Summary
Meta’s recent shift to right-leaning policies, including ending fact-checking in the U.S., scaling back content moderation, and allowing anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, has sparked boycotts and a user exodus.
The company also disbanded its diversity, equity, and inclusion team, drawing criticism.
Prominent users like director Cord Jefferson and nonprofits like Equal Access Public Media have left or reduced activity on Meta platforms.
Many are migrating to alternatives such as Bluesky, Amigahood, and Tumblr, while some remain trapped due to Meta’s dominance in communication and business.
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the moral panic caused by this, at least a little. It shows that the pendulum is indeed swinging back from the woke left toward a more reasonable, rational center.
Disagreeing with things like DEI programs doesn’t make someone far-right - it just means they’re not far-left. You might not like it, but the reality is that the vast majority of people don’t agree with many of the views that are overrepresented on left-wing social media platforms like Lemmy. Doubling down on it just means losing more elections.
Gaslighting LGBTQ folks. Misogynistic stances towards women. Nationalist stances towards immigration.
Seems far-right to me.
If you have a good faith argument as to how that’s not Nazi shit other than, ‘DEI hires are woke’, I’d love to hear it. Because it seems like you based your whole argument on a very narrow understanding of the situation.
Their name is Free_Opinions, we definitely got what we paid for.
Meta literally changed the rules specifically so you can call LGBTQ people mentally ill without repercussions.
Trying to convince anyone these changes are not far-right is just telling on yourself.
Tell me that you don’t understand why the republicans won.
They didn’t win because people agree with the neo-nazi adjacent right (which, I bet you’re in denial about, but republicans always are), they won because the Democrats abandoned the working class and stupid people thought the Republicans would be better for them despite all empirical evidence.
You’re right tho, disagreeing with dei programs doesn’t make you a Nazi, it just makes you willing bedfellows with them.
You seem to be making lots of assumptions here. You could’ve just asked if you want to know what I think about something.
Is your idea of the “rational” center removing fact checking, reducing content moderation on political topics (which if history is of any indication means letting far right content to spread) and allowing the use of hateful speech against people you don’t like? I guess the fact that you think DEI is a far-left idea does indicate that you do think that would be the center.
Tough talk from a UK instance chud named “free opinions” who hides behind phrases like “rational argument” and “unpopular opinions” to say heinous shit.
DEI is actually sound policy for corporations to consider especially on a managerial level or in creative roles. Having people with different perspectives can be a huge asset in business.
Musk is far-right because he’s praising the policy choices of far-right politicians. Trump et al are extremely far right as fascism is a far right ideology.
Is this true? Or is this just “people you know” and what the media you consume tells you?
If it is true then adding in the sources of where you got this information would really help your argument. Hell you may actually get more people to agree with you if you have solid evidence of what you said.
If this is just what “feels” right to you or if this is just something that other people told you is right then maybe look into that and see if reality lines up with what you are feeling and hearing.
Like 95% of social media users, regardless of the platform, are mostly lurkers. A tiny fraction of the total user base creates the majority of the content. This is a self-selecting group of people who, by definition, don’t represent the average person - the average person doesn’t comment on message boards.
Reading discussions on Lemmy, for example, can create a skewed perspective of reality. Views like being okay with murdering CEOs are fairly popular here, yet I’ve never met anyone in real life who thinks this way. My work involves going into people’s homes to fix things, and we frequently chat about current events. I find that my average customer is far more reasonable in their views compared to the extreme opinions that often get highly upvoted here.
There’s also the broader observation that the left seems to struggle to win elections globally. We hear a lot about people moving toward the right, but rarely about anyone moving the other way. I’m not claiming this as absolute truth - it’s simply how I see things. Of course, there’s always a chance I could be wrong.
Right wing ideologies tend to be simpler and thus appeal to those that tend to dislike nuance.
You are likely correct that the views here are not the norm though as this is a very fringe form of social media started by leftists so unsurprisingly there are lots of fringe views.
As for the killing of health care CEO’s that’s something that you might not be seeing people agree with because if you aren’t in America you might not get that the murdered executive made millions denying access to health care to those that were paying for insurance. Do you get mad when serial killers are killed? The victim made his money off of letting people die so he could have more money that he did not need.
There’s no reason for the US health insurance industry to exist except to take money from the working class and hand it to the investor class. US health insurers do not make health care more available, more efficient, cheaper or safer. The only thing it does is make everything more expensive.
I don’t agree with this - at least not in the sense that there’s a significant difference between the left and the right here. Both sides tend to oversimplify and misrepresent each other’s views in online discussions. However, when you dig deeper into why someone holds a certain stance, it’s very rare to find it entirely lacking in nuance, regardless of which political side they’re coming from.
But the issue is that right-wing positions aren’t logically coherent. There’s always at least a couple of points where they don’t logically work, because the positions aren’t derived from axioms or first principles. They only make sense if you ignore lots of counterarguments.
Even if left-wing positions are held without nuance, the positions themselves can still be complex. This simply isn’t the case with right-wing positions.
So while the reasons for holding a right-wing position might have nuance, the positions themselves don’t.
That’s quite a broad generalization. While this applies to some positions, sure, you seem to be implying it’s true of right-wing views as a whole which simply isn’t true.
I would honestly say that the number of logically coherent and purely right-wing positions is vanishingly small. There are a bunch of right-wing positions that, individually, are logically coherent - but most of them are also part of some left-wing frameworks, so not purely right-wing. Do you have some examples in mind? I’d be happy to be proven wrong!
Even something like being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance to hold for someone who beliefs that soul enters the body at conception. That belief is based on what I’d argue is a false premise but I can’t exactly prove that either. It’s not logical from my perspective but it is from theirs.
I’m not so much talking about right wing beliefs per-se but about the shift towards the centre which is to the right. Where it crosses to the side of the right, I don’t know and I doubt there even is concensus on that. Something like being against DEI programs, I guess, is considered to be quite “right wing” yet virtually all of the people whose opinions I respect are against it and I’d hardly consider any of them right wing. Freedom of speech would be another - also fitting the context.
Ah yes because wanting to not be discriminated against and censoring hate speech is such a woke thing /s
Glad i didn’t pay for this opinion, lol 🙃
There are two main issues with the large commercial social media platforms. The first is that they do not allow for downvoting. The second is that they maximise engagement rather than quality of posts. The end result is that they consistently push controversial posts (i.e. misinformation).
Factchecking mitigates this but only to a tiny extent. The reason there is far less misinformation on platforms like Lemmy is that content is pushed on the basis of net votes (upvoted minus downvotes) and misinformation tends to be downvoted rapidly.
Removed by mod