EU stings Meta for nearly a billion bucks over competition-trampling Facebook Marketplace The European Union has fined Facebook parent Meta €797.72 million ($843 million) for antitrust violations connected to its online classified service Facebook Marketplace. The European Commission levied the punishment after years of investigations into the tying of Marketplace to Facebook accounts and unfair trading conditions …
If Meta hates Trump so much, why is it that every time I report a post containing far-right hate speech, which obviously comes from Trump supporters, it "doesn't go against our community standards" and they don't remove the post. An example, if anyone thinks I'm being some sort of "lefty snowflake", was one in one public group I was a member of (I have since left that group because the moderators have disappeared) involving someone in a MAGA hat pushing LGBTQ+ people off a roof. It didn't get removed.
Zuckerberg is no better than Musk, or Trump, he just has the common sense to not open his mouth, and remove all doubt.
Edit - I'll add, that if the meme in question had involved pushing MAGAs off a roof, that would have been equally unacceptable. Oddly enough, though, I've not seen any memes of that sort directing violence towards the far-right. Perhaps Meta immediately moderates these away, or perhaps the hate speech is all coming from the group that is pretty much defined by its production of hate speech.
This post has been deleted by its author
As someone who is squarely in the "middle", he definitely comes across as left, but nothing in his post indicates any form of radicalism. Or are you one of those black or white typers with no concept of a spectrum? Or is anti-violence as per his postscript an indicator of radicalism in your view?
I'd probably describe my political position as slightly left of centre, but the Overton Window has moved so far to the right over the last few decades, that sensible centre-left policies look like communism to these people. I'm not even a member of a union (although I probably should be, and so should you).
If you think about the actual "radical leftism" this country has had in the last century, it would pretty much describe the formation of the NHS and social security. Many of the rights and privileges we enjoy as citizens come from the actions of the radical left, but thankfully well before our time. Things like weekends, the right to a safe working environment, maternity leave and pay, that sort of thing.
Quite frankly, I think we should all be a bit more thankful for the things the radical left have done for us, and appreciate that politics is a constant struggle against the creep towards the right, which, if unopposed, will end up with a tiny number of people owning everything, and everyone else being indentured to them and living in poverty. You know, like the liberal economics of the nineteenth century.
> If Meta hates Trump so much, why is it that every time I report a post containing far-right hate speech, which obviously comes from Trump supporters, it "doesn't go against our community standards" and they don't remove the post
Oh gee, I dunno. Could it be because it's only far-right hate speech in _your_ mind, because you don't happen to agree with it?
So you think the example I gave was perfectly fine? A cartoon about pushing people you don't like off a roof isn't hate speech?
No, I don't happen to agree with hateful people. Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance explains why nobody should put up with that sort of shit.
So, yes, you're right, you "dunno".
The European Commission's decision claims that Meta imposes Facebook Marketplace on people who use Facebook in an illegal 'tie,'" Mark Zuckerberg's Meta relied. "But that argument ignores the fact that Facebook users can choose whether or not to engage with Marketplace, and many don't.
They're really missing the point here.
First, adverts for Marketplace are strongly pushed to Facebook users. Second, you can only use Marketplace if you have a Facebook account.
Not relevent, but:
"hypothetical harms to competitors absent any real evidence."
Is this some new meaning of the word 'absent' that I wasn't previously aware of? Is this how the young 'uns speak these days? Some formal legal use?
Why not just 'without any real evidence'?
gerroffmylawn etc.
Endless fines on GAFA for anything they can think of, to make up for their economic failures. Ordinary people will never see a penny of this.
Eventually the services we use will stop being free, as governments will have killed the mechanisms that allow this. Once it is all paid for, governments can track every transaction and every user, and block the service by blocking the payments.
You beat me to it.
However, it appears to be a Legal loophole in the USA that companies love to use.
"We had your PII which you never agreed for us to have, and because of our negligence they were stolen. But until a crook actually uses them and causes you harm we have done nothing wrong."
Hey, m*ron, by the time the harm is done it's TOO LATE for the poor sod whose life has been turned upside down. Companies need to be hit were it hurts them (the finances) until it becomes cheaper to obey the law than pay Lawyers to avoid prosecution.
I may have an opinion on the subject. :p
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
