The childish leverage over speech we have allowed to the people who think like this had to end. We cannot have a www if every comment on it has to be policed by the minority view. You cannot have a www if every comment on it by a user is a civil or criminal liability for the person running the webserver.
> “I know these examples are difficult to read — they sure are for me,”
Assumed victimhood is a cancer of modernity. And more cancerous is the benefit of that assumed victimhood to the people who make new people who encourage the adoption of niche identities learned from intersectional academia for their personal enrichment.
> One way Meta previously gave queer and nonbinary people a voice was to offer them custom themes for their Messenger chats.
If this gives your life meaning, you are worth ignoring.
Most people disagree with this deconstructivist view, therefore it is bad for business for a start. The enclosure of speech during the histrionics of covid NPIs was bad for society - a lot of which this policy is an admission of. People having an opinion on you coaching children to adopt gender roles so you can complain on the internet is bad for no one, except you.
> For someone to enjoy expressing themself with custom themes doesn't mean that custom themes are what gives their life meaning.
The article laments their removal as a tragedy and a removal of agency from the aggrieved party. If someone is "expressing themselves" they are communicating to others the things they consider meaningful in their life beyond an aesthetic choice.
> think the primary underlying motivation tying these changes together is aligning with the incoming administration.
Why were such policies implemented in the first place?
I don't think the article calls it a tragedy - just removal of an option for users expressing themselves. Main concern is in what that move indicates of Meta's new position, IMO.
> If someone is "expressing themselves" they are [...]
> [Parsing A:] communicating to others [the things they consider meaningful in their life] beyond an aesthetic choice
Aesthetic choices, like wearing a t-shirt of a band you like or creatively decorating your home, are a pretty common way for people to express themselves. Probably what I see the term applied to most frequently, even.
> [Parsing B:] communicating to others [the things they consider meaningful in their life beyond an aesthetic choice]
The aspect of themselves that they are expressing may have significance to them - that does not imply that the aesthetic choice itself (through which they express that aspect), be it badge or software theme, is what gives their life meaning.
> Why were such policies implemented in the first place?
Some, like suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, I think were fairly directly at the behest of the democratic party. The themes (and similar changes, including those made during or persisting through the previous Trump administration) seemed intended to appeal to an LGBTQ/ally userbase, which Meta have now determined benefits them less than appealing to the Trump administration. I do not believe Meta is acting based on what is good/bad for society in either case.
> “I know these examples are difficult to read — they sure are for me,”
Assumed victimhood is a cancer of modernity. And more cancerous is the benefit of that assumed victimhood to the people who make new people who encourage the adoption of niche identities learned from intersectional academia for their personal enrichment.
> One way Meta previously gave queer and nonbinary people a voice was to offer them custom themes for their Messenger chats.
If this gives your life meaning, you are worth ignoring.
Most people disagree with this deconstructivist view, therefore it is bad for business for a start. The enclosure of speech during the histrionics of covid NPIs was bad for society - a lot of which this policy is an admission of. People having an opinion on you coaching children to adopt gender roles so you can complain on the internet is bad for no one, except you.