|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 06 2018 07:35 TheDwf wrote:
The State cannot decree what is true and what is false...
They can, however, hold people accountable for knowing release false information to the public for mass distribution after due process before a court. Or allow their citizens to defend themselves through civil claims against people who knowing release false stories.
You cannot democratize all media production, given people tools to disseminate that media to every house hold and phone and keep the rules the same. You can't have unlimited anonymity and freedom to reach everyone in your country. The goverment and citizens need recourse and systems in place tamp down on false claims. Otherwise you are at the mercy of massive companies who don't give a shit about you and the people who use their services to attack you.
Because this is the cyber punk nightmare future we are traveling towards. Its a lot like blade runner, but not fake people and every company is run by a pack of morons:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-porn
And it doesn't take much to see how fucked we will be in the next 10 years if our governments don't get in there and make companies give a shit.
|
On June 06 2018 07:25 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 07:11 zlefin wrote:
Please don't meme post like that.
as to the substance of the matter; it's a tricky issue with no good answers. While it's unfortunate and problematic to put restrictions/censorship on things, it's also the case that intentional disinformation campaigns can cause real damage, and something does need to be done about those. and it's not like we can rely on the myth that the "marketplace of ideas" will cause the truth to come out on top. I prefer the marketplace of ideas over blatant censorship that can be easily abused.
You don't have to choose either though; you can choose something in between. There's a vast amount of gradations available.
|
Has anyone seen (parts of) the ORF (Austrian National TV) interview with Putin? I still haven't caught it yet, but due to the international resonance (russian outrage and liberal respect) and the interviewer being Armin Wolf, which is probably the most dedicated and meticulously prepared German-speaking journalist of our times, I would be interested in other people's opinions. About both, the topics as well as the journalist's style, given that he is the main reason the Austrian far-right and lately the conservatives too are trying to get the ORF back under political control. (They say it is under red/green control right now and needs to be cleansed, while the journalists say the situation has never been so free of political influence for them as under the current red-affiliated, but originally carried by an anti-conservative all party coalition, director)
|
On June 06 2018 07:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 07:35 TheDwf wrote:
The State cannot decree what is true and what is false... They can, however, hold people accountable for knowing release false information to the public for mass distribution after due process before a court. Or allow their citizens to defend themselves through civil claims against people who knowing release false stories. You cannot democratize all media production, given people tools to disseminate that media to every house hold and phone and keep the rules the same. You can't have unlimited anonymity and freedom to reach everyone in your country. The goverment and citizens need recourse and systems in place tamp down on false claims. Otherwise you are at the mercy of massive companies who don't give a shit about you and the people who use their services to attack you. Because this is the cyber punk nightmare future we are traveling towards. Its a lot like blade runner, but not fake people and every company is run by a pack of morons: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-pornAnd it doesn't take much to see how fucked we will be in the next 10 years if our governments don't get in there and make companies give a shit.
First we have to stop a few wealthy families to own all the medias (the same families who support the politics to be elected and then make very liberal rules in their favor) then we can think about rules to allow the state to control medias a bit more. Not the other way around.
|
On June 07 2018 05:31 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 07:48 Plansix wrote:On June 06 2018 07:35 TheDwf wrote:
The State cannot decree what is true and what is false... They can, however, hold people accountable for knowing release false information to the public for mass distribution after due process before a court. Or allow their citizens to defend themselves through civil claims against people who knowing release false stories. You cannot democratize all media production, given people tools to disseminate that media to every house hold and phone and keep the rules the same. You can't have unlimited anonymity and freedom to reach everyone in your country. The goverment and citizens need recourse and systems in place tamp down on false claims. Otherwise you are at the mercy of massive companies who don't give a shit about you and the people who use their services to attack you. Because this is the cyber punk nightmare future we are traveling towards. Its a lot like blade runner, but not fake people and every company is run by a pack of morons: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-pornAnd it doesn't take much to see how fucked we will be in the next 10 years if our governments don't get in there and make companies give a shit. First we have to stop a few wealthy families to own all the medias (the same families who support the politics to be elected and then make very liberal rules in their favor) then we can think about rules to allow the state to control medias a bit more. Not the other way around.
You would need the state to break up the media companies. Which would, in turn, require the state to become involved with the media and break it up. The only way that happens is if the government gets involved.
|
The state is already involved in the media in most (if not all) of European countries.
|
On June 06 2018 07:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 07:35 TheDwf wrote:
The State cannot decree what is true and what is false... They can, however, hold people accountable for knowing release false information to the public for mass distribution after due process before a court. Or allow their citizens to defend themselves through civil claims against people who knowing release false stories. You cannot democratize all media production, given people tools to disseminate that media to every house hold and phone and keep the rules the same. You can't have unlimited anonymity and freedom to reach everyone in your country. The goverment and citizens need recourse and systems in place tamp down on false claims. Otherwise you are at the mercy of massive companies who don't give a shit about you and the people who use their services to attack you. Because this is the cyber punk nightmare future we are traveling towards. Its a lot like blade runner, but not fake people and every company is run by a pack of morons: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-pornAnd it doesn't take much to see how fucked we will be in the next 10 years if our governments don't get in there and make companies give a shit.
