This is seems on par for Meta. With FB and Instagram being such monoliths, could we be seeing the early stages of their collapse? I wonder how much more it will take for the everyday user to become disenchanted with Meta to drop their platforms.
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.
I am retaliating by redirecting all links to meta to /dev/null
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.
