529
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Meta's recent shift to right-leaning policies, including ending fact-checking in the U.S., scaling back content moderation, and allowing anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, has sparked boycotts and a user exodus.

The company also disbanded its diversity, equity, and inclusion team, drawing criticism.

Prominent users like director Cord Jefferson and nonprofits like Equal Access Public Media have left or reduced activity on Meta platforms.

Many are migrating to alternatives such as Bluesky, Amigahood, and Tumblr, while some remain trapped due to Meta's dominance in communication and business.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Right wing ideologies tend to be simpler and thus appeal to those that tend to dislike nuance.

I don’t agree with this - at least not in the sense that there’s a significant difference between the left and the right here. Both sides tend to oversimplify and misrepresent each other’s views in online discussions. However, when you dig deeper into why someone holds a certain stance, it’s very rare to find it entirely lacking in nuance, regardless of which political side they’re coming from.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But the issue is that right-wing positions aren't logically coherent. There's always at least a couple of points where they don't logically work, because the positions aren't derived from axioms or first principles. They only make sense if you ignore lots of counterarguments.

Even if left-wing positions are held without nuance, the positions themselves can still be complex. This simply isn't the case with right-wing positions.

So while the reasons for holding a right-wing position might have nuance, the positions themselves don't.

[-] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

That's quite a broad generalization. While this applies to some positions, sure, you seem to be implying it's true of right-wing views as a whole which simply isn't true.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would honestly say that the number of logically coherent and purely right-wing positions is vanishingly small. There are a bunch of right-wing positions that, individually, are logically coherent - but most of them are also part of some left-wing frameworks, so not purely right-wing. Do you have some examples in mind? I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

[-] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Even something like being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance to hold for someone who beliefs that soul enters the body at conception. That belief is based on what I'd argue is a false premise but I can't exactly prove that either. It's not logical from my perspective but it is from theirs.

I'm not so much talking about right wing beliefs per-se but about the shift towards the centre which is to the right. Where it crosses to the side of the right, I don't know and I doubt there even is concensus on that. Something like being against DEI programs, I guess, is considered to be quite "right wing" yet virtually all of the people whose opinions I respect are against it and I'd hardly consider any of them right wing. Freedom of speech would be another - also fitting the context.

[-] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If strictly held, anti-abortion positions are one of the rare examples - though you can also find them in some spiritual/religious contexts (though it's hard to call them logically consistent - if the soul enters the body at conception, twins either share a soul or only possess half of one).

When you talk about "DEI programs", what does that include? Big parts of DEI are outreach programs, but I'll go ahead and assume you're not referring to those. But even for the others, is there absolutely no program you think that can make sense? That position is honestly only logically coherent in right-wing worldviews.

As an example, in Germany there are fewer women on the boards of big companies than men named "Michael". Do you think that's because women don't apply for these positions, or aren't a good fit?

this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
529 points (100.0% liked)

News

36043 readers
2748 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS