Meta is "returning" to a free expression model and jettisoning its "biased" third-party "fact chekers". The reason? A new administration, that believes in free expression and not censorship, is riding into town.
Meta is ending its fact-checking program and lifting restrictions on speech to "restore free expression" across Facebook, Instagram and Meta platforms, admitting its current content moderation practices have "gone too far."
Meta’s third-party fact-checking program was put in place after the 2016 election and had been used to "manage content" and misinformation on its platforms, largely due to "political pressure," executives said, but admitted the system has "gone too far."
Kaplan also told Fox News Digital that Meta is changing some of its own content moderation rules, especially those that they feel are "too restrictive and not allowing enough discourse around sensitive topics like immigration, trans issues and gender."
"We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression," Kaplan said, referring to the incoming Trump administration.
JMO.....since this site is the only social media site I am on...I am not concerned......the fault line is still a concerning factor....(literally NEPAL is dead center....the BIG one...WE,here on this continent r LONG OVERDUE.....but then...there r many long overdue events to be considered and aware of
Just as a side note ..I belong to a group called THE FREETHINKERS....not one of the members r on social media (there approx. 10 or so regulars).....they r all world travelers and have been exposed to MANY voices and beliefs. (one is from UKRAINE,and her view is invaluable and welcomed.)
Personally I am a little shocked to see how much corporate support Trump is getting. Zuckerberg even tars the Biden Administration saying they pushed for Meta to censor more of their political opponents.
Why doesn't this election tampering ever result in charges?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
homeagain wrote: JMO.....since this site is the only social media site I am on...I am not concerned......the fault line is still a concerning factor....(literally NEPAL is dead center....the BIG one...WE,here on this continent r LONG OVERDUE.....but then...there r many long overdue events to be considered and aware of
Just as a side note ..I belong to a group called THE FREETHINKERS....not one of the members r on social media (there approx. 10 or so regulars).....they r all world travelers and have been exposed to MANY voices and beliefs. (one is from UKRAINE,and her view is invaluable and welcomed.)
You and your "freethinkers" don't get your information from first hand experiences... you all get your information from biased media, just like everyone else. Please don't pretend like you and your freethinker group are somehow above everyone else when it comes to truth... you're not.
If you were really exposed to truth, you would have known Biden was mentally unfit and that he and his son used his position to scoop up influence money from around the globe. Free thinkers don't live in a bias bubble, they venture out and they look at both sides of every issue. That's not something you do but it's something you should try once in a while.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The Friday Read The Incredible, World-Altering ‘Black Swan’ Events That Could Upend Life in 2025
15 futurists, foreign policy analysts and other prognosticators provide some explosive potential scenarios for the new year.
Our experts floated all sorts of catastrophes, from the threat of AI to deadly epidemics, but they also raised the notion of progress, including in some surprising global hotspots.
The following scenarios may or may not take place in 2025, but they shouldn’t immediately be dismissed. When we undertook this exercise last year, a number of predictions proved eerily prescient.
FAULTLINES THAT COULD SLIP.....SEEING UNDERNEATH.
Last edit: 07 Jan 2025 10:44 by homeagain. Reason: ADD
A Black Swan event by its very description implies it is very unlikely to happen. Why invest time and money worrying about something that most likely won't happen?
More likely events?
Inflation will stay high because government investing will stay high. Expect slow growth. Europe and China are both having issues and China is currently seeing continued deflation.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
And here's an example of the bias present in every piece issued by Politico . . . that you regularly overlook because you have decided they are honest actors when the opposite is quite evidently true.
Here’s the context: During the 1980s, the U.S. averaged about three billion-plus dollar extreme weather disasters annually. Fast forward to today, and the situation couldn’t be more different. 2023 saw 28 billion-plus dollar disasters while in 2024, in just two weeks, two massive hurricanes pummeled the southeastern United States. Super-sized by record warm ocean waters, Helene and Milton wiped out highways and homes and cut off entire towns from the rest of the world. In total, 2024 saw 24 billion-plus dollar disasters. Nine out of ten Americans now report being personally affected by extreme weather, and the ripple effects are everywhere.
