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.
Zuck wanted Trump to fuck him after the whole shooting thing in Butler, PA. Zuck is a Hitler fanboy.
I have a hard time believing boomers are leaving FB for this.
Same thing as Harris trying to cater to MAGA with anti-immigrant rhetoric and all that. They already hate her, so it doesn’t win them over, but alienates the followers.
What is the alternative that people are going to, and how is their moderation?
I don’t use any of that stuff, but I saw this here about Pixelfed the other day:
Good, fuck’em
And people wonder why tiktokers aren’t moving to Instagram after the app ban
Removed by mod
Tbf, people should have moved on from Instagram/Facebook from years ago tbh, esp as there are decent, ethical alternatives out there but as usual, people don’t really care unless it affects them personally or their social rep.
The fact that people are flocking over to RedNote, Lemon8, Tumblr, Bluesky and other platforms, despite them being problematic either due to privacy issues/ceos stances on political issues like trans rights etc or the techbros involve want to destroy the environment, proves the point itself.
The people that are moving out of TikTok etc are literally making no difference to stopping the rise of fascism, besides making themselves feel better about themselves about the whole thing.
Meta is becoming more right-wing, but TikTok is being banned. Where users choose to go has nothing to do with stopping the rise of fascism in the latter case.
People moving from tiktok are basically moving out of protest of the ban, not anything else.
I’m still frustrated that everything people sell is just on Facebook marketplace now. No one uses stuff like Craigslist anymore, and it’s super frustrating cause I periodically wanna get something used but really hate that everything is just listed on facebook
I use OfferUp, It’s great.
Honestly, it’s between the UI and the chat feature. And the fact it’s at least slightly tied to your identity. And selling on Craigslist being kind of clunky still. They could probably make up the difference if they tried.
Thankfully a lot of people here in Canada still use Kijiji over Marketplace.
Removed by mod
There’s also Nextdoor app if you’re looking for local stuff that’s free and for sale. It’s full of old people posting random shit just like Facebook tho.
I dunno man, I didn’t like my time on Nextdoor. Those people were some of the NIMBYest and casually racist people I’ve seen.
That’s what it is in SF. Angry elderly racists. No more, no less.
Once CL got rid of the personals, its traffic kinda died off.
I hear you. It’s super frustrating when buying, but at the same time you can get like double the price for your shit on marketplace while selling. That’s a tough one to give up, even for the staunchest of meta critics.
Try shopgoodwill.com
The company that still fights to pay disabled people less than minimum wage? Probably better than suggesting Amazon, but still not that great an alternative.
Give us something free and we’ll resell it to the poor.
Meta/Zuck have been far right for years, they are just wearing their hoods now because Trump is looking to the big tech companies to be his State Media.
I miss when this was only sort of true and mostly hyperbole.
Of course it’s all sham, people will note that pro palestine content is heavily censored
Everything that criticizes the system is moderated harshly. Lemmy has its issues with that too.
Took them long enough. I left that place over 10 years ago.
Oh holy fuck, that’s a must watch every time I’m led to it LMAO
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the moral panic caused by this, at least a little. It shows that the pendulum is indeed swinging back from the woke left toward a more reasonable, rational center.
Disagreeing with things like DEI programs doesn’t make someone far-right - it just means they’re not far-left. You might not like it, but the reality is that the vast majority of people don’t agree with many of the views that are overrepresented on left-wing social media platforms like Lemmy. Doubling down on it just means losing more elections.
Meta literally changed the rules specifically so you can call LGBTQ people mentally ill without repercussions.
Trying to convince anyone these changes are not far-right is just telling on yourself.
Gaslighting LGBTQ folks. Misogynistic stances towards women. Nationalist stances towards immigration.
Seems far-right to me.
If you have a good faith argument as to how that’s not Nazi shit other than, ‘DEI hires are woke’, I’d love to hear it. Because it seems like you based your whole argument on a very narrow understanding of the situation.
Their name is Free_Opinions, we definitely got what we paid for.
DEI is actually sound policy for corporations to consider especially on a managerial level or in creative roles. Having people with different perspectives can be a huge asset in business.
Musk is far-right because he’s praising the policy choices of far-right politicians. Trump et al are extremely far right as fascism is a far right ideology.
Tell me that you don’t understand why the republicans won.
They didn’t win because people agree with the neo-nazi adjacent right (which, I bet you’re in denial about, but republicans always are), they won because the Democrats abandoned the working class and stupid people thought the Republicans would be better for them despite all empirical evidence.
You’re right tho, disagreeing with dei programs doesn’t make you a Nazi, it just makes you willing bedfellows with them.
You seem to be making lots of assumptions here. You could’ve just asked if you want to know what I think about something.
Glad i didn’t pay for this opinion, lol 🙃
I can see why you don’t charge for your opinions.
