I’m sorry, but it looks like one of you is going to have to leave forumosa. And what you need to ask yourself is: who brings in the most traffic?
2 Likes
Whoa, if i thought we were seeking the applause of others, I’d have used more emojeries. 
2 Likes
Obama coming in hot for censorship, aka “fighting disinformation (What? No, not our disinformation!)”
I’m always amused by the New York Times preaching against the evils of propaganda when its wall of propaganda leading up to the War About Nothing in Iraq was instrumental in selling the war. 500,000 people died as a result of its disinformation campaign and the U.S. spent trillions of borrowed dollars it could ill-afford… Apparently its mild mea culpa in the aftermath was enough to set it back on the path of righteousness.
1 Like
Continuing on this and seeing it fits the twitter/Musk saga of online censorship.
Tesla has been kicked out of the S&P500 ESG index. S&P gave an explanation that I’m not buying and I’ll explain why.
Although the concerns of Tesla are notable. I want to point out the list of companies still on the list.
Companies like Exxon… really? An oil company is on the environmental friendly list?
Tyson Foods? The company caught with animal abuse and had to settle with the farmers after fixing the prices to make the profit margin impossible for farmers?
Nike? Really? Child labor and the use of slave Uighur labor fits which part of ESG? Socially responsible?
Amazon is ok with how their workers are treated?
The list goes on and on with some shocking companies that are supposed to be ESG…
3 Likes
The companies need to adopt left leaning talking points 
It has nothing to do with being actually ESG, but pushing an ideology with financial rewards and penalties for companies that comply or resit.
He’s right, it’s a scam.
2 Likes
Oh, like the Sierra Club.
1 Like
Except with companies like Blackrock and Vanguard with about 20 trillion US$ in investment funds deciding who get’s their money and who doesn’t based in part on the ESG score.
And that is their privilege, I suppose. Money people are about making money. This whole laet’s make money from our great ideology always seems to fall flat. There were halah investments a while back. Weren’t doing so well.
1 Like
The concern for free speech advocates is that there is a type of censorship by surrogate, that Democratic leaders and other groups have used social media to silence opposing voices, and you’ve had a number of people who’ve been banned on social media or had tweets taken down that have been proven correct," Turley said.
“The government is not allowed to do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly,” the legal scholar said about possible collusion between the government and social media companies.
Yeah, well, I frigging hope not!
1 Like
Democrats are trying to bully Zuckerberg and Musk into becoming their de facto Ministers of Truth but they’re not cooperating.
1 Like
So what , Zuckerberg is once bitten twice shy?
Zuckerberg has a Rohingya problem that is likely to lay bare what’s under the hood of his gizmo.
Huh? 
I won’t choose your news platform for you, but if you interweb search FB and Rohingya, there is plenty to read.
Sounds like Japanese tattoo pron.
It is not.
I should know that, but most of the kids we get nowadays come from south of the border, west of the sun. Used to get lots fro Myanmar and Thailand. Good kids. Scrappy.
The report in question:
Beginning in August 2017, the Myanmar security forces undertook a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims. This report is based on an in-depth investigation into Meta (formerly Facebook)’s role in the serious human rights violations perpetrated against the Rohingya. Meta’s algorithms proactively amplified and promoted content which incited violence, hatred, and discrimination against the Rohingya – pouring fuel on the fire of long-standing discrimination and substantially increasing the risk of an outbreak of mass violence. The report concludes that Meta substantially contributed to adverse human rights impacts suffered by the Rohingya and has a responsibility to provide survivors with an effective remedy.
I’m not seeing any deliberate adversarial intent by FB. Just another algorithm gone mad. Makes sense to not get one’s news from the platform, like it makes sense that smoking still kills ya.
you can hope, but this doesn’t seem to jive with SCOTUS rulings. take a look at handling of cell phone location data for example.
An example why Facebook has a significant place in regions we don’t hear about.