|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Trump should do more about global warming. Thats the biggest problem our earth faces today. Global Warming ---> Global Colding
|
Mark Zuckerberg says Holocaust deniers are making an honest mistake
Facebook will continue to offer a platform to Holocaust deniers, Infowars, and other publishers of hoaxes on the assumption that they are sincere in their beliefs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Speaking to Recode’s Kara Swisher on her podcast, Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that Holocaust deniers are “deeply offensive.” “But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong,” Zuckerberg continued. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”
Swisher said that, in fact, Holocaust deniers likely were intentionally misleading people. Zuckerberg said that Facebook could not understand the intent of those publishers and would not try:
It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”
What we will do is we’ll say, “Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.” But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed.
This is not a new position. Facebook has been defending the rights of Holocaust deniers since at least 2009 when it faced criticism for hosting a variety of anti-Semitic pages. At the time, a spokesman said, “We want [Facebook] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
Zuckerberg’s comments on the podcast came a day after a hearing in which his global head of policy management was called before Congress to explain its content moderation policies. While the hearing was originally intended to investigate the false idea that tech platforms systematically suppress conservative viewpoints, it ended with a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressuring Facebook to ban more accounts, including Infowars.
Last week, CNN’s Oliver Darcy questioned how Facebook could be sincere in its stated efforts to reduce the spread of false news stories while it also offered sites like Infowars a place to develop a large following and routinely distribute hoaxes.
Zuckerberg said one of Facebook’s core principles is “giving people a voice,” and it preferred to limit the distribution of hoaxes rather than ban them outright.
There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice, so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important. We’re not gonna let people plan violence or attack each other or do bad things. Within this, those principles have real trade-offs and real tug on each other. In this case, we feel like our responsibility is to prevent hoaxes from going viral and being widely distributed.
The approach that we’ve taken to false news is not to say, you can’t say something wrong on the internet. I think that that would be too extreme. Everyone gets things wrong, and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that. But at the same time, I think that we have a responsibility to, when you look at… if you look at the top hundred things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook within any given day, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that those aren’t hoaxes and blatant misinformation.
Infowars, which has nearly 1 million followers on Facebook, routinely denies the reality of mass shootings and promotes the idea that the FBI and other institutions are plotting to overthrow President Donald Trump. In 2016, Mother Jones found seven cases in which Infowars fans had committed acts of violence.
Source
Right after saying Alex Jones didn't deal in enough misinformation to be removed from facebook, Zuckerberg comes out with this garbage. Facebook has become this nightmare company that is just trying to juice every dollar they can get before the regulation hammer or market comes crashing down. The biggest mistake the Obama administration made was giving these companies such a huge opening to create systems so big and so complex even they don't understand them.
|
On July 19 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +Mark Zuckerberg says Holocaust deniers are making an honest mistake
Facebook will continue to offer a platform to Holocaust deniers, Infowars, and other publishers of hoaxes on the assumption that they are sincere in their beliefs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Speaking to Recode’s Kara Swisher on her podcast, Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that Holocaust deniers are “deeply offensive.” “But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong,” Zuckerberg continued. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”
Swisher said that, in fact, Holocaust deniers likely were intentionally misleading people. Zuckerberg said that Facebook could not understand the intent of those publishers and would not try:
It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”
What we will do is we’ll say, “Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.” But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed.
This is not a new position. Facebook has been defending the rights of Holocaust deniers since at least 2009 when it faced criticism for hosting a variety of anti-Semitic pages. At the time, a spokesman said, “We want [Facebook] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
Zuckerberg’s comments on the podcast came a day after a hearing in which his global head of policy management was called before Congress to explain its content moderation policies. While the hearing was originally intended to investigate the false idea that tech platforms systematically suppress conservative viewpoints, it ended with a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressuring Facebook to ban more accounts, including Infowars.
Last week, CNN’s Oliver Darcy questioned how Facebook could be sincere in its stated efforts to reduce the spread of false news stories while it also offered sites like Infowars a place to develop a large following and routinely distribute hoaxes.
