I'm always curious what strange leaps and twists of logic leads to people implement word-based censorship. Is it really "Hitler bad! Don't say Hitler!" or is there more going on here? And I assume this came across at least one person's desk before hitting the giant green DEPLOY button. Or maybe that's exactly the kind of approval process Hitler would have used...
Hitler’s character has been going through a revival of sorts amongst right wing white nationalists. You can find such posts on X.com. Threads doesn’t want that on their platform. They also don’t want the white nationalists to decry the fact that their posts about Hitler are deleted but posts condemning Hitler are not deleted. This will lead to things like what Texas tried to implement regarding social media platforms. Easiest course of action is to ban all mentions of Hitler.
The approach is ridiculous, though. Again, it's a word ban. When someone bans the word from being mentioned do you say "awww shucks guess I'm not going to be a white nationalist anymore?" No, you start saying Vitler instead and move on.
> They also don’t want the white nationalists to decry the fact that their posts about Hitler are deleted but posts condemning Hitler are not deleted.
One way to handle it is to stop fucking tampering with everyone's feeds. Then, if someone doesn't follow people who spout white nationalist gibberish, they won't get said gibberish in their feed. But no! That's not right! We have to show people things they don't follow to drive engagement and in the process effectively introduce algorithms that tamper. The end result is everyone wants the algorithm to tamper how they think it should.
Any social media company engaging in this tampering should be regulated, chastised, and/or systematically dismantled. But that doesn't happen, because people engage more when you show them things they never wanted to see in the first place, and engagement drives profit, and profit drives capital. And doing anything to upset capital is heresy.
They are in the position of not wanting pro-Hitler sentiments on their site. They also don’t want conservatives, who are now in power, to punish them. It seems like a reasonable decision to just ban the word altogether. It’s expedient; not ideal.
The ol’ post WW2 order looking shakier by the day…
I'm always curious what strange leaps and twists of logic leads to people implement word-based censorship. Is it really "Hitler bad! Don't say Hitler!" or is there more going on here? And I assume this came across at least one person's desk before hitting the giant green DEPLOY button. Or maybe that's exactly the kind of approval process Hitler would have used...
Hitler’s character has been going through a revival of sorts amongst right wing white nationalists. You can find such posts on X.com. Threads doesn’t want that on their platform. They also don’t want the white nationalists to decry the fact that their posts about Hitler are deleted but posts condemning Hitler are not deleted. This will lead to things like what Texas tried to implement regarding social media platforms. Easiest course of action is to ban all mentions of Hitler.
The approach is ridiculous, though. Again, it's a word ban. When someone bans the word from being mentioned do you say "awww shucks guess I'm not going to be a white nationalist anymore?" No, you start saying Vitler instead and move on.
> They also don’t want the white nationalists to decry the fact that their posts about Hitler are deleted but posts condemning Hitler are not deleted.
One way to handle it is to stop fucking tampering with everyone's feeds. Then, if someone doesn't follow people who spout white nationalist gibberish, they won't get said gibberish in their feed. But no! That's not right! We have to show people things they don't follow to drive engagement and in the process effectively introduce algorithms that tamper. The end result is everyone wants the algorithm to tamper how they think it should.
Any social media company engaging in this tampering should be regulated, chastised, and/or systematically dismantled. But that doesn't happen, because people engage more when you show them things they never wanted to see in the first place, and engagement drives profit, and profit drives capital. And doing anything to upset capital is heresy.
They are in the position of not wanting pro-Hitler sentiments on their site. They also don’t want conservatives, who are now in power, to punish them. It seems like a reasonable decision to just ban the word altogether. It’s expedient; not ideal.
And doing anything to upset capital is heresy.
When in Ferenginar do as the Ferengi.
you've loaded the deck, but not to your advantage. when you say
>right wing white nationalists
they already like Hitler, there is no need for your claimed revival.
Remember people, it's not fascism if no one is allowed to call it that.
It's not fascism because Threads has many competitors you're free to use instead. Threads is not a government.
Similarly, it's not fascism for X to shadowban Democrats to help Musk get a cabinet position (or whatever Trump gives him).
It is morally reprehensible and outrageous, but it's not fascism.
If Meta/Facebook doesn't directly address this, I can only assume that they idolize Hitler.
saying hitler is the new drawing muhammad