I am sorry that you had to explain that, and even sorrier that many people failed the third grade. The fault lies not with the teachers, but the parents who do not know who's geologic fact either... it's stunning, but par for the course given the countries leadership.
They had no need to explain what most already knew and which had little bearing on the apparent actions of a US company.
The fault lies not with the geological bedrock underpinning Vancouver B.C. nor with it's geographic location although it is indeed a visually stunning part of the world.
It's also less an issue with the leadership of the two countries involved, more an issue with the fish rotting from head of one country's leadership.
Since when has Facebook been associated with MAGA? They were famously part of the attempt to get Trump banned [0] from social media that led to Truth Social. Their moderation team tends anti-MAGA to the point where it is an international political concern.
And, assuming that the article is accurate, obviously they shouldn't have banned an account for posting "Can't handle a pool, but wants our lake?". I think everyone would agree outside the Facebook team. That would be a classic Facebook over-moderation. Extreme to the point where I'm going to assume there is more to the story.
Would be useful to know who gave the order (article doesn't say).
It could be an Insta mod messed up, a blame the AI situation, the company self-censoring, or maybe a threatening DM from the government. All of which have precedent.
Hard to have an informed opinion without more details.
Incidents like this are common enough, that this is what the system does. If it’s AI, or rogue mods, or zuck himself, it doesn’t matter because this is what the system is doing - and if this wasn’t an acceptable outcome to meta the system would be changed.
I like that, and there are definitely situations where that describes what’s happening better. But I feel like adding intent changes it a bit. Some of the worst things exist not because of intent but because of indifference. E.g. nobody wants to destroy the planet, but a lot of people don’t give a shit if what they do happens to do that.
Hope it gets more countries to do their own thing; it's rather insane companies are dependent on social media for marketing while they control 0% of that social media and can be wiped out by some silly AI (aka cheap; you don't want Astra/Fable scanning all our photos, you use some lobotomised model which barfs out false pos/neg all day long) or Stasi Ministry of Censorship. At least locally I can just get in a car and drive up to hear what's up and I understand the laws and know what my rights are while in the US, I have 0 rights.
Another red flag of bigtech domination being terrible for digital democracy. At least Europe has now got this message loud and clear,and some govts/etc are using self hosted Mastodon (and Nextcloud, AI models...). Eurosky might be good but we have to wait and see, though it can also be self hosted through AT protocol. Decentralised, federated social media is now bottom line essential for diverse opinion with different, independently controlled moderation systems.
1. A Canadian business posted an image of a sign criticizing the US administration
2. Soon after, their Instagram account was suspended.
3. This has happened before with their Twitter account, which they were able to get restored after a week.
But you already knew that, and instead are making passive-aggressive insinuations. If you want to make an actual argument, make it.
As for me, that along with the other facts I know about the Trump administration are more than enough to form an opinion: this isn’t evidence of a politically-motivated takedown, but it certainly fits the administration’s character, and I’m not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Meta is well known for having strict rules on nudity[0], particularly the display of women’s nipples. I would want to know the base rate at which the instagram accounts of strip clubs get suspended before assuming the motive was political.
Well, the joke by itself was enough to write an article about. Simple, hilarious, and we need a lot more of this. A bit sad that it's a strip club sticking it to the man, but perhaps that's appropriate too.
But as for claiming that there are "not enough actual facts" -- are you really suggesting that the takedown of the insta account was coincidental, and entirely unrelated to the sign?
36 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 22.5 ms ] threadThere is also Vancouver Island, which is separate from the other two.
All are named after Captain George Vancouver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Vancouver
That was either accidental auto moderation or a testy and likely MAGA aligned person of influence (inside or outside of Meta).
Either way, not a good look for Freedom of Speech.
The fault lies not with the geological bedrock underpinning Vancouver B.C. nor with it's geographic location although it is indeed a visually stunning part of the world.
It's also less an issue with the leadership of the two countries involved, more an issue with the fish rotting from head of one country's leadership.
And, assuming that the article is accurate, obviously they shouldn't have banned an account for posting "Can't handle a pool, but wants our lake?". I think everyone would agree outside the Facebook team. That would be a classic Facebook over-moderation. Extreme to the point where I'm going to assume there is more to the story.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_use_by_Donald_Tru...
Who is the snowflake now?
It could be an Insta mod messed up, a blame the AI situation, the company self-censoring, or maybe a threatening DM from the government. All of which have precedent.
Hard to have an informed opinion without more details.
Incidents like this are common enough, that this is what the system does. If it’s AI, or rogue mods, or zuck himself, it doesn’t matter because this is what the system is doing - and if this wasn’t an acceptable outcome to meta the system would be changed.
I'm a fan of a slightly different version of this that I heard years ago:
"Just because something isn't working as advertised, doesn't mean it's not working as intended."
Not enough actual facts in the article to form an opinion or even write the article about.
1. A Canadian business posted an image of a sign criticizing the US administration
2. Soon after, their Instagram account was suspended.
3. This has happened before with their Twitter account, which they were able to get restored after a week.
But you already knew that, and instead are making passive-aggressive insinuations. If you want to make an actual argument, make it.
As for me, that along with the other facts I know about the Trump administration are more than enough to form an opinion: this isn’t evidence of a politically-motivated takedown, but it certainly fits the administration’s character, and I’m not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g734pj22zo
But as for claiming that there are "not enough actual facts" -- are you really suggesting that the takedown of the insta account was coincidental, and entirely unrelated to the sign?
Every time these end up on HN, someone says something along the lines of: ”I would not host in a country without 1st amendment rights.”