Zuckerberg said one of Facebook’s core principles is “giving people a voice,” and it preferred to limit the distribution of hoaxes rather than ban them outright.
There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice, so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important. We’re not gonna let people plan violence or attack each other or do bad things. Within this, those principles have real trade-offs and real tug on each other. In this case, we feel like our responsibility is to prevent hoaxes from going viral and being widely distributed.
The approach that we’ve taken to false news is not to say, you can’t say something wrong on the internet. I think that that would be too extreme. Everyone gets things wrong, and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that. But at the same time, I think that we have a responsibility to, when you look at… if you look at the top hundred things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook within any given day, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that those aren’t hoaxes and blatant misinformation.
Infowars, which has nearly 1 million followers on Facebook, routinely denies the reality of mass shootings and promotes the idea that the FBI and other institutions are plotting to overthrow President Donald Trump. In 2016, Mother Jones found seven cases in which Infowars fans had committed acts of violence. SourceRight after saying Alex Jones didn't deal in enough misinformation to be removed from facebook, Zuckerberg comes out with this garbage. Facebook has become this nightmare company that is just trying to juice every dollar they can get before the regulation hammer or market comes crashing down. The biggest mistake the Obama administration made was giving these companies such a huge opening to create systems so big and so complex even they don't understand them.
IIRC many members of the EU + Israel have laws against Holocaust denial. Wonder if they'll put the screws on Facebook.
|
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic.
|
On July 19 2018 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:Mark Zuckerberg says Holocaust deniers are making an honest mistake
Facebook will continue to offer a platform to Holocaust deniers, Infowars, and other publishers of hoaxes on the assumption that they are sincere in their beliefs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Speaking to Recode’s Kara Swisher on her podcast, Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that Holocaust deniers are “deeply offensive.” “But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong,” Zuckerberg continued. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”
Swisher said that, in fact, Holocaust deniers likely were intentionally misleading people. Zuckerberg said that Facebook could not understand the intent of those publishers and would not try:
It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”
What we will do is we’ll say, “Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.” But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed.
This is not a new position. Facebook has been defending the rights of Holocaust deniers since at least 2009 when it faced criticism for hosting a variety of anti-Semitic pages. At the time, a spokesman said, “We want [Facebook] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
Zuckerberg’s comments on the podcast came a day after a hearing in which his global head of policy management was called before Congress to explain its content moderation policies. While the hearing was originally intended to investigate the false idea that tech platforms systematically suppress conservative viewpoints, it ended with a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressuring Facebook to ban more accounts, including Infowars.
Last week, CNN’s Oliver Darcy questioned how Facebook could be sincere in its stated efforts to reduce the spread of false news stories while it also offered sites like Infowars a place to develop a large following and routinely distribute hoaxes.
Zuckerberg said one of Facebook’s core principles is “giving people a voice,” and it preferred to limit the distribution of hoaxes rather than ban them outright.
There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice, so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important. We’re not gonna let people plan violence or attack each other or do bad things. Within this, those principles have real trade-offs and real tug on each other. In this case, we feel like our responsibility is to prevent hoaxes from going viral and being widely distributed.
The approach that we’ve taken to false news is not to say, you can’t say something wrong on the internet. I think that that would be too extreme. Everyone gets things wrong, and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that. But at the same time, I think that we have a responsibility to, when you look at… if you look at the top hundred things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook within any given day, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that those aren’t hoaxes and blatant misinformation.
Infowars, which has nearly 1 million followers on Facebook, routinely denies the reality of mass shootings and promotes the idea that the FBI and other institutions are plotting to overthrow President Donald Trump. In 2016, Mother Jones found seven cases in which Infowars fans had committed acts of violence. SourceRight after saying Alex Jones didn't deal in enough misinformation to be removed from facebook, Zuckerberg comes out with this garbage. Facebook has become this nightmare company that is just trying to juice every dollar they can get before the regulation hammer or market comes crashing down. The biggest mistake the Obama administration made was giving these companies such a huge opening to create systems so big and so complex even they don't understand them. IIRC many members of the EU + Israel have laws against Holocaust denial. Wonder if they'll put the screws on Facebook.
I can only hope. They just slapped google with 5 billion in fines for, you know, doing the exact same thing Microsoft got in trouble for in the 1990s.
Viral WhatsApp Messages Are Triggering Mob Killings In India
Iram Sabah, mother of two, is terrified by messages her family has been receiving on their smartphones.
Her husband recently was forwarded a video that shows a child's mutilated body. It's unclear where or when the video is from, or whether it has been doctored. A voice implores people to forward it to others, and to stay vigilant — that kidnappers are on the loose.
Sabah, 27, doesn't know if the video is fake or real. But she's not taking any chances.
"When my children go outside to play, I'm really scared," she says in an interview at her home in western India. "These rumors have been spreading. I don't let them walk to school alone anymore."
Such videos and messages — many of them fake or photoshopped — have gone viral across India, spread mostly on WhatsApp, a messaging tool owned by Facebook. India is its largest market, with more than 200 million users.
The messages have driven parents like Sabah to keep their children indoors. Teachers report reduced attendance at schools. The texts have even driven some Indians to murder.
In recent months, about two dozen people across India have been lynched — beaten to death — by mobs driven to violence by what they've read on social media.
Fake news is blamed for misleading voters and possibly influencing elections in the West. But in India, it's killing people.
One night this month, around 11 p.m., Sabah heard a commotion outside her home. She lives in a midsize town, Malegaon, in northern Maharashtra state — an area famous for its textile looms, about 170 miles northeast and inland from India's largest city, Mumbai.
She was inside, having put her children, ages 4 and 6, to bed. Her husband was outside tinkering with his motorcycle.
"I saw a mob beating five people. The crowd was getting bigger and bigger. They filled up the road in front of my house," says Sabah's husband, Shaikh Wasim Shaikh Karim, 32. "They even attacked police vehicles."
The five victims at the center of the mob were a couple, their toddler and two relatives. They'd wandered into town to beg, police and witnesses said. Locals feared they were the kidnappers all these WhatsApp messages had warned of — and attacked them.
Shaikh Karim pulled the victims to safety inside his home, as the mob shattered his windows with stones. Police finally intervened and extracted them. But they're still in hiding, shaken.
Not everyone has been as lucky. In the neighboring district of Dhule, five other people were beaten to death under similar circumstances on July 1, the same day Shaikh Karim rescued people from the mob in front of his house in Malegaon....
The problem goes beyond just Facebook, it is all social media and messenger tools being used to distribute news with no oversight. They are easily abused by people who want to create hoaxes, like the radio broadcasts used to be in less developed countries. But teh nature of these services, the level of security and low barrier to entry make them easy to abuse and hard for law enforcement to stop. And the companies that own these services have no idea this is going on until it has become a global news story.
And these problems have been going on for years. Just a couple years ago Facebook was being used to direct mobs in other countries and it took Facebook forever to respond. Now its Facebook's WhatsApp. There is ZERO thought process put into how their service could be abused or the harm it could case. Or they know its a problem and just don't want to juice the market for as long as they can.
On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic.
Ban all news, problem solves. Let people who give a shit about an informed public do the job. Google too. Twitter can create some sort of high level registration service for news agencies that are legit and give them a special verification system just for NEWS.
Get the rookies out of the professional news industry. By law if we have to.
|
On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic.
Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well.
|
NPR has a bit yesterday about how a bunch of Twitter accounts posing as local news orgs were used by Russians. They created them years ago, tweeted actual news then circa the election they 'activated' them and started putting out anti-Democrat propaganda.
|
On July 19 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 19 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:Mark Zuckerberg says Holocaust deniers are making an honest mistake
Facebook will continue to offer a platform to Holocaust deniers, Infowars, and other publishers of hoaxes on the assumption that they are sincere in their beliefs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Speaking to Recode’s Kara Swisher on her podcast, Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that Holocaust deniers are “deeply offensive.” “But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong,” Zuckerberg continued. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”
Swisher said that, in fact, Holocaust deniers likely were intentionally misleading people. Zuckerberg said that Facebook could not understand the intent of those publishers and would not try:
It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”
What we will do is we’ll say, “Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.” But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed.
