredit Trump or (inconsistently, but never mind!) an excuse to throw the book at patriotic Trump supporters for glorified trespassing.

There are plenty of obvious contributors to this broad electoral indifference. Four years is a long time, and it’s hard to maintain a sense of outrage about something that didn’t personally affect you over that span, especially if you’re not particularly politically engaged. Right-wing propaganda outlets, of course, did their part, relentlessly downplaying the significance of the riot itself and treating Trumps lie about a stolen election as some kind of genuine controversy rather than the obviously groundless, desperate fabrication it was. The feckless and laggard response of the criminal justice system also, no doubt, made it easy for low-information voters to discount the coup: If Trump were truly culpable for something so egregious, why hadn’t he already faced punishment for it?

One underrated factor, however, is probably the way we collectively chose to talk about Trump’s coup attempt: “January 6th.” That single date became our shorthand for a prolonged scheme aimed at reversing the outcome of the presidential election, and was routinely employed to characterize prosecutions for conduct only tenuously connected to the riot at the Capitol.

Let’s briefly recall that larger scheme. It began almost immediately when it became clear Trump had lost, with a torrent of spurious claims that the election had been stolen. Trump indiscriminately and enthusiastically seized on any conspiracy that might bolster this notion: No theory, apparently, was too plainly ludicrous or implausible to broadcast to his millions of followers as fact. Perhaps hordes of illegal immigrants and dead people had voted. Perhaps fake ballots had been trucked in to polling centers to stuff ballot boxes. Perhaps foreign hackers had somehow tinkered with electronic voting machines or, more ominous still, perhaps those machines had been deliberately designed to enable surreptitious vote tampering.

With the base suitably—and judging by polls successfully—primed, Trump inundated the legal system with frivolous lawsuits alleging electoral improprieties, and launched the fake electors scheme, wherein loyalist delegates submitted fraudulent electoral votes, as though Trump had been victorious in states he’d lost. He sought, unsuccessfully, to have the Justice Department bolster his lies by telling Congress and state legislatures that his election rigging fantasies were credible claims under active investigation. He phoned Georgia’s Secretary of State—and for all we know others who lacked the spine to publicize the interaction—touting a series of bogus claims in an effort to strong-arm the official into “finding” thousands of additional Trump votes, ominously implying he might face prosecution if he failed to comply with Trump’s scheme.

Having worked to manufacture the false appearance of controversy over which slate of state electors were legitimate—the real ones or the fake ones his minions had submitted—Trump sought to bully Vice President Mike Pence into using this as a pretext to radically exceed his ministerial role in overseeing the certification of electoral votes by refusing to certify Biden as the legitimate victor. This, he hoped, would permit a Republican-controlled Congress to ignore the actual election results and hand him the presidency by fiat.

The Capitol Riot was the culmination and capstone of this plot—a grand public show of force calculated to intimidate a recalcitrant Pence and wavering legislators into doing Trump’s bidding. But it was also, in a sense, superfluous. The critical elements of Trump’s failed scheme to steal the presidency were all in place well before the first window was smashed. It was the preparatory work that made the riot part of an honest-to-god coup attempt, and not merely a misguided protest that turned violent. If Trump had directed the protesters to peacefully disperse rather than giddily cheering them on as they ransacked the Capitol, he would be only very slightly less culpable. The real attack on democracy had, by that point, already occurred.

Perhaps inevitably, however, the January 6th riot became a synecdoche for the whole elaborate scheme. It was a singular event that had glued the country to their televisions, radios, and news feeds, producing a welter of shocking and memorable imagery. And unlike frivolous lawsuits, far-fetched conspiracies about cyberattacks, or electoral certification machinations, imagery of angry people smashing stuff needs no explanation. It was the element of Trump’s plot so viscerally appalling that even normally reliable Republicans recoiled and denounced it. And, of course, talking about “January 6th”—an objectively verifiable event—was, for the press, more attractively neutral than talking about “Trump’s coup attempt,” which might open them to accusations of bias against disingenuous schemes to overturn election results.

In hindsight, that compression of the coup into a single date and event helped to undermine the public’s sense of how serious and dangerous it was. The riot in itself, after all, risked property damage and injury, but not control of the Executive Branch: Only the in the context of Trump’s preperatory work could it be seen as a genuine threat to democratic institutions. It was also the element of the plot in which Trump enjoyed the greatest deniability, at least for a disengaged low-information voter inclined to rationalize it away. After all he didn’t explicitly order them to invade the Capitol and assault police officers, right? Didn’t he even utter the word “peaceful” at some point? While his inaction as the riot unfolded—hours during which he could have halted the assault with a tweet—should make it obvious he welcomed the violence he’d inspired, he can at least distance himself from the worst conduct of his supporters more credibly than he can wash his hands of the preceding elements of the scheme.

The unfortunate result is that a lot of inattentive voters never really internalized—or allowed themselves to conveniently forget—the real gravity of Trump’s attempt to seize power. They will stare blankly, if not snort incredulously, at references to Trump’s “coup attempt”: January 6th was just a one-off event, a single afternoon on which some rowdy supporters got out of hand. Regrettable, perhaps, but no more a threat to democracy than any number of other protests that turn destructive.

None of this is to say the election necessarily would have gone any differently if we’d collectively opted to talk about Trump’s coup in those terms. But I am confident that, perhaps paradoxically, reducing that coup attempt to its most viscerally shocking manifestation helped many voters discount its seriousness.

Read the whole story
acdha
1 hour ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

After our archive was updated to 12.9, our Debian CD team did the hard work of preparing and testing our installation medias to make sure everything is working correctly. Now their work is complete and the images are available at https://www.debian.org/distrib/

1 Comment

After our archive was updated to 12.9, our Debian CD team did the hard work of preparing and testing our installation medias to make sure everything is working correctly. Now their work is complete and the images are available at https://www.debian.org/distrib/

Read the whole story
jepler
2 hours ago
reply
torrents going over here. Of the 14 I grabbed, 6 have reached seeding status.
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
Share this story
Delete

I cast crotch lightning!

1 Comment

Illustration of am man in the air with lightning between.n his legs

Read the whole story
jhamill
4 hours ago
reply
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
California
Share this story
Delete

🥳🥺

1 Share

No alt provided

Read the whole story
jhamill
4 hours ago
reply
California
Share this story
Delete

So Long 2024, Hello 2025

1 Comment

Image

Read the whole story
jhamill
4 hours ago
reply
Indeed
California
Share this story
Delete

Shure MV6 Review: A Clean Looking Gaming Mic

1 Comment
Shure’s new USB gaming mic looks familiar, but it might be too streamlined.
Read the whole story
JayM
6 hours ago
reply
Will stick with my Heil Sound PR-35 (though going to try a PR40 soon) to my Cloud Lifter Z to my Focusrite Scarlett Solo… and usually nVidia Broadcast for some cleanup steal a little of my 4090… hopefully soon to be 5090…
Atlanta, GA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories