Looks like anti competitive behavior I don't think the EU will look to kindly to this.
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
82 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37844 readers
856 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Meta be like:
"Calling LGBTQ+ people «mentally ill»? No, we can't remove that, it would be censorship."
"Linking to a competitor that doesn't ? NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! No, we aren't totally censoring you, we're, uhm, you're totally spamming! Yeah, that's it, you're spam!"
I think that people can - and should - capitalise on Streisand Effect against Meta.
It is very difficult to motivate people to move to a different platform.
Meta continues to do shitty things. I deleted all my accounts 10 years ago because of said shitty things. The list of shitty things keeps growing.
I can try to be optimistic about the Streisand effect. But it would have to be towards positive experience with pixelfed. Enough people would need to move for it to not feel empty. Sort of like BlueSky during the election. Enough people frustrated with twitter, and (most importantly) see enough people, including celebrities, politicians and other influencers migrate to make it worth checking out.
Edit to add: I very much would love to witness the downfall of meta and twitter. We need these alternatives. And as much as people hate commercialization, all of these alternative spaces need some marketing to make them viable.
Has already been refuted in the other post: https://lemm.ee/post/52524220
I believe it was an honest mistake by the spamfilter.
Even if it was a honest mistake (is it? I have my doubts.), I don't think that "we" (people in general) should give it a pass. On its best it highlights how unfair those automated systems are towards the users; plus Meta is in a position that it should be held responsible for what it does, regardless of its "intentions".
We just should take care not to spread misinformation. We need to stick with the truth. And It's not like the article says. And what they're infering is wrong, too. And seems that Meta didn't respond, isn't up to date anymore, either. (Given Meta tells the truth, but I don't see any reason to doubt this. This is exactly what happens with spamfilters all the time. And why would they reverse it immediately, if there's more to the story?)
Other than that, I agree. If somebody chooses to use a platform like that, they get entangled in some soulless machinery. And that machinery isn't there to help the user, but mainly to uphold whatever a big tech company likes or needs. Mainly profit and control. Terms and conditions apply.
We don't need to lie about it; not even by omission.
In the best case scenario, Meta is employing an automated moderation system, it's incorrectly tagging what users share as "spam", and can't be arsed to fix the issue in due time - note that this was already attested at least September 2024. That's more than enough to blame Meta.
Given Meta tells the truth, but I don’t see any reason to doubt this.
I see quite a few reasons to not trust = be gullible towards what Meta says. Starting by the fact that it's on its best interests to silence mentions to competitors.
Well, there isn't really a way around automated filtering. Spammers and malicious actors also send their stuff in bulk. And those big tech companies already have human content moderators. Usually in some poorer countries and it's a horrible job. I suppose there just arent enough humans to also deal with the flood of spam, manually.
These systems are far from perfect. And I'm not really an expert. I don't use Meta's platforms. I can't tell much from that screenshot. It's missing the URL and it hints at some rule that might be shown below.
And I didn't want to say "trust Meta". Quite the opposite. I just think this one specific claim could be true. Not everything is a conspiracy theory. We know they have automated spamfilters. And we know these make a lot of mistakes. Very similar with what other spamfilters do with short URLs. I'd say the simplest explanation is: their spamfilter sucks. Not that they somehow conspired, wrote additional software to deliberately target Pixelfed instances, but just when it's a short post... No. I think in this instance it's the simple explanation. But yeah, gwnerally: Don't trust and of the big tech companies. They don't act in your interest at all.
I am retaliating by redirecting all links to meta to /dev/null
based redirect