This is not a new position. Facebook has been defending the rights of Holocaust deniers since at least 2009 when it faced criticism for hosting a variety of anti-Semitic pages. At the time, a spokesman said, “We want [Facebook] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
Zuckerberg’s comments on the podcast came a day after a hearing in which his global head of policy management was called before Congress to explain its content moderation policies. While the hearing was originally intended to investigate the false idea that tech platforms systematically suppress conservative viewpoints, it ended with a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressuring Facebook to ban more accounts, including Infowars.
Last week, CNN’s Oliver Darcy questioned how Facebook could be sincere in its stated efforts to reduce the spread of false news stories while it also offered sites like Infowars a place to develop a large following and routinely distribute hoaxes.
Zuckerberg said one of Facebook’s core principles is “giving people a voice,” and it preferred to limit the distribution of hoaxes rather than ban them outright.
There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice, so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important. We’re not gonna let people plan violence or attack each other or do bad things. Within this, those principles have real trade-offs and real tug on each other. In this case, we feel like our responsibility is to prevent hoaxes from going viral and being widely distributed.
The approach that we’ve taken to false news is not to say, you can’t say something wrong on the internet. I think that that would be too extreme. Everyone gets things wrong, and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that. But at the same time, I think that we have a responsibility to, when you look at… if you look at the top hundred things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook within any given day, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that those aren’t hoaxes and blatant misinformation.
Infowars, which has nearly 1 million followers on Facebook, routinely denies the reality of mass shootings and promotes the idea that the FBI and other institutions are plotting to overthrow President Donald Trump. In 2016, Mother Jones found seven cases in which Infowars fans had committed acts of violence. SourceRight after saying Alex Jones didn't deal in enough misinformation to be removed from facebook, Zuckerberg comes out with this garbage. Facebook has become this nightmare company that is just trying to juice every dollar they can get before the regulation hammer or market comes crashing down. The biggest mistake the Obama administration made was giving these companies such a huge opening to create systems so big and so complex even they don't understand them. IIRC many members of the EU + Israel have laws against Holocaust denial. Wonder if they'll put the screws on Facebook. I can only hope. They just slapped google with 5 billion in fines for, you know, doing the exact same thing Microsoft got in trouble for in the 1990s. Viral WhatsApp Messages Are Triggering Mob Killings In IndiaShow nested quote +Iram Sabah, mother of two, is terrified by messages her family has been receiving on their smartphones.
Her husband recently was forwarded a video that shows a child's mutilated body. It's unclear where or when the video is from, or whether it has been doctored. A voice implores people to forward it to others, and to stay vigilant — that kidnappers are on the loose.
Sabah, 27, doesn't know if the video is fake or real. But she's not taking any chances.
"When my children go outside to play, I'm really scared," she says in an interview at her home in western India. "These rumors have been spreading. I don't let them walk to school alone anymore."
Such videos and messages — many of them fake or photoshopped — have gone viral across India, spread mostly on WhatsApp, a messaging tool owned by Facebook. India is its largest market, with more than 200 million users.
The messages have driven parents like Sabah to keep their children indoors. Teachers report reduced attendance at schools. The texts have even driven some Indians to murder.
In recent months, about two dozen people across India have been lynched — beaten to death — by mobs driven to violence by what they've read on social media.
Fake news is blamed for misleading voters and possibly influencing elections in the West. But in India, it's killing people.
One night this month, around 11 p.m., Sabah heard a commotion outside her home. She lives in a midsize town, Malegaon, in northern Maharashtra state — an area famous for its textile looms, about 170 miles northeast and inland from India's largest city, Mumbai.
She was inside, having put her children, ages 4 and 6, to bed. Her husband was outside tinkering with his motorcycle.
"I saw a mob beating five people. The crowd was getting bigger and bigger. They filled up the road in front of my house," says Sabah's husband, Shaikh Wasim Shaikh Karim, 32. "They even attacked police vehicles."
