The end of the fact check era is worth examining because of how it heralds another liberal failure with little to offer in the way of alternatives. It is just another capitulation in the battle against fascism. Liberals, it turned out, were never really the “resistance” that they pretended they were.
In 2021, in response to Trump’s role in the January 6 Capitol attack, Meta banned the then-president from its platforms. Around that time, over 800 QAnon conspiracy groups were also removed from Facebook. Social media censorship became a hot button for the grievance-driven Trump and his far right.
None of the right-wing’s agenda, however, was about free speech for all. Consider that, at the same time, the right was rallying behind book bans in schools. They didn’t utter a peep when, as The Intercept reported in 2020, dozens of left-wing and antifascist groups were also banned from Facebook. And Meta has been engaging in what Human Rights Watch called “systematic and global” censorship of Palestinian and Palestine-solidarity content on its platforms. Nonetheless, the right has successfully created a victim narrative out of content moderation.
Enter Zuckerberg and the utter lack of subtlety in his announcement. These new policies were clearly not meant to serve the political left or censored pro-Palestinian users. “We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate,” Zuckerberg said, issuing a thinly veiled signal that anti-trans, anti-immigrant hate would face fewer roadblocks.
The end of the fact check era is worth examining because of how it heralds another liberal failure with little to offer in the way of alternatives. It is just another capitulation in the battle against fascism. Liberals, it turned out, were never really the “resistance” that they pretended they were.
- Fascists do fascist things
- LIBERAL FAILURE! CAPITULATION!
???
You have failed to read the article. The censorship of topics such as Palestine happened under the Democrats.
Dude, took the words right out of my mouth. Any excuse to blame “liberals” rather than the actual fascists. “But the liberals enable the fascists!!?” Fuck right off. I live in Texas, and my circles are predominantly college-educated, white, and middle-class (whatever that means today). We are the epitome of the liberal constituency, and there isn’t a single goddamn person I know who would’ve voted for Trump over Bernie Sanders. All these cynical motherfuckers saying “liberal failure!!” are mistaking corruption and incompetence among the Democratic Party leadership for a coherent political philosophy.
I… don’t think you know what Liberal means.
In pre-WWII Germany, socialists were the only ones willing to actively fight the fascists in the streets. The liberal papers, the largest of which was Jewish-owned, would consistently label the socialists as violent and immature. They were falling over themselves trying to remain “nonbiased” while the wolf was quite literally at the door.
The New York Times, if you’ll remember, printed a ton of information about WMD from incredibly shady sources in the lead-up to the second Iraq war. They were instrumental in garnering liberal support for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And they’ve never once owned up to that.
“Liberals” are just as interested in maintaining the status quo and they always have been. They just do it in a way that gives people the warm fuzzies and makes them feel good about themselves.
Bernie was a progressive. A socialist. Progressives we can work with. Liberals are like the shortcut that never gets you where you’re trying to go. And yes, they are more often than not fascist apologists.
Oh, I’m fully aware that’s how you define the term liberal, along with much of Lemmy. As soon as you get off your screen is where that ends though, because the overwhelming majority of people in the US use a different definition. I’m not talking about pre-WWII Germany or the New York Times. I’m talking about a huge segment of our society for whom “liberal” and “progressive” mean the same thing and who the left-most among us continuously deride, ensuring unending division in the face of fascism.
They just want to pick the definition of “liberal” from the place and time that serves their purpose best.
Don’t tell them about the French Revolution.
Funny because I would say that your definition of the word ends at the US border. You actually hit the nail on the head with your comment about most of the people on this site, but the problem is not being “too online”. Lemmy is a far more multicultural space than you’re probably used to, and you seem to be struggling with that.
Funny because the article posted is about a US company announcing a policy change on a US TV network to please the incoming administration in the US and its relation to US politics more widely.
Yes and the article was written by The Intercept, also a US-based media company. I feel it’s important to interpret a text in the context of the vocabulary used by the author. And The Intercept fully ascribes to the definition of “liberal” that I’m using.
You’re just playing a game with semantics for… some reason. I’m not going to psychoanalyze here with regards to you, but the intention of the author is obvious to anyone with a modicum of political awareness.
Starts arguing about semantics.
Complains about arguing about semantics.
I agree with you and it’s a shame that the word has been so effectively associated with “anywhere on the left”, but honestly political names / vocabulary are really frustrating overall, with the way folks have vested interests in twisting words as much as they can.
And honestly, I do have a feeling that the average Democrat-voting Twitter/ Facebook user basically are what you’re describing. Look at them go, loudly complaining about how bad the fascists are, while being unwilling to sacrifice really anything, even their chosen form of entertainment, in service to their oh-so-noble values. The ones who promised to leave the country and shit if Trump was (re-)elected, yet who still post on Twitter, particularly disgust me. So much is just performative.
Lemme put it this way for folks on the left who wonder if I mean them - at the very minimum in terms of “action” - if there are no significant brands or platforms, by now, that you have not walked away from forever because of their behavior - you’re just talking to make yourself feel better about doing nothing. Be quieter and do more useful shit, it feels better and it works better, and no one believes you anymore, anyway.
[Disclaimer for the barely literate: I do not blame anyone on the left for fascists being fascists, they’re the guilty ones, don’t get it twisted. And I make (and long have made) significant voluntary sacrifices for the good I want to see done in the world.]
I… don’t think you know what Liberal means.
Huh ok, this could be interesting
In pre-WWII Germany…
Oh, nevermind
Don’t bother reading the whole comment, I know it’s a lot of words.
Read it, not impressed
Moderates are always first against the wall no matter which side wins
Maybe if democrats didn’t actively collaborate with and support fascists at every turn people would stop blaming them for fascism
Shhh don’t you know you’re not allowed to say that on here? It makes people who are part of the problem feel bad about themselves!
Fact checking and better moderation would have been really helpful in Myanmar.
They have got plenty of moderation and “fact checking” over there. A bit too much.
Wasn’t Facebook’s lax moderation there widely implicated in the genocide?
Yes.
Lol, why are you on Facebook? That is the much better question.
Well since they censor posts that don’t align with their views, these ‘fact checks’ have as little value as the shit on the soles of my shoes.
They’ve been weaponized to push propaganda plenty of times. Especially for Israel.
Oh look, it’s the intercept blaming dems and liberals for what fascists and Republicans do. Never seen that before!
