Zuckerberg cleans war. Why a new social network Threads from Meta will upset Ukrainians

The new social network of Threads from Mark Zerberg is unlikely to please Ukrainians, suggests economic expert Yuri Gaidai. After all, it will minimize the theme of war, politics and sharp discussions. A little about threads. Meta has minimized politics and bad news for years. Because it has a bad effect on sales. Advertisers love a positive audience engine. More family content, more influentors, stars, coaches, blunt wits, funny cottages, touching stories.

Therefore, the positive in the tape is needed, and the most user data is to collect for quality advertising targeting. Zuckerberg is not for Ukraine and not for Russia, he is for Ebitda Meta. And blood, pain and hatred simply reduce advertising sales. Twitter has more politics, more rigid discussions, but more toxicity. And since Musk began to destroy the tweet with its chaotic approach, in particular - to destroy the content of the content of content, large advertisers began to go from there.

Who do not want their goods to be associated with a terrible stress between feminists and transgenders under the news of a teenager's suicide. That is why Meta is a billion cache generation machine, and Twitter barely goes to zero. At the same time, the US and Europe antitrust authorities will obviously never allow Tsuke to buy new businesses. Meta is already so big and scary.

Therefore, it was a question of the time when the sugars, against the background of the Ferk on Twitter and the massive dismissal of talents from there, drank his tweet, only without slander, blackjeees and politics, but with a positive one to pick up advertisers and users who are dissatisfied with the toxicity of the tweet. Meta openly declares that Threads will have an emphasis on entertainment, sports, stars, and positive.

That is why I am hz that Ukrainians are so rushing to make accounts there. Sugar will be your posts about the war and your pesimization is even worse than the tweet - the posts about Kakhovka. And not a comfort, but at the level of declared policy. And, to me, it's bad. You can talk a lot about toxicity in social, but it is a consequence of stimulating involvement algorithms and saving on moderation. And it can be corrected, it would be a desire.

Instead, if socialists are squeezed out of the public space for social space and rigid discussions about social issues, then these topics will disappear from discourse in general. Consumers of socialists will become apolitical, without their own positions and beliefs that are formed and sharpened in particular in the sake . . . that is, discussions. This, after all, can lead to degradation of democracy no worse than the polarization of the audience. Another extreme.