The five victims at the center of the mob were a couple, their toddler and two relatives. They'd wandered into town to beg, police and witnesses said. Locals feared they were the kidnappers all these WhatsApp messages had warned of — and attacked them.
Shaikh Karim pulled the victims to safety inside his home, as the mob shattered his windows with stones. Police finally intervened and extracted them. But they're still in hiding, shaken.
Not everyone has been as lucky. In the neighboring district of Dhule, five other people were beaten to death under similar circumstances on July 1, the same day Shaikh Karim rescued people from the mob in front of his house in Malegaon.... The problem goes beyond just Facebook, it is all social media and messenger tools being used to distribute news with no oversight. They are easily abused by people who want to create hoaxes, like the radio broadcasts used to be in less developed countries. But teh nature of these services, the level of security and low barrier to entry make them easy to abuse and hard for law enforcement to stop. And the companies that own these services have no idea this is going on until it has become a global news story. And these problems have been going on for years. Just a couple years ago Facebook was being used to direct mobs in other countries and it took Facebook forever to respond. Now its Facebook's WhatsApp. There is ZERO thought process put into how their service could be abused or the harm it could case. Or they know its a problem and just don't want to juice the market for as long as they can. Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Ban all news, problem solves. Let people who give a shit about an informed public do the job. Google too. Twitter can create some sort of high level registration service for news agencies that are legit and give them a special verification system just for NEWS. Get the rookies out of the professional news industry. By law if we have to.
In principle I like the idea of news being licensed or journalists needing a certificate that they can lose. The problem is what is a normal Wikipedia article that aggregates news about real time events? Or somebody posting a scientific article about something new? The borders of what is a news publication and not is pretty hard to define since it is just writing or talking about something in close to real time.
|
On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well.
https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32d
I’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”.
|
On July 19 2018 04:05 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 03:50 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2018 03:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 19 2018 03:33 Plansix wrote:Mark Zuckerberg says Holocaust deniers are making an honest mistake
Facebook will continue to offer a platform to Holocaust deniers, Infowars, and other publishers of hoaxes on the assumption that they are sincere in their beliefs, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Speaking to Recode’s Kara Swisher on her podcast, Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that Holocaust deniers are “deeply offensive.” “But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong,” Zuckerberg continued. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”
Swisher said that, in fact, Holocaust deniers likely were intentionally misleading people. Zuckerberg said that Facebook could not understand the intent of those publishers and would not try:
It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”
What we will do is we’ll say, “Okay, you have your page, and if you’re not trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone, then you can put up that content on your page, even if people might disagree with it or find it offensive.” But that doesn’t mean that we have a responsibility to make it widely distributed in News Feed.
This is not a new position. Facebook has been defending the rights of Holocaust deniers since at least 2009 when it faced criticism for hosting a variety of anti-Semitic pages. At the time, a spokesman said, “We want [Facebook] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
Zuckerberg’s comments on the podcast came a day after a hearing in which his global head of policy management was called before Congress to explain its content moderation policies. While the hearing was originally intended to investigate the false idea that tech platforms systematically suppress conservative viewpoints, it ended with a bipartisan group of lawmakers pressuring Facebook to ban more accounts, including Infowars.
Last week, CNN’s Oliver Darcy questioned how Facebook could be sincere in its stated efforts to reduce the spread of false news stories while it also offered sites like Infowars a place to develop a large following and routinely distribute hoaxes.
Zuckerberg said one of Facebook’s core principles is “giving people a voice,” and it preferred to limit the distribution of hoaxes rather than ban them outright.
There are really two core principles at play here. There’s giving people a voice, so that people can express their opinions. Then, there’s keeping the community safe, which I think is really important. We’re not gonna let people plan violence or attack each other or do bad things. Within this, those principles have real trade-offs and real tug on each other. In this case, we feel like our responsibility is to prevent hoaxes from going viral and being widely distributed.