Now then, let's start with the obvious . . . $1 billion in 1980 is a substantially different sum than $1 billion in 2024. To get an honest comparison, you would have to find all of the weather related events in the 1980s that resulted in a cost of around $261 million or more, or events in 2024 that cost more than $3.83 billion. But doing so wouldn't have the same shock value, you might not get the fear that Ms. Hayhoe was hoping to culture in the minds of whoever read her rubbish if you made an honest comparison between the average of 3 events in the 1980s and the more than 20 events in the 2020s.
Let's then take into account the additional density of development and infrastructure in and around those areas which experienced "extreme" weather events in 2023 and 2024 as compared to the 1980s and figure out how much that additional density added to the cost of the "extreme" weather events in 2023 and 2024 compared to what it would have cost in the 1980s.
Your sources are misrepresenting reality HA . . . on a regular, consistent and ongoing basis via their biased "reporting" methods where they sprinkle in just enough information to get you to swallow down the whole enchilada without ever pausing to give it a good chew first.
FredHayek wrote: A Black Swan event by its very description implies it is very unlikely to happen. Why invest time and money worrying about something that most likely won't happen?
More likely events?
Inflation will stay high because government investing will stay high. Expect slow growth. Europe and China are both having issues and China is currently seeing continued deflation.
black swan event, high-impact event that is difficult to predict under normal circumstances but that in retrospect appears to have been inevitable. A black swan event is unexpected and therefore difficult to prepare for but is often rationalized with the benefit of hindsight as having been unavoidable.
And here's an example of the bias present in every piece issued by Politico . . . that you regularly overlook because you have decided they are honest actors when the opposite is quite evidently true.
Here’s the context: During the 1980s, the U.S. averaged about three billion-plus dollar extreme weather disasters annually. Fast forward to today, and the situation couldn’t be more different. 2023 saw 28 billion-plus dollar disasters while in 2024, in just two weeks, two massive hurricanes pummeled the southeastern United States. Super-sized by record warm ocean waters, Helene and Milton wiped out highways and homes and cut off entire towns from the rest of the world. In total, 2024 saw 24 billion-plus dollar disasters. Nine out of ten Americans now report being personally affected by extreme weather, and the ripple effects are everywhere.
Now then, let's start with the obvious . . . $1 billion in 1980 is a substantially different sum than $1 billion in 2024. To get an honest comparison, you would have to find all of the weather related events in the 1980s that resulted in a cost of around $261 million or more, or events in 2024 that cost more than $3.83 billion. But doing so wouldn't have the same shock value, you might not get the fear that Ms. Hayhoe was hoping to culture in the minds of whoever read her rubbish if you made an honest comparison between the average of 3 events in the 1980s and the more than 20 events in the 2020s.
Let's then take into account the additional density of development and infrastructure in and around those areas which experienced "extreme" weather events in 2023 and 2024 as compared to the 1980s and figure out how much that additional density added to the cost of the "extreme" weather events in 2023 and 2024 compared to what it would have cost in the 1980s.
Your sources are misrepresenting reality HA . . . on a regular, consistent and ongoing basis via their biased "reporting" methods where they sprinkle in just enough information to get you to swallow down the whole enchilada without ever pausing to give it a good chew first.
[/b]
LMAO....and FoxNews .. the epitome of truth and integrity? OMG....they all do it, it is just a question of 'TO WHAT DEGREE?" I do,however,admire your deep dive of details.....
HA, the point that you've consistently missed for years is that you shouldn't trust any source, especially if you are only looking at sources you tend to always agree with. Nobody here has ever suggested that FOX is all knowing and always gets every story right, but they have gotten a whole lot right when it comes to the last 8 years. You can't name one source of yours that was right on the Russia hoax, Jan 6th, Biden's mental condition, Kamala's ineptness, the weaponized DOJ and FBI, and pretty much every phony Trump "crime".
Please, name your most trusted source and I promise you I can prove that that source is hot garbage when it comes to being objective journalists. You're not a free thinker, you just think you are.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
