I keep reading this but I don't understand how a company might want to push censorship on users. What is the economic benefit of censorship? Does Meta's bottom line increase if there is no illegal content and every user is age verified on the site? Would Meta care if you use a VPN?

The ones that stand to benefit the most are the governments themselves and their surveillance network.

Barriers to entry. If I want to make a small forum, these laws make that potentially much more difficult. Now users who may have used my forum may spend more time on facebook instead.

Multiply that times tens of thousands of new sites not being created, tens of thousands of existing sites no longer existing or being accessible due to new laws, this occurring over multiple surfaces (content moderation, age verification, etc) and the positive impact for meta is meaningful.

If there are less sites, meta wins.

Not that many years ago, Facebook tried to broker a deal to provide free internet to India if all of their web traffic and communications would happen within the Facebook ecosystem.

It's long been the dream of more than a few American companies to be the gatekeepers of the web.

I've read a take somewhere that seemed to make sense. They don't want to get stuck with the liabilities of the content that gets posted on their platforms. So by forcing the age verification onto the users, forcing users to identify and track themselves, they can have a "clean" route to someone who posts illicit content on their platforms.

It just sucks that that's all in sacrifice of our privacy.

Meta’s bottom line is driven entirely by their ability to uniquely and persistently identify users for the sake of advertising.

Anything that makes it harder for a user to escape their dragnet is a win.

Rug pull Ladder pull

It’s just that

“Move fast, break things, regulate impossible to repair.”

The tigher, more believable theory is that Meta wants Operating Systems to be responsible for delivering an age or an "over 18 attestation" to apps/websites so it's not Meta's problem.

The idea from the case in the link is that their competitors would be more regulated then them but in general, if regulation is a requirement and they’ve already implemented the regulation then it’s hard for a competitor to emerge.

They realized all the data on user behaviour is useless after trying to leverage on it with LLMs and now they go after seemingly new riches

I keep reading this but I don't understand how a company might want to push censorship on users.

We're being astroturf-ed guy.

The comment you're responding to. The comments responding to you. All shaped by influence campaigns from the beginning.

Meta, X, google, data based big tech, the billionaires, and the government were in on the plan from the start. We were always the ones kept in the dark as to the ultimate intent. Even the anti-censorship and anti-surveillance posts and content that we saw, were being paid for by the same puppet masters. Professional influence campaigns controlled by these same groups shaped the internet discussion of both sides.

And it seems a lot of us still haven't figured that out yet.

We got played. We'll continue to be played if we don't recognize that fact and act to prevent it in the future.

Because I can assure you, censorship and surveillance is not the endgame. And their endgame is very likely not to our benefit.