The approach that we’ve taken to false news is not to say, you can’t say something wrong on the internet. I think that that would be too extreme. Everyone gets things wrong, and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that. But at the same time, I think that we have a responsibility to, when you look at… if you look at the top hundred things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook within any given day, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that those aren’t hoaxes and blatant misinformation.
Infowars, which has nearly 1 million followers on Facebook, routinely denies the reality of mass shootings and promotes the idea that the FBI and other institutions are plotting to overthrow President Donald Trump. In 2016, Mother Jones found seven cases in which Infowars fans had committed acts of violence. SourceRight after saying Alex Jones didn't deal in enough misinformation to be removed from facebook, Zuckerberg comes out with this garbage. Facebook has become this nightmare company that is just trying to juice every dollar they can get before the regulation hammer or market comes crashing down. The biggest mistake the Obama administration made was giving these companies such a huge opening to create systems so big and so complex even they don't understand them. IIRC many members of the EU + Israel have laws against Holocaust denial. Wonder if they'll put the screws on Facebook. I can only hope. They just slapped google with 5 billion in fines for, you know, doing the exact same thing Microsoft got in trouble for in the 1990s. Viral WhatsApp Messages Are Triggering Mob Killings In IndiaIram Sabah, mother of two, is terrified by messages her family has been receiving on their smartphones.
Her husband recently was forwarded a video that shows a child's mutilated body. It's unclear where or when the video is from, or whether it has been doctored. A voice implores people to forward it to others, and to stay vigilant — that kidnappers are on the loose.
Sabah, 27, doesn't know if the video is fake or real. But she's not taking any chances.
"When my children go outside to play, I'm really scared," she says in an interview at her home in western India. "These rumors have been spreading. I don't let them walk to school alone anymore."
Such videos and messages — many of them fake or photoshopped — have gone viral across India, spread mostly on WhatsApp, a messaging tool owned by Facebook. India is its largest market, with more than 200 million users.
The messages have driven parents like Sabah to keep their children indoors. Teachers report reduced attendance at schools. The texts have even driven some Indians to murder.
In recent months, about two dozen people across India have been lynched — beaten to death — by mobs driven to violence by what they've read on social media.
Fake news is blamed for misleading voters and possibly influencing elections in the West. But in India, it's killing people.
One night this month, around 11 p.m., Sabah heard a commotion outside her home. She lives in a midsize town, Malegaon, in northern Maharashtra state — an area famous for its textile looms, about 170 miles northeast and inland from India's largest city, Mumbai.
She was inside, having put her children, ages 4 and 6, to bed. Her husband was outside tinkering with his motorcycle.
"I saw a mob beating five people. The crowd was getting bigger and bigger. They filled up the road in front of my house," says Sabah's husband, Shaikh Wasim Shaikh Karim, 32. "They even attacked police vehicles."
The five victims at the center of the mob were a couple, their toddler and two relatives. They'd wandered into town to beg, police and witnesses said. Locals feared they were the kidnappers all these WhatsApp messages had warned of — and attacked them.
Shaikh Karim pulled the victims to safety inside his home, as the mob shattered his windows with stones. Police finally intervened and extracted them. But they're still in hiding, shaken.
Not everyone has been as lucky. In the neighboring district of Dhule, five other people were beaten to death under similar circumstances on July 1, the same day Shaikh Karim rescued people from the mob in front of his house in Malegaon.... The problem goes beyond just Facebook, it is all social media and messenger tools being used to distribute news with no oversight. They are easily abused by people who want to create hoaxes, like the radio broadcasts used to be in less developed countries. But teh nature of these services, the level of security and low barrier to entry make them easy to abuse and hard for law enforcement to stop. And the companies that own these services have no idea this is going on until it has become a global news story. And these problems have been going on for years. Just a couple years ago Facebook was being used to direct mobs in other countries and it took Facebook forever to respond. Now its Facebook's WhatsApp. There is ZERO thought process put into how their service could be abused or the harm it could case. Or they know its a problem and just don't want to juice the market for as long as they can. On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Ban all news, problem solves. Let people who give a shit about an informed public do the job. Google too. Twitter can create some sort of high level registration service for news agencies that are legit and give them a special verification system just for NEWS. Get the rookies out of the professional news industry. By law if we have to. In principle I like the idea of news being licensed or journalists needing a certificate that they can lose. The problem is what is a normal Wikipedia article that aggregates news about real time events? Or somebody posting a scientific article about something new? The borders of what is a news publication and not is pretty hard to define since it is just writing or talking about something in close to real time.
