[rafaelcosta]

”Facebook is paying out to creators of monetized content because that content is popular”

Would also work as a headline. But wouldn’t attract as many clicks I guess. The implication that Facebook is actively promoting a certain view point is disgusting, and old media loves to do that (even though they were historically the ones doing so). I’m all for local filtering (on some level) and preventing foreign interference on local political matters, and social media companies ought to do better. But I twist my nose at old media shamelessly trying to manipulate the views of people on tech. And this is Facebook we’re talking about here…

[pjc50]

Paying money for a particular viewpoint is promoting it. This is not complicated.

(yes, this is a serious problem with content monetization intermediaries; somehow as soon as the topic is sexual everyone immediately understands what the problem is and rushes to condemn the intermediary)

[vrganj]

Nah, that would absolutely miss the point.

The point is that Facebook's mechanisms drive poor people in the third world to promoting division in the developed world.

Doesn't need to be some sort of evil scheme in order to be dangerous. Often dangerous things come from people not thinking through the consequences of their actions instead of mustachio-twirling supervillains executing elaborate plans.

[account42]

NATO is not a company that does business in Russia. Facebook is a company that does business in Canada and as a result is subject to whatever conditions Canada imposes.