“Time to get back to our roots around free expression”, declared Mark Zuckerberg today as he announced that Meta is getting rid of independent fact-checkers, in a bold move that will appease the incoming US President.
How about: "good to see that 'anonymous men in lanyards' will no longer be able to dictate policy by telling social media which vested interests to promote"?
Surely the story is that Zuckerberg now admits what he previously denied, that these 'anonymous men in lanyards' get to dictate their views and their policies (and their vested interests!) as being a neutral, 'fact-checked'?
So the question we should be asking is what else did vested interests manage to promote during 2016-2024 that might, just possibly, have been good for vested interests but not good for society, or for the common man?
When the administration - in cahoots with a compliant media and judiciary - gets to dictate the official line (however divorced from reality this might be), you get problems, as there are no checks and balances, and decision-makers can wriggle out of being held to account.
"panders to Trump"?
How about: "good to see that 'anonymous men in lanyards' will no longer be able to dictate policy by telling social media which vested interests to promote"?
Surely the story is that Zuckerberg now admits what he previously denied, that these 'anonymous men in lanyards' get to dictate their views and their policies (and their vested interests!) as being a neutral, 'fact-checked'?
So the question we should be asking is what else did vested interests manage to promote during 2016-2024 that might, just possibly, have been good for vested interests but not good for society, or for the common man?
When the administration - in cahoots with a compliant media and judiciary - gets to dictate the official line (however divorced from reality this might be), you get problems, as there are no checks and balances, and decision-makers can wriggle out of being held to account.