The principle being that news agencies should be promoted based on their own without some black box algorithm dictating what appears on people’s Facebook feeds. Citizens should seek out news, not have it delivered to them by an unknown software system that is designed based on making the company social media site more profitable, not informing the public. They silo us off from eachother and divide us up into little groups to be sold to advertisers based on our political and cultural leanings. We don’t benefit from that in any way. It ends up pitting Americans against other Americans to drive profits.
We would be so much better if news wasn’t part of social media or search engines like Google. It is just one more layer of people trying to profit off keeping us engaged for as long as possible at the expense of quality information.
I’m not against sites like Wikipedia, but even it has clear flaws base on crowd sourcing and the generally flattening of information it provides. It is a nice tool, but that is all it is, a tool and not replacement for truly studying a subject.
Really, all I want for the internet to stop the parts of it that are making the population dumber and less informed. I want people to read the book “A Brave New World” and realize that is what the internet is becoming.
We can keep @dogrates, Floridaman and the memes that turned the Babadook into an LGBTQ icon. That is some quality internet that we shouldn't lose.
I don’t see censorship, I see dependence on a near monopoly that is eroding quality news. Maybe just get rid of the algorithm and replace it with a public, transparent editorial staff per country. It isn’t like Google doesn’t have the money.
|
On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”.
Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters.
|
On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters.
likewise, skimming of them myself seems to indicate considerable quality problems in them.
every bad news site will have supporters claiming that they're actually of good quality. and of course, most people are incapable of recognizing quality anyways.
|
Trump and Putin discussed extraditing Bill Browder to Russia? And now the White House won’t say we are absolutely not going to give him to the Russians? Are you fucking kidding me?
Are we going to give Preet Bharara to Turkey next? This White House is a joke that can't even defend American citizens.
|
On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters.
Well, as another example, I heard that The Intercept had 20% less views post the changes and that’s definitely a quality site.
Also, I feel like if all of a sudden on one day these sites disappear from google and get way less views, that is eerily similar to direct censorship.
And I used to read counterpunch occasionally. The site looks a bit amateurish, but they have good writing. It is nice that you can skim them and conclude they are leftwing tabloid trash, but they are some of the only writing available if you want, like, an anti-war perspective.
|
Its is censorship because we gave Google the power to censor our news. They can already do it at a whim. People don’t think about how much power we have given to these companies already without recourse if they abuse it.
|
On July 19 2018 04:58 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters. Well, as another example, I heard that The Intercept had 20% less views post the changes and that’s definitely a quality site. Also, I feel like if all of a sudden on one day these sites disappear from google and get way less views, that is eerily similar to direct censorship.
how come these sites are so affected by the google changes? i.e. why are they so dependent on google searches rather than just regular viewers who go to their site directly (and hence wouldn't be affected by any google changes)?
|
On July 19 2018 05:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters. Well, as another example, I heard that The Intercept had 20% less views post the changes and that’s definitely a quality site. Also, I feel like if all of a sudden on one day these sites disappear from google and get way less views, that is eerily similar to direct censorship. how come these sites are so affected by the google changes? i.e. why are they so dependent on google searches rather than just regular viewers who go to their site directly (and hence wouldn't be affected by any google changes)?
