Will Meta's Threads have a censorship uproar within the first three months?
resolved Oct 5

Meta has long been known to be ham-fisted with censorship on its platforms, preferring a stale "family-friendly" approach, even though a fundamental userbase of Instagram is the sex worker community. In contrast, Twitter has historically been a bastion for political dissidents, sex workers, and breaking news stories that sometimes come with highly uncomfortable footage. Will these needs of people leaving Twitter be filled by Threads? Will Meta have a strong policy against it from the outset? Or might Meta lure them in before closing the trap? How will users feel about Threads once these policies are known?

Resolves YES if controversy, frustration, or outrage about Thread's content policies spawns article(s) in any major English-language publication (NYT, BBC, AP, etc.) within three months, except Opinion section stuff.

Otherwise resolves NO after close.

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:

Congratulations to those who bought the dip

bought Ṁ41 of YES

@georgeyw What an absolute snipe on the breaking news

predicted NO

@georgeyw no taylor nooooo

bought Ṁ3,000 of YES
bought Ṁ1 of NO

if this took a month for anyone here to notice, was it really an uproar?

sold Ṁ1,525 of YES

@jcb That convinced me to update

predicted YES

@jcb the resolution criteria doesn't say that anyone here has to notice it immediately

predicted YES

@jcb Doesn’t matter, resolution criteria are met

@june ah thanks I'd seen this and gotten distracted. great find, hits the criteria! resolving YES

predicted NO

@JakeTeale it's pretty good, and might be as good as we get! why I don't think it's enough: no mention of Threads, The Intercept isn't a major well-recognized news source, and there's little-to-no talk about active user outrage (only past issues and a high-level discussion about it). If it were stronger on one or two of those fronts, such as talking about backlash from censorship on Threads or it was a big expose by NYT, I think I'd call it YES.

Still, I like the article a lot, and it does indicate a lot of the issues with Meta that I'm wanting to get at here. It's almost enough, I think, and I definitely am happy to learn about their DOI list and systemic troubles but where is the reporting about non-hypothetical users with real negative impact on their lives because of this?

predicted YES

Would this Reuters article count?

It seems to meet all the criteria

Major English language publication: ✅

Not opinion section (I believe): ✅

Discusses “controversy, frustration or outrage with Threads content moderation policies”: ✅

Frustration over alleged censorship of conservatives: “Conservative personalities, including the son of former U.S. President Donald Trump, complained of censorship after labels appeared warning would-be followers that they had posted false information.”

Controversy over how Threads will deal with misinformation and extremist content: “For starters, the company will not extend its existing fact-checking program to Threads, spokesperson Christine Pai said in an emailed statement on Thursday. This eliminates a distinguishing feature of how Meta has managed misinformation on its other apps.

Pai added that posts on Facebook or Instagram rated as false by fact-checking partners - which include a unit at Reuters - will carry their labels over if posted on Threads too.

Asked by Reuters to explain why it was taking a different approach to misinformation on Threads, Meta declined to answer.

In a New York Times podcast on Thursday, Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, acknowledged that Threads was more "supportive of public discourse" than Meta's other services and therefore more inclined to draw a news-focused crowd, but said the company aimed to focus on lighter subjects like sports, music, fashion and design.

Nevertheless, Meta's ability to distance itself from controversy was challenged immediately.

Within hours of launch, Threads accounts seen by Reuters were posting about the Illuminati and "billionaire satanists," while other users compared each other to Nazis and battled over everything from gender identity to violence in the West Bank.”

Read the full article and see what you think, but there seems to be a convincing case that this should resolve YES.

predicted NO

@JakeTeale It's a good start! Censorship feels like a footnote here, however, and the article doesn't discuss much outrage around it. Rather, the focus is on all of the nascent and theoretical technical challenges that Meta is facing. I'm gonna wait for something that indicates an "uproar" or backlash against them. The bit about the mumblings of a nepo-baby didn't do it for me, but maybe that frustration will grow into a real movement among users 😄

predicted NO

@Stralor but yeah, Reuters is a good source!

More related questions