Tough talk from a UK instance chud named “free opinions” who hides behind phrases like “rational argument” and “unpopular opinions” to say heinous shit.
Is your idea of the “rational” center removing fact checking, reducing content moderation on political topics (which if history is of any indication means letting far right content to spread) and allowing the use of hateful speech against people you don’t like? I guess the fact that you think DEI is a far-left idea does indicate that you do think that would be the center.
Imagine thinking that having a diverse workforce is a good thing is a “far-left idea” and not just helpful for your business because it gives you different perspectives into different possible customers…
Accepting diversity as part of life and not making life more miserable for people just because they don’t look like you or have your same taste, gender or religious beliefs shouldn’t be far left or far anything. It’s just the decent thing to do. It’s ironic how in the US the political side that aligns themselves more closely with radical Christian beliefs is so against that view
It’s ironic how in the US the political side that aligns themselves more closely with radical Christian beliefs is so against that view
This is the famous ‘virtue signaling’ they love to accuse their perceived enemies of. They have discovered they have carte blanche to be the most vile, heinous pieces of shit as long as they proclaim that “they love Jesus”. We saw how Trump was cast as a savior while holding someone’s bible upside down in front of a church that didn’t want him there. Millions of Americans made Trump, Jesus, and guns into their political platform. The Kool-Aid appears to have replaced the blood of Christ, lol
“we love you Jesus, whether you want it or not. Your body my choice. Now shut up and get back on that cross”
Oh I agree, but DEI initiatives are very pro-business specifically. They help increase profits. And these late-stage capitalist assholes don’t even get it.
That part I don’t know. I’m not saying it’s not true, I certainly see the reasoning for why it should be good for business. But the classic conservative counter-argument is that you shouldn’t need to regulate it, because The Mythical Free Market should ensure that companies with a more diverse workforce out-compete the others.
So I prefer to think that sometimes you do things that are right just because you think they are right and even if they cost you. And as part of that, you vote with your wallet and maybe use products that are slightly less shiny and convenient than others because the companies behind them treat people more nicely. And then the Mythical Free Market does also start taking care of things and allowing these nicer companies to survive and even out-compete the Metas of this world. (But we’re all here discussing on Lemmy, so probably I’m already preaching to the choir on this one)
Several years ago I got to have lunch with the head of HR at my then-employer. It was a mid sized publicly traded global corporation, and the HR VP was generally the old white sanitized robot you’d expect.
The one discussion I remember was him describing how diversity is legitimately an asset for businesses that produces better results. It wasn’t “we believe in equality” or “we show the public that we care” or “we have to.” It was literally that it makes the big number get a little bit bigger. And to be clear, I’m a white guy like him.
So when huge companies cast it aside I think the most gracious possible interpretation is that the soulless drones that value only money see more benefit in having the support of the right wing government and the worst parts of the population than having a better performing workforce.
There are much less kind interpretations obviously, and some of them are probably right.
The issue with letting the market resolve everything is that means we will permit companies to intentionally harm people until we figure out they are the issue rather than stopping practices we know to be harmful ahead of time. This is the bit that never gets stressed in school when you learn about right wing libertarianism in US schools.
I agree with you. I’m not saying we should leave it to the market and I’m sorry if I didn’t express myself clearly enough.
My point was that not being an asshole and working towards a society where we treat each other like decent human beings should be a valuable goal and even if it wasn’t the profitable thing to do, we should be prepared to give up something in exchange for it. If it turns out it is ALSO the profitable thing to do, even better, because at that point even the Musks of the world will get around to it eventually, but I mean for us regular and hopefully decent human beings…The thing is that a lot of people who advocate for it don’t seem to be willing to accept even minor inconveniences like getting off Facebook or X, let alone losing some actual potential money.
But DEI isn’t regulated. It’s just a policy some companies and local governments have. Fewer and fewer because conservatives keep throwing hissy fits about it.
I get your point and you’re right, thanks, I used “regulated” wrong. I meant that the expectation, if the market worked as advertised, is that companies that do keep DEI policies in place would have a competitive advantage over others. Then, clearly, sucking up to whoever’s in power has a much larger effect on these companies’ profits, so the market is probably not working as advertised…
Workforce diversity was touched on in my college business courses (I went to work in the non-profit sector).
It’s a benefit to companies for all the reasons squid stated. Nixing it is virtue signaling towards the fascist regime.
I’m really happy to hear that, thanks! I mean, not the nixing part… the “not being a complete asshole is even good for business”
Jesus would be really disappointed in those that claim to be his most ardent believers.
There are two main issues with the large commercial social media platforms. The first is that they do not allow for downvoting. The second is that they maximise engagement rather than quality of posts. The end result is that they consistently push controversial posts (i.e. misinformation).
