Thinking that everyone that disagrees with you on with transgender ideology is in bad faith indicates you probably don’t understand what bad faith is. There is no lack of honesty or trust here -people just do not wish to participate in other peoples gender performances.
The “bad faith” is in the pretending that we don’t all participate in gender performance with every single person we come into contact with, every single day, for our entire lives.
Again: it is specifically pointing out that other people are not obliged to participate in your performance.
You can act, have whatever cosmetic surgery or take whatever hormones you like.
Where your rights end is asking me to refer to you based on your performance rather than your sex.
That said, if they remove the political filter, they're opening the door for all discussion (even from the left).
Of course, they could surreptitiously filter out the left. Hell, why not?
Just moving the needle for allowed content to include transphobia and racism.
If by left discussion you mean discussion of the genocide in Gaza, don't count on it, because this censorship is bipartisan in the United States.
Zuck cares about currying favor with the powerful. He doesn't give a crap about the powerless. Also, he's pretending that Texas, the proposed site for content moderation, is not politically biased, which is laughable. "We're moving from a blue state to a red state" is not a serious proposal for reducing or eliminating bias.
It’s also a right wing complaint, and they’re also silenced for bringing it up.
But Trump, Fox News, and the Republicans are absolutely actively aiding the genocide and squashing dissent.
Not really though. It means that feminist campaigners can advocate for single-sex spaces and services without the looming threat of being banned. This is great news and a win for free speech.
https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-stand...
This is a bold claim. I see a lot of people in this discussion that seem to have a very different experience. Your point would be much stronger with evidence, if only to calibrate everyone's understanding of what you mean by "left content".
>what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?
From what I've been able to tell the last several years, the overwhelming majority of your ideological opponents here have no interest in visiting physical harm upon others simply because of how they view and present themselves. They just don't want to be, or feel, compelled to treat the other person's self-image as an objective fact. Some of them additionally have concerns about capacity of minors to give informed consent for the related medical procedures, or consider it suspicious that the prevalence of such self-identification has risen drastically in recent years (to the point that they imagine social pressures toward such identification).
>Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.
I have seen statements like this from your opponents interpreted as veiled threats in the past.
I think it's extremely likely that people will see the "de-ranking" of content they agree with as bias, regardless of their place on the spectrum.
Similar: "Biden must have committed election fraud, because all of my friends voted for Trump and I don't know anyone who voted for Biden." (previous election, obviously) Well, is that because no-one voted for Biden, or that the friends/content you see is tuned to how you lean.
So, while this announcement certainly seems to be in bad faith (what could Mark mean by "gender" other than transphobic discussion?), this should be a boon both for far-right and left discussion.
Does that mean increased polarization and political violence? Surely, surely.