La publication, la diffusion ou la reproduction, par quelque moyen que ce soit, de nouvelles fausses, de pièces fabriquées, falsifiées ou mensongèrement attribuées à des tiers lorsque, faite de mauvaise foi, elle aura troublé la paix publique, ou aura été susceptible de la troubler, sera punie d'une amende de 45 000 euros.
Rough translation: The publication, diffusion or reproduction, by any means whatsoever, of false news, manufactured [documents], forged or deceitfully [notion of lie in French] attributed to others will be punished by a 45 000€ fine when, done in bad faith, it troubled public peace or was susceptible to do it.
— Article 27 of the 29 July 1881 law on press freedom
The French law already provides an answer for 137 years (and same for slander of course). Notice the "by any means whatsoever," which means it covers Internet. So the question is, why exactly does Macron want a new law?
|
Because enforcement of the law would take place after the voting happened. A law that require services to limit the spread of false information in the run up to an election. Any amount of due process can be required to obtain that order, so it isn’t like safe guards are not possible. The alternative is France might be relying the winning party to discredit their own electoral victory by punishing the people who propagated the false information. We know a little about that over in the US, it kinda sucks.
Edit: To be clear, I don't think it is a perfect solution and any law that is created to prevent the spread of false information has potentials for abuse. But people need to have faith in elections and that the information they are acting on is accurate.
|
From the independent:
Mr Macron said the legislation would concern social media platforms, especially during election periods, and deeply change the role of France's media watchdog CSA.
Websites would have to say who is financing them and the amount of money for sponsored content would be capped, the French president said.
So I assume it's also about being able to respond much faster during events like elections and also being able to figure out who is behind targeted fake news campaigns.
Another article also mentioned that some accelerated process is introduced where people can bring cases in front of a single judge. So it feels like Macron is trying to make the system be able to react much faster. Which I think is a good idea because many of the campaigns we've seen over the last few elections didn't even come from inside the respective jurisdictions.
|
Yeah, under 48 hours a judge is supposed to decide what's "fake news" or not and then act, with the quasi certitude of a massive Streisand effect. This way everyone will be aware of something which only circulated in some irrelevant militant bubble and convinced only convinced people. Great idea.
The main union of journalists was very critical of this text, saying the definition is imprecise and the perimeter may be harmful for legit journalists. Reporters without Borders warns against "ineffective or counterproductive solutions". All oppositions are also against.
What was the impact of those rumors on the presidential campaign? Zero. This law is the kind of horrible stuff politicians propose to react to a given event, in this case because of the trauma of Trump's election.
|
If your legal system is anything like the US system, the judge will require overwhelming evidence to make that determination on short notice and with limited due process. So the alarmism about the pending and not final law seems preemptive and hysterical.
The recent elections are just a preview of the future of elections in the digital age. It won’t just get better on its own.
|
On June 07 2018 07:04 TheDwf wrote:
Yeah, under 48 hours a judge is supposed to decide what's "fake news" or not and then act, with the quasi certitude of a massive Streisand effect. This way everyone will be aware of something which only circulated in some irrelevant militant bubble and convinced only convinced people. Great idea.
The main union of journalists was very critical of this text, saying the definition is imprecise and the perimeter may be harmful for legit journalists. Reporters without Borders warns against "ineffective or counterproductive solutions". All oppositions are also against.
What was the impact of those rumors on the presidential campaign? Zero. This law is the kind of horrible stuff politicians propose to react to a given event, in this case because of the trauma of Trump's election.
it could be an ill thought reaction; but there is a legitimate problem which needs addressing. Do you (by which I mean politicians/leaders you support) have a proposal to effectively address the issue?
and do you have a cite for those rumors not affecting this, or any other significant campaign?
|
Honestly, does anybody here think France is going to suddenly start banning reputable journalists?
The point is to get Breitbart level stuff like "Alert, Macron's wife caught in bed with George Soros!!" off the news two days before the election happens. Did the level of trolling that was happening during the last few elections seem so sophisticated that we needed long debates about whether something was fake or not?
|
On June 07 2018 08:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Honestly, does anybody here think France is going to suddenly start banning reputable journalists?
The point is to get Breitbart level stuff like "Alert, Macron's wife caught in bed with George Soros!!" off the news two days before the election happens. Did the level of trolling that was happening during the last few elections seem so sophisticated that we needed long debates about whether something was fake or not? Yes, but you need to carefully think how to avoid potential abuse in the future.
Can you imagine how much someone like Trump would abuse a badly written law like this to punish news networks he doesn't like?
You need to plan these things around the worst. Because someday the worst is going to be reality.
|
That's true if you vest more powers in the centralised executive, like the French or American president, but it's not really true if you vest powers in the legal system, independent organisations (in Germany this social media stuff involves ngos like 'Correctiv') and so on. It's not like this sets precedent for the French president to press on a button to nuke a newspaper, it's still at the discretion of the legal system.