All news sites are completely dependent on google, facebook and twitter. NPR reported that only a tiny fraction of their traffic comes from people visiting their home page. That is how people receive their news now.
|
On July 19 2018 05:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 05:04 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2018 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters. Well, as another example, I heard that The Intercept had 20% less views post the changes and that’s definitely a quality site. Also, I feel like if all of a sudden on one day these sites disappear from google and get way less views, that is eerily similar to direct censorship. how come these sites are so affected by the google changes? i.e. why are they so dependent on google searches rather than just regular viewers who go to their site directly (and hence wouldn't be affected by any google changes)? All news sites are completely dependent on google, facebook and twitter. NPR reported that only a tiny fraction of their traffic comes from people visiting their home page. That is how people receive their news now.
huh; that's what I get for being a weirdo who goes to a news site when I want news.
still seems weird that people would use google for news rather than just a news site.
ofc most people aren' really that interested in the news anyways.
|
On July 19 2018 04:58 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters. Well, as another example, I heard that The Intercept had 20% less views post the changes and that’s definitely a quality site. Also, I feel like if all of a sudden on one day these sites disappear from google and get way less views, that is eerily similar to direct censorship. And I used to read counterpunch occasionally. The site looks a bit amateurish, but they have good writing. It is nice that you can skim them and conclude they are leftwing tabloid trash, but they are some of the only writing available if you want, like, an anti-war perspective.
The Intercept has its podcasts, which again I'm not surprised are being caught in fake news filters. Editorials and round-table opinion discussions, whether you agree with them or not, are personal interpretations of selective facts. And if search engines or metrics are pushing fact reporting higher up, opinions are inevitably going to be pushed down.
And CounterPunch looks like an almost entirely editorial site.
On July 19 2018 05:19 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2018 05:12 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2018 05:04 zlefin wrote:On July 19 2018 04:58 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 04:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 19 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 19 2018 03:47 Grumbels wrote:
Many leftwing news publication saw their views drop by like 30% following the change in algorithms after the recent fake news scare. It is worthwhile to notice that if you empower censors, you will historically enable suppression of the left. Some related examples are how anti-pedophilia language is used to prop up the surveillance state, how animal rights activists are targeted by anti-terrorism laws, and how the war on drugs is used to crack down on immigrants.
In this case, Facebook is a corporation and they will bend to power and will do what is profitable. That means you can probably pressure them to ban a particularly vile crank belief such as holocaust denial, but they will never ban a popular pro-Trump news outlet just for spreading lies. By that logic you might as well ban Breitbart and Fox News too. Which would be great, but I don’t think it is realistic. Plenty of leftwing news publications are also fake news, so unless you have some more specific examples I wouldn't say this is a problem. Places like Fox News, Breitbart and Info Wars might be higher in traffic and more mainstream, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want leftwing tabloid trash filtered out as well. https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32dI’m basing myself on that article. It cites “AlterNet, Counterpunch, Consortiumnews.com, Truthout and others”. Never heard of those sites, but a brief skim of AlterNet and Counterpunch and they look exactly like the kind of sites that should be caught in "fake news" filters. Well, as another example, I heard that The Intercept had 20% less views post the changes and that’s definitely a quality site. Also, I feel like if all of a sudden on one day these sites disappear from google and get way less views, that is eerily similar to direct censorship. how come these sites are so affected by the google changes? i.e. why are they so dependent on google searches rather than just regular viewers who go to their site directly (and hence wouldn't be affected by any google changes)? All news sites are completely dependent on google, facebook and twitter. NPR reported that only a tiny fraction of their traffic comes from people visiting their home page. That is how people receive their news now. huh; that's what I get for being a weirdo who goes to a news site when I want news. still seems weird that people would use google for news rather than just a news site.
It's because people aren't checking in on daily news anymore. They're following their whatever feeds and see some random person on the internet talking about X. Then they Google X to find out more.
|
Every time this woman speak or appears on TV it just becomes rage inducing, the media needs to do more of this. I don't care if she does the same thing for the next hour. Make her answer or at least deny something 10 times.
I mean if only on our media was like the German media.
On July 19 2018 04:50 Plansix wrote:
Trump and Putin discussed extraditing Bill Browder to Russia? And now the White House won’t say we are absolutely not going to give him to the Russians? Are you fucking kidding me?
Are we going to give Preet Bharara to Turkey next? This White House is a joke that can't even defend American citizens.
Your mistake was thinking they wanted to in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
