I don't understand though: What makes you think that you are getting the causality right? It seems to me like you're asserting the causality goes one direction, when there doesn't seem to be any evidence (at least in public) for that assertion at the moment. Have I just missed some other information on this that you're basing this on?

I think he is suggesting that this move has favorable PR optics for the incoming administration. Making it appear like a conservative victory may give them some slack or earn them some favors.

Is it not a conservative culture-war victory designed to earn favors? There is no external evidence of this having been anything other than a contingency around November 6 of last year, so it's hard to definitively say it's one or the other.

It's not really, tbh. Like the vast vast vast majority of content reviewers are outside California and have been for well over a decade.

The change here is to move the people designing the policies to Texas (basically a stealth layoff, tbh).

That being said, the moderation has been insanely bad for a while now, so all the model tuning seems like a worthwhile change to me.

The Texas thing sounds like PR but isn't really given their huge offices in Austin.

> The Texas thing sounds like PR but isn't really given their huge offices in Austin

That distinctly smells like pork barrel politicking: we're moving jobs from Commiefornia to your great state, and if your criminal [1] state AG sues us again over this function, he'll be putting Texans out a job.

1. Allegedly. Meta wouldn't dare call him thar, but he agreed to 100 hours of community service and paying restitution to those he allegedly defrauded to avoid a trial.

Yeah, and it's not really a big deal for them but looks good for Texas politicians. Well chosen pork, I guess.

its called pre-conceding