A Curious Way to Measure Reputation
We know what people say about us. "Hotbed for extremism." "Dangerous." "Fringe."
We'd like to have a more honest conversation about how those judgments are made.
What we actually do:
We don't algorithmically manipulate what you see. Objective criteriaโviews, likes, subscribersโdetermine what's prominent. We don't optimize for engagement regardless of consequence.
We don't sell your data. We let you opt out of advertising entirely. We honor data subject access rights regardless of jurisdiction. We believe privacy is a fundamental human right.
We're transparent about moderation decisions and provide appeals. We joined the UN's Tech Against Terrorism partnership in 2020. We publish transparency reports.
We restrict our platform to adults. We don't target children.
What gets you labeled "legitimate":
Meta earns $3 billion annually from ads it internally classifies as scams, illegal gambling, and banned content. When a specialized anti-fraud team cut problematic ads in half, leadershipโfollowing direction from the topโdisbanded the team entirely. They set a "guardrail" limiting how much revenue they're willing to forgo for anti-scam efforts: 0.15%.
Facebook was the primary platform for 495 verified hate speech events in India in 2024. Of 259 instances of dangerous speech including explicit calls for violence, Facebook hosted 164. As of February 2025, 98.4% remain online despite clear violations of their own community standards.
Facebook removes 7 million pieces of hate speech content per quarterโwhich tells you something about the volume present on a platform considered mainstream and respectable.
The company that does this meets with presidents. Sits at the table for conversations about AI safety. Is treated as a pillar of the technology establishment.
The double standard:
We host some content that was removed from other platforms. Some of it is objectionable. We don't deny this.
But here's what's curious: the metric for "dangerous" seems to be concentrationโwhat percentage of a small platform's content is problematic. Not scaleโhow many millions of people are actually exposed to harmful content. Not business modelโwhether a platform structurally profits from harming users. Not intentโwhether leadership knowingly protects harmful revenue streams.
By concentration, a small platform hosting 10,000 problematic videos is "a hotbed for extremism."
By scale, a platform hosting millions of pieces of hate speechโwith 98% of documented dangerous speech remaining onlineโis "struggling with content moderation challenges."
By business model, a platform that doesn't manipulate users or sell their data is suspect. A platform that knowingly extracts billions from scams targeting ordinary people is mainstream.
By intent, a platform working with Tech Against Terrorism is fringe. A platform that shut down its own anti-fraud team to protect scam revenue is respectable.
What we're asking for:
Not a pass. Not an exemption from criticism. We know we host content many find objectionable, and we accept that criticism comes with our commitment to free expression.
What we're asking for is consistency.
If the concern is harm to users, then a platform knowingly profiting from fraud at massive scale should face more scrutiny than a platform that doesn't algorithmically manipulate anyone.
If the concern is extremist content, then absolute numbers matterโnot just percentages. A platform where millions encounter hate speech is a larger vector for radicalization than a platform with 11 million monthly users total.
If the concern is protecting vulnerable people, then a platform that targets everyone including children with engagement-maximized content should raise more alarms than one restricted to adults with no algorithmic manipulation.
We're not asking to be celebrated. We're asking why the platforms that respect user privacy, don't sell data, don't algorithmically manipulate, and don't profit from fraud are labeled dangerousโwhile platforms that do all of those things are labeled legitimate.
That's a curious way to determine reputation.
We think it deserves a more honest conversation.
x.com/AISafetyMemes/status/2โฆ
Holy shit is Meta evil lmao
***10%*** of Meta's revenue is from ACTUAL SCAMS that they KNOW ARE SCAMS
When Zuck found out, he shut down... the ANTI-scam team
Imagine trusting this man - or any of these cartoon villains - with Actual Fucking Superintelligence