[csomar]

There could have been deals/agreements behind the scenes. This is not a republican "first". The democrats did the same to get Facebook and other social media to censor news. Trump is literally playing their book but with his style.

[toss1]

Anyone who can not see the obvious difference in substance, intent, scope, and scale is either willfully ignorant or seriously lacking in reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

Requesting curbs on rampant disinformation is not even close to the same thing as crashing the economy to extort our closest allies and major business and industry players.

Yikes

[qmr]

Censorship is censorship.

Who are you to decide what is or isn't disinformation?

Who is anyone?

I prefer to do my own critical thinking.

It is also well documented that Meta's rampant censorship extends far beyond "disinformation".

https://web.archive.org/web/20250411170102/https://www.drops...

[redczar]

Who are you to decide what is or isn't disinformation?

You can ask this question about any belief or position on a topic. We each decide for ourselves the answer and society decides this through its elected leaders and the judiciary. All societies regulate speech.

[toss1]

A request to not amplify disinformation is NOT censorship. A threat of legal or military action is.

Of course there are edge cases, but blatant and hard-debunked falsehoods such as "The earth is flat", "Contrails are chemical spraying", Russia did not attack Ukraine", "Vaccines cause autism", "Auschwitz and Dachau were not concentration camps where people were killed" are all disinformation, and they are disseminated for the very specific purpose of undermining trust and the capability of western societies to survive, for the purpose of implementing authoritarianism.

If you evidently expect a society to unilaterally disarm and do nothing, you are part of the problem.