John Oliver’s Content Moderation Episode Isn’t Just Funny — It’s Absolutely Accurate
from the stay-in-your-lane,-john dept
Here was a fun surprise last night. John Oliver just delivered what might be the most accessible and accurate mainstream takedown of content moderation myths we’ve seen yet. The latest episode of “Last Week Tonight” tackled content moderation head-on, while systematically dismantling Mark Zuckerberg’s increasingly dubious justifications for Meta’s policy changes. In this era where most mainstream coverage of content moderation is a total mess, Oliver somehow manages to both be hilarious and (surprisingly) get basically everything right about this impossibly thorny issue.
It’s worth watching, if only to see someone explain in 30 minutes what we’ve been trying to hammer home for years. (And no, I’m not just saying that because he mentions Masnick’s Impossibility Theorem — though that certainly doesn’t hurt.)
The segment hits on several key points:
First, there’s what you might call the fundamentals of content moderation (or “why the internet isn’t just porn and diet pills 101”):
- Section 230 made it possible to moderate content online. Without it, websites would basically have two choices: let everything in (hello, spam!) or shut everything down. Neither is great for business, or users, or… well, anyone really.
- Content moderation is an intractable issue. This isn’t just my opinion — it’s mathematics. Every platform that allows user content either moderates or dies trying. There’s no third option. (Unless you count “becoming a wasteland of porn and diet pill ads” as an option, which, fair enough, some do.)
- The dirty secret is that social media companies have actually put a fair bit of effort into this problem. They’ve drawn lines, redrawn them, hired thousands of moderators, built AI systems, and… people still hate where those lines end up. Because of course they do. That’s the “impossible” part of my theorem.
Then, he debunks the false claims of political manipulation:
- Oliver points out how MAGA Republicans insisting that content moderation is some sort of vast left-wing conspiracy targeting conservatives turns out to be complete nonsense.
- He also does an excellent job debunking the misleading narrative around “Hunter Biden laptop” story. As we’ve written, that story has been blown totally out of proportion. The narrative says it was suppressed. It wasn’t. The narrative says the details were damning. It wasn’t that either. What it was, mainly, was a masterclass in how to turn routine content moderation decisions into political theater. And Oliver shows that clearly.
- Then there’s Zuck’s latest performance piece about how the Biden administration supposedly forced him to censor content. Oliver absolutely nails why this claim is ridiculous. (Pro tip: When the government “pressures” you to do something and you just… tell them no and nothing happens in response, that’s not exactly censorship.)
- And then the kicker: Oliver highlights (as we have multiple times) that even the very conservative Supreme Court has said these claims are nonsense. Though I suppose when reality conflicts with your preferred narrative, you can always just pretend the Supreme Court doesn’t exist… or that Amy Coney Barrett is too woke.
And here’s where Oliver really sticks the landing, showing where all of this is heading:
- Remember all those “simple fixes” politicians keep proposing for Section 230? Oliver explains how every single one would basically hand the government (and specifically, the Musk/Trump administration) a shiny new tool to silence speech they dislike. Because nothing says “free speech” quite like giving the government more power to control online speech, right?
- Finally, Oliver exposes the Zuckerberg two-step: Zuck loves to brag about how he stood up to the Biden administration’s requests, but conveniently leaves out the part where he completely rolled over for Trump’s actual threats. (You know it’s bad when Trump himself is bragging about how effectively he bullied Zuck, which Oliver points out, shows that it doesn’t take a genius to realize what really happened.)
In the end, what Oliver has given us is basically a greatest hits album of Techdirt’s content moderation coverage from the last few years, except with better production values and more jokes about Mark Zuckerberg’s new look. And the finale? A pitch-perfect “advertisement” for Facebook’s new content moderation philosophy that can be summed up in two words: Fuck It.

Filed Under: bias, content moderation, donald trump, impossibility theorem, john oliver, mark zuckerberg, section 230
Companies: meta


Comments on “John Oliver’s Content Moderation Episode Isn’t Just Funny — It’s Absolutely Accurate”
He also talked about how to make yourself less valuable to meta, if you are unable or unwilling to quit facebook and instagram entirely, by limiting the amount of data they can collect about you
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
Video is region-blocked in Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand and the UK.
