No surprise here. As much as love and respect Indians are giving to the journalist, she should know that META holds 10% equity in Indias biggest conglomerate Reliance. Ambani who owns reliance is best friends with PM Modi.
When they are investing for new data centers, in Indian land, with no guardrails, Meta becomes submissive to Indias political views.
Follow the money and you will see how money speaks louder than truth in India.
Ah! Modi! I thought that famous guy was like an app. Don't uh. Well. Don't mention I said the pm of some bigass country looks like a morrowind broke NPC merchant
Yes, and we get to hear about it and complain about it and decide if that private company deserves to die as a result.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. That means Meta can kick people off their platform for saying things they don't like, and it also means that we can collectively decide Meta should cease to exist.
Exactly I think my point’s been misread a bit. I’m not arguing that Meta has no legal right to moderate its own platform.
My point is that we’ve allowed public debate, journalism, and politics to be funnelled through a handful of privately controlled platforms. Then people act surprised when that power is used against someone whose message goes against the grain.
The real irony is whether outlets like The Independent or Dagsavisen will now seriously review their reliance on Meta’s platforms, or whether they’ll complain about the power imbalance while continuing to feed it. My guess is the latter.
You make it sound like Meta has no obligations at all, while their terms and conditions limit their actions as well. For example they can limit the visibility and ban users and posts that violate their community standards. It would be interesting to see what breach was made here.
the only way for private companies to have less power is if governments enact laws that curtail powers, and actually enforce them. The last step is more challenging to do when the humans involved are physically elsewhere on the globe, but it's not impossible.
19 Comments
Sequence5666@lemmy.world · 61 pts · 98d
No surprise here. As much as love and respect Indians are giving to the journalist, she should know that META holds 10% equity in Indias biggest conglomerate Reliance. Ambani who owns reliance is best friends with PM Modi.
When they are investing for new data centers, in Indian land, with no guardrails, Meta becomes submissive to Indias political views.
Follow the money and you will see how money speaks louder than truth in India.
sonofearth@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 98d
Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip · 32 pts · 98d
Modi Operandi
crandlecan@mander.xyz · 7 pts · 98d
Get out!! 😤😡
😂
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 20 pts · 98d
Meta carrying water for fascists, as usual.
tirateimas@lemmy.pt · 13 pts · 98d
They just did her a favor, to free her from that crap
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 98d
Meta is not the problem, all the fucking idiots using it are.
demonsword@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 98d
Meta and its users are the problem.
ripcord@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 98d
They are all related but person-for-person, meta is worse
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 98d
Ah! Modi! I thought that famous guy was like an app. Don't uh. Well. Don't mention I said the pm of some bigass country looks like a morrowind broke NPC merchant
sirico@feddit.uk · -5 pts · 98d
Private company did privatised things. Why do you think you have freedom of speech on a private platform?
NABDad@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 98d
Yes, and we get to hear about it and complain about it and decide if that private company deserves to die as a result.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. That means Meta can kick people off their platform for saying things they don't like, and it also means that we can collectively decide Meta should cease to exist.
sirico@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 98d
Exactly I think my point’s been misread a bit. I’m not arguing that Meta has no legal right to moderate its own platform.
My point is that we’ve allowed public debate, journalism, and politics to be funnelled through a handful of privately controlled platforms. Then people act surprised when that power is used against someone whose message goes against the grain.
The real irony is whether outlets like The Independent or Dagsavisen will now seriously review their reliance on Meta’s platforms, or whether they’ll complain about the power imbalance while continuing to feed it. My guess is the latter.
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 98d
You make it sound like Meta has no obligations at all, while their terms and conditions limit their actions as well. For example they can limit the visibility and ban users and posts that violate their community standards. It would be interesting to see what breach was made here.
frunch@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 98d
No private company should have that much power/control. Meta is a fucking cancer on society.
mPony@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 98d
the only way for private companies to have less power is if governments enact laws that curtail powers, and actually enforce them. The last step is more challenging to do when the humans involved are physically elsewhere on the globe, but it's not impossible.
ms_lane@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 98d
ugh, we've got corpo bots here now.
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 98d
I think he meant his comment as a critique, not approval
Wrufieotnak@feddit.org · 4 pts · 98d
They explain their reasoning here in another comment.
Short version: not a corpo bot.
xav@programming.dev · -8 pts · 98d
Bridget Jones is a journalist now ? Ah yes I remember.