The end of the fact check era is worth examining because of how it heralds another liberal failure with little to offer in the way of alternatives. It is just another capitulation in the battle against fascism. Liberals, it turned out, were never really the “resistance” that they pretended they were.
In 2021, in response to Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol attack, Meta banned the then-president from its platforms. Around that time, over 800 QAnon conspiracy groups were also removed from Facebook. Social media censorship became a hot button for the grievance-driven Trump and his far right.
None of the right-wing’s agenda, however, was about free speech for all. Consider that, at the same time, the right was rallying behind book bans in schools. They didn’t utter a peep when, as The Intercept reported in 2020, dozens of left-wing and antifascist groups were also banned from Facebook. And Meta has been engaging in what Human Rights Watch called “systematic and global” censorship of Palestinian and Palestine-solidarity content on its platforms. Nonetheless, the right has successfully created a victim narrative out of content moderation.
Enter Zuckerberg and the utter lack of subtlety in his announcement. These new policies were clearly not meant to serve the political left or censored pro-Palestinian users. “We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate,” Zuckerberg said, issuing a thinly veiled signal that anti-trans, anti-immigrant hate would face fewer roadblocks.
Funny because I would say that your definition of the word ends at the US border. You actually hit the nail on the head with your comment about most of the people on this site, but the problem is not being “too online”. Lemmy is a far more multicultural space than you’re probably used to, and you seem to be struggling with that.
Funny because the article posted is about a US company announcing a policy change on a US TV network to please the incoming administration in the US and its relation to US politics more widely.
Yes and the article was written by The Intercept, also a US-based media company. I feel it’s important to interpret a text in the context of the vocabulary used by the author. And The Intercept fully ascribes to the definition of “liberal” that I’m using.
You’re just playing a game with semantics for… some reason. I’m not going to psychoanalyze here with regards to you, but the intention of the author is obvious to anyone with a modicum of political awareness.