Re: HBO is US only
Yes, but if you use a US accent (also known as VPN), you may be able to view it – and other stuff from HBO.
Re: Re:
Or one can find it… elsewhere… like by searching for Last.Week.Tonight.with.John.Oliver.S12E02.720p.HEVC.x265-MeGusta.mkv
Re: Re:
Not from a library, dickhead.
Re: Region blocked video
https://www.myehud.com/JO.mp4
E
Re: Re:
Do you have a link to a subtitled version? The current one’s useless to deaf, hard of hearing, and many autistic people.
I don’t know what I found more surprising: Seeing Techdirt featured in a Last Week Tonight story, or reading the phrase (even if it was meant sarcastically) “Amy Coney Barrett is too woke”. I never expected to see either, but here we are!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Lot of half-truths here.
Re:
Wrong on every single count.
It was debunked. Multiple times, in great detail. By tons of experts.
I know that this is the line fed to idiot MAGA fools, but it’s literally wrong. The reason there was no standing was BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DIDN’T SUPPORT the claim that the actions were due to government pressure. Coney Barrett was quite clear about that. The lack of standing was because the evidence didn’t hold up.
It has just as much moderation as before, it’s just more arbitrary and messier. Try typing “cisgender.”
Also, it’s not “doing just fine.” It’s lost many millions of users and 80% of its revenue and value.
The first half of your sentence is not at all clear. What are you even saying.
The second is just wrong. Multiple detailed studies have born this out. The fact that you might have gotten banned for violating the rules does not mean that “conservatives” were censored. It just meant that you were an asshole and violated rules.
When people come into your house, if they cursed you out, you’d have every right to kick them out. Maybe, next time, follow the rules in other people’s houses, and you won’t get kicked out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
80% of its revenue and value
But they are making a profit
Re: Re: Re:
Not according to [checks notes] Elon Musk.
https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/24/24351317/elon-musk-x-twitter-bank-debt-stagnant-growth
Re: Re: Re:
Hey bro, has doubling down on the bullshit ever actually worked outside whatever shithole you usually hang out at?
Re:
Literally all of that is spectacular and unyielding bullshit. None of it is true.
Re:
Bro you should probably stay at your shit blog. You’re just gonna get hurt over here.
He also talked about how to make yourself less valuable to meta, if you are unable or unwilling to quit facebook and instagram entirely, by limiting the amount of data they can collect about you
https://johnoliverwantsyourraterotica.com/
Re:
Or do like many of us did when Zuck changed the fact-checking policy & gave money to the Trump inauguration and just delete your Meta accounts. Now I’m extremely depressed because I don’t know what 50 advertisers want me to see before I read what my old high school classmates are up to on the other side of the country or which car my aunt decided to buy after much deliberation regarding the seat adjustment features.
Re: Re:
…and make sure they stay deleted. There have always been online rumors of accounts “accidentally” getting un-deleted.
Also note that deletion and deactivation are different things, and Facebook used to (maybe still does) try to push people toward deactivation. The situation was bad enough that many people created online guides on how to actually delete an account; use the guides.
Re: Re:
I knew people that knew Zuck back when Facebook was first being created… and as a result, I never created an account, because I knew how the information would be (ab)used.
My problem now is: I know Meta’s got a dossier on me, based on data shared by Facebook users. And I have no way to get them to remove that data since I don’t have an account to delete.
Should I create an account, link all that data to it, and then delete the account? It feels like that would just give them another data point to milk.
Re: Re: Re:
I have my doubts that this would work. Is your personal information subject to any useful privacy law? If you’re in California or Europe you may be able to use that to see what they have on you, and get them to delete it. (But keep in mind that Max Schrems had to fight them for like a decade to get them to follow European laws.)
Re:
I did that in the early days of my account, then when they went full Nazi, I protected myself fully by just deleting my account. For me, keeping up with the few people in my circle is just as easy in meatspace as it is online, so I had no problem telling Meta where to go by closing my Facebook and Instagram accounts the moment it informed bigots they had the right to discriminate against people like me in full violation of the laws of my country.
Cambridge Analytica 2.0?
When Zuckerberg didn’t go to prison for his role in the Cambridge Analytica 2016 election interference, we probably shouldn’t be surprised when the same billionaire triples down on political interference disinformation ops.