And to plan for the fact that the entire French state turns despotic doesn't seem reasonable. Of course, giving any single individual party or leader the ability to interfere with the press is not a good idea.
|
On June 07 2018 08:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Honestly, does anybody here think France is going to suddenly start banning reputable journalists?
No, but given the increasingly authoritarian trends of many governments; given the recent vote of a law in France to protect business secrecy; given the fact that independent journalists and photographs who try to document cop violence in demonstrations are being targeted and sometimes arrested because they bother the power; and given that this campaign about "fake news" is linked to events like Trump's election or the Brexit which were considered "wrong votes" from the people, with "fake news" as the scapegoat (the idea being that if people have the correct information, they will vote "right," as the rulers want them to vote); there are many reasons to be legitimately worried about this kind of law which, as usual, masks itself behind "good intentions".
The point is to get Breitbart level stuff like "Alert, Macron's wife caught in bed with George Soros!!" off the news two days before the election happens.
Stuff like this is completely irrelevant... Who the hell will it influence outside already convinced people? Or does it also include the "THE LEFT IS GOING TO TURN THE COUNTRY INTO VENEZUELA" campaigns from right-wing columnists?
You will simply give more publicity to those trash far-right and conspirationnist sites whose influence is marginal compared with a mass mainstream media. Especially if you shut down their site, you know by advance their rhetoric: "see! WE ARE BEING CENSORED, this means we were right!1!1!1" + massive Streisand effect.
According to Gallup News, 8% of the American followed Trump's Twitter, and 4% read what he rants there. Is is thus because of medias that 76% of Americans know the content of his tweets.
In many cases the best answer is simply to ignore.
We don't have the US media ecosystem. And the mainstream medias are actually the first creators of fake stories like "Sevran's coffee shop forbidden to women because of Muslims!1!1!1!" (a forged story from our horrible "public service" which Le Pen quoted several times to push her racist agenda during the campaign).
|
There are people who read Breitbart, then there are people on Youtube. Generally the Breitbart story makes the rounds on rightwing or "skeptic" (lol) Youtube where pretend centrists like Sargon spend a good video discussing how terrible the left is because it let the thing that didn't happen happen. Some of these people have over 1M subscribers, and I'm sure a ton of them are teens cause this is Youtube. They are the "already convinced people" of tomorrow, in the making.
The rest of what you said is true but you're underestimating the reach of outrage news.
|
On June 07 2018 19:59 Nebuchad wrote:
There are people who read Breitbart, then there are people on Youtube. Generally the Breitbart story makes the rounds on rightwing or "skeptic" (lol) Youtube where pretend centrists like Sargon spend a good video discussing how terrible the left is because it let the thing that didn't happen happen. Some of these people have over 1M subscribers, and I'm sure a ton of them are teens cause this is Youtube. They are the "already convinced people" of tomorrow, in the making.
The rest of what you said is true but you're underestimating the reach of outrage news.
10-15 years ago through the music scene in my city I met some folks in their teens/early 20s who were part of a fascist-like group whose name I sadly can't recall. Their leader was in his 40s and everyone else a gullible kid, most people knowing about them described them as 'brainwashed'. I stumbled upon one of them some years later and he seemed to have grown out of it, though I'm sure not all of them did.
Where I'm going with this is that just because we didn't have numbers such a youtube subscribers in front of us before, doesn't mean the proportion of teens with fringe right wing views have changed much. Voting stats from around Europe show us that the youngest voters still are overwhelmingly left wing.
|
Fake news is a complex problem, and I'm glad France is trying to combat it.
Yes, there's a very real chance this could go wrong. But the beginnings of the effort are important. You can't stand back and say 'it must be perfect or we do nothing' while the entire concept of truth in media is being eroded in the here and now. Macron's law sounds like it won't work. But hopefully it'll have an effect, and can then be fine tuned into something that does what it's meant to, without the potential pitfalls everyone has already pointed out.
|
On June 07 2018 19:32 TheDwf wrote:
Stuff like this is completely irrelevant... Who the hell will it influence outside already convinced people? Or does it also include the "THE LEFT IS GOING TO TURN THE COUNTRY INTO VENEZUELA" campaigns from right-wing columnists?
You will simply give more publicity to those trash far-right and conspirationnist sites whose influence is marginal compared with a mass mainstream media. Especially if you shut down their site, you know by advance their rhetoric: "see! WE ARE BEING CENSORED, this means we were right!1!1!1" + massive Streisand effect.
At least in the American elections it was estimated that the Facebook stuff reached milllions if not tens of millions of people, and in the end you often only need to swtich a few hundred thousand votes in any given country's election to potentially achieve a major upset. It's definitely not irrelevant. And the Streisand effect is a little bit of a meme.
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
There was research done on a reddit hate speech ban and it effectively reduced hate speech, and even more importantly they tracked the worst offenders, and instead of just leaving they actually changed their behaviour and used hate speech less.
That's in my opinion a pretty good indication that this can and does work. I mean if it didn't the US would have the most civilised news sector on the planet and we'd be drowning in fake news over here, the laws already seem to be pretty effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