Factchecking mitigates this but only to a tiny extent. The reason there is far less misinformation on platforms like Lemmy is that content is pushed on the basis of net votes (upvoted minus downvotes) and misinformation tends to be downvoted rapidly.
but the reality is that the vast majority of people don’t agree with many of the views that are overrepresented on left-wing social media platforms like Lemmy
Is this true? Or is this just “people you know” and what the media you consume tells you?
If it is true then adding in the sources of where you got this information would really help your argument. Hell you may actually get more people to agree with you if you have solid evidence of what you said.
If this is just what “feels” right to you or if this is just something that other people told you is right then maybe look into that and see if reality lines up with what you are feeling and hearing.
Well they must know it is true, because this is their bio:
So I look forward to seeing their sources.
Like 95% of social media users, regardless of the platform, are mostly lurkers. A tiny fraction of the total user base creates the majority of the content. This is a self-selecting group of people who, by definition, don’t represent the average person - the average person doesn’t comment on message boards.
Reading discussions on Lemmy, for example, can create a skewed perspective of reality. Views like being okay with murdering CEOs are fairly popular here, yet I’ve never met anyone in real life who thinks this way. My work involves going into people’s homes to fix things, and we frequently chat about current events. I find that my average customer is far more reasonable in their views compared to the extreme opinions that often get highly upvoted here.
There’s also the broader observation that the left seems to struggle to win elections globally. We hear a lot about people moving toward the right, but rarely about anyone moving the other way. I’m not claiming this as absolute truth - it’s simply how I see things. Of course, there’s always a chance I could be wrong.
Right wing ideologies tend to be simpler and thus appeal to those that tend to dislike nuance.
You are likely correct that the views here are not the norm though as this is a very fringe form of social media started by leftists so unsurprisingly there are lots of fringe views.
As for the killing of health care CEO’s that’s something that you might not be seeing people agree with because if you aren’t in America you might not get that the murdered executive made millions denying access to health care to those that were paying for insurance. Do you get mad when serial killers are killed? The victim made his money off of letting people die so he could have more money that he did not need.
There’s no reason for the US health insurance industry to exist except to take money from the working class and hand it to the investor class. US health insurers do not make health care more available, more efficient, cheaper or safer. The only thing it does is make everything more expensive.
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes because wanting to not be discriminated against and censoring hate speech is such a woke thing /s
Removed by mod
Fascism is going to win.
As people leave these platforms - permitting a welcome space for lies, hate speech, bigotry, and zealotry to flourish without consequence - history will recall, this was when the spark of fascism was given the last breathe of oxygen it required.
I don’t mean to excuse Meta for their unforgivable ElonTrump-influenced actions but running away is not going to win the fight you think you’re avoiding. That is, unless you all really commit and make it economically unfeasible for Meta to continue this policy.
Meta is successful because people can promote their small and local businesses. Because money can be made from ‘likes’. Because of the algorithm. Because people can get their news inline with their family photos. It’s everything. The fediverse has a long way to go to offer a seamless migration for users’ addiction to these platforms.
Meta is successful because … of the algorithm. Because people can get their news inline with their family photos.
From what I’ve overheard, that’s exactly what everyone hates about Meta
And yet people still use what they hate.
The whole social media thing is just bizarre to me. I mean, I was an early adopter on everything from myspace to twitter to instagram. I joined and left these platforms before most people were using them. But then to companies figured out how to manipulate users by using algorithms to increase engagement and addiction - this is what solidified adoption. What I find difficult to digest is the vast number of people who are well aware of the problems around social media and still continue to use it as if they’re addicted to crack.
There’s nothing social about social media anymore. It’s a platform for corporations and billionaires and dictators to host user generated content (AI content pending) for the purpose of extracting personal interests that help them sell ads and user data. It’s first and foremost a manipulation platform. And it’s free to use.
And now that people have had a taste of their drug of choice, they’re stuck. Sure, some people will quit. But, until another just as enticing drug comes along, the majority will stick around and deal with ramifications of corporate controlled manipulation platforms. Where else are people going to get their news? Where are they going to share family trips? Where are they going to do this in a platform designed to maintain engagement and release the drips of dopamine they’ve become addicted to? If your response is Mastodon or Bluesky or Pixelfed, you’re delusional.
It’s not like staying was such a success in the fight against fascism.
It maintained some semblance of a challenge. A mass exodus leaves a welcome vacuum for it to flourish.
Meta is successful because people can promote their small and local businesses. Because money can be made from ‘likes’. Because of the algorithm. Because people can get their news inline with their family photos. It’s everything.
Everyone who leaves Meta reduces the value of their advertising just a little bit. If lots of people leave, it will make the company less profitable.
Yes. That’s exactly what I said.