Re:
Cambridge Analytica 2.0 is known nowadays as “Parler.”
' 'Pretty please' is a threat, 'Do this or I'll throw you in jail' is just bro talk.'
So strange how Zuckerberg spent a bunch of time in his Rogan interview talking about how mean the Biden administration was to him and framing it as those diabolical democrats trying to control his company via ‘It would be nice if you would so this but it’s entirely your choice whether or not you do’ messages yet there was nary a mention about the overt threat of prison time from convicted felon Trump if Facebook didn’t change it’s moderation practices to be more conservative/terrible person-friendly.
I guess he must have forgotten such a minor little detail.
Re:
The best place for Zuck to redeem the masculinity he’s so concerned about is in a prison.
Re: Re:
Don’t drop that soap Zuck
Mostly right
If you work for a big corporation and call out the rich and powerful on their misbehaviour, you need to be legally defensibly right, or your boss will be on the hook for millions in damages.
Re:
Being legally defensibly right doesn’t work, as can be seen by the loss handed to the Clarksdale City Register for not defaming the City of Clarksdale.
Re:
Unless you actively slander people, that’s not true at all.
Re: Re:
To be fair, the plaintiff in a Steve Dallas defamation lawsuit would try to sue the company that employs the alleged defamer. But I doubt such a move would ever get past an initial motion to dismiss for a variety of reasons that don’t need exploring at this juncture.
Re:
No one will be able to call out the rich and powerful if they manage to kill section 230 and ID-lock what survives.
Re: Re:
Removing section 230 and forcing identification are two different scenarios. Even if section 230 is removed, that doesn’t automatically mean that it’ll be impossible to call out the greedy and the powerful.
I feel like at least a few of his writers read TD.
I’m still waiting for platforms to silence conservative voices… I keep hearing the stupid shit they are claiming.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
And then there is the matter of content moderation insofar as Covid-19 origins in order to aid and abet over 1 million American wrongful deaths (homicides).
Re:
— Eve Sedgwick, “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading, or, You’re so Paranoid You Probably Think This Introduction Is about You” (1997)
Even if the origins of COVID-19 were a certainty, that information would change nothing about the subpar response to the pandemic from both the Trump administration (vaccines notwithstanding) and MAGA ideologists (who were unprepared to make even the tiniest personal sacrifice for the sake of public health). Other than people whose careers are about studying and preventing pandemics, nobody should care about the origins of COVID-19. They should care about whether a new pandemic will be met by Trump, the GOP, and its MAGA voting base with the same level of callous disregard for human life.
Re: Re:
In all likelihood, the origins of COVID-19 are zoonotic. It’s not 100% certain, but not a 50/50 coin flip that it was either the wet market or a lab leak.
https://www.vox.com/22961822/covid-19-origin-coronavirus-wuhan-china-market-lab-leak
Scientists were able to narrow down the likely evolutions of two COVID variants to a Wuhan market that kept live animals in unsanitary conditions that allowed for the viruses to brood and evolve. The first human infections were also in the vicinity of the Wuhan market, a densely populated inner city area. The lab, meanwhile, was in what we in North America recognize as a suburban office park and less densely packed compared to the market area. They are far apart, and if it were a lab leak the contagion would have been among lab workers and their social circles. The distance between the lab and the market is about 8 miles, per Vox, and the virus would have spread in transit rather than centered around the market and dispersed outwards.
Re: Re:
Which title is far more accurate than the similar lyric of the Carly Simon song.
Re: Re:
Not a MAGAt, but I will respond to this by saying protecting myself from a potentially fatal disease by adding to herd immunity is not a sacrifice at all, but engaging in a mutually beneficial action.
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, and unaliving your grandma for the sake of the herd is ethical.
Re:
Was it the reverse vampires or the mole people this time?
For all the fun of monitoring
Iv pointed to Fake Adverts, and even tracked them down from FB. then reported them. And 90% of the time they deny my suggestion after, Supposedly, evaluating them.
Even Suggested and reported FAKE accounts. Which isnt to hard, If the account DOES not have a true name on it, Only posts Comments to OTHER certain FB sites, and has NO posts on their Own page.
Had 1 of those that was created 1 day before, and only sent posts to 1 other page, about 4.
They really dont want to Kick Anything even if it IS fake.
Definitely one of his best episodes in years.