(September 26, 2018 at 8:04 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: It is in the public domain.

Tweets? They are not public domain. Twitter owns all of the tweets. You sign over ownership then you agree to their Terms of Service when you make an account.

Making internet a place with less bullshit. Such a terrible crime

(September 25, 2018 at 2:44 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: For people who make the "private company can do what they want argument"

I wonder if you feel the same way about the NFL kneeling protests. Why or why not?

If the NFL cracks down on kneeling, they're a private company and can do what they want. It might make them assholes, and it's probably a poor business decision, but they would be within their rights. But they can't make their players be present on the field and stand for the anthem, that's not within their rights.

To amend the above, the NFL may apply fines and employment termination, but they cannot compel standing or kneeling.

The NBA already wrestled with this issue - they found that players rather dislike being forced to feign patriotism, especially if they are patriotic to begin with. Unfortunately, given the cross political appeal of the NFL, they've chosen to straddle the impossible divide. Kneeling is about protesting racial inequality while paying respect to the flag. The facts of the matter are indisputable. The only "debate" is whether people who have recast/lied about the issue being something else should be appealed to, no matter how wrong they are. But that's for another discussion.

To recap, they (the NFL) cannot "force" anyone to stand. The worst they can do is terminate association and apply fines/clawbacks.

(August 6, 2018 at 6:51 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Some will applaud the removal of Alex Jones from social media sites.  Others will regard it as a dangerous incursion against free speech.  Where do you stand?

Alex Jones is an irresponsible blowhard twat, but he does have a right to free speech.
Personally, I like to have slimeballs like Jones out in the open, where I can keep an eye on them,
and not skulking around the back channels cooking up nasty surprises.

That said, most "social media" I'm aware of isn't public property.  It's privately owned, and private
property owners have a right to set rules about what guests can and cannot do on the owners' property.
You play by the rules, or you play elsewhere.

And it's not like Jones has exactly been muzzled.  He has a daily radio show that reaches at least 3 million
regular listeners; an internet TV program; podcasts; at least two regular websites; an online merchandising
operation; and a bunch of survivalist and other fringe sponsors.


As regards free speech, I am more concerned about the repressive attitudes I see blossoming on a lot of
college campuses, than with whether Jones is allowed on Twitter.

Although social media sites are not endorsing what anyone posts per se, they are allowing and enabling it. So it seems right to me that they have a responsibility to block people who are using it in ways known to incite violence or hatred.

The thing is, if you say it's okay for one person, then it's okay for everyone. You give permission for a virtual lynch mob to assemble itself using your platform.

Made and Distributed in the U.S.A.: Online Disinformation

Quote:Domestic disinformation is harder to root out than foreign disinformation, researchers said, because in many cases it mirrors genuine networks of Americans engaging in free speech online. Social media services can act to remove domestic disinformation only when the American groups that are making and distributing it start to use techniques that violate the companies’ terms of service, such as creating false accounts.

“Facebook’s tactics are extremely ineffective in stopping these networks of hundreds of Facebook pages and accounts from spreading disinformation,” said Natalie Martinez, a fellow at Media Matters, a nonprofit in Washington that monitors disinformation from conservative American sites. “Ultimately, if you are a U.S. national and you decide to share something, the social networks have no reason to stop you.”

Right Wing News was founded by Mr. Hawkins, a conservative pundit, in 2009, according to the website. After this article was published, Mr. Hawkins said he founded the site in 2001. Facebook said Right Wing News started its Facebook page in July 2012.

That page typically published dozens of posts each day, some featuring outlandish claims, with most of the stories linking to the stand-alone website for Right Wing News or to the publication’s YouTube channels. One recent headline read, “Over A Dozen C.I.A. Agents May Have Died After Hillary Was Caught Red-Handed.”

Facebook said the Right Wing News page on the social network was redirecting traffic to the Right Wing News website to drive up its ad revenue, and that administrators for the page appeared to change regularly. Facebook said some of the administrators ran multiple Facebook accounts under the same names, which the social network does not allow.

Over the past few months, Right Wing News’ Facebook page has increased its activity, researchers said. During the time that then-Judge Kavanaugh testified in Congress, Right Wing News — and several Facebook pages that mirror it by posting the same content — pushed out numerous articles that questioned the veracity of a lie-detector test that Dr. Blasey had taken and why she had come forward with her accusations.

Right Wing News also used Facebook ads to spread its content through other Facebook pages. In June, the Daily Vine, an American-run Facebook page linked to Right Wing News, published a Facebook ad for a false story that claimed that 412 Muslim men in Michigan had been arrested in the “largest bust in U.S. history.” (The Department of Justice investigation on which the story was based revealed a network of 412 people involved in opioid-related crimes, but they were neither exclusively Muslim nor based in Michigan.)

Facebook said the ad was paid for by Right Wing News and was allowed according to its rules, which let American citizens and residents place political ads. Though Facebook has since taken down the Daily Vine page, and the ad is no longer running, it was viewed as many as 50,000 times between June 19 and June 20, according to Facebook’s metrics. The Daily Vine could not be reached for comment.

Ms. Martinez said Facebook’s actions against Right Wing News and other domestic disinformation networks would stem some of the flow of false content — but only for a little while.

“There is little to stop them from spawning off as a new page, or account, and just starting to build their network again,” she said. “They can just keep trying to get around Facebook’s rules.”

---

---

Soldiers in Facebook’s War on Fake News Are Feeling Overrun

Quote:For fact checkers themselves, the work takes a toll. Members of Rappler’s staff have received death and rape threats. Rappler brought in a psychologist. It debated bulletproofing the windows and installed a second security guard.

The job also requires patience. One busy day this summer, the newsroom’s fact-checking team asked Mr. Esmaquel, who covers religion, to look into the story about Mr. Duterte’s debating the bishop. Even though the story had been shared nearly 4,000 times and had reached more than a million followers, he knew right away that it was a hoax. But he still had to call up the Archdiocese of Manila for comment.

---

Instead, the internet in the Philippines became an outlet for threats and deceit.

That is particularly true on Facebook, through which about 97 percent of internet users in the Philippines get access to the web. Before the Philippine election in May 2016, fake accounts appeared on Facebook spreading positive stories about Mr. Duterte, who was running for president as a blunt-spoken, antidrug populist. They also excoriated Mr. Duterte’s opponents, often with personal and inflammatory attacks. Much of the content was untrue.

After he won the election, Mr. Duterte waged an antidrug campaign that has led to thousands of deaths, provoking an international outcry. Many of his critics and political opponents, including Rappler, have run into legal problems. Facebook campaigns have underpinned much of this activity. At times, officials in Mr. Duterte’s administration have openly shared misinformation on the platform.

---

There is no question in Ms. Ressa’s mind about who is responsible for false news in the Philippines. “Facebook broke democracy,” she said. “Now they have to fix it.”

If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

(September 28, 2018 at 1:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Although social media sites are not endorsing what anyone posts per se, they are allowing and enabling it. So it seems right to me that they have a responsibility to block people who are using it in ways known to incite violence or hatred.

The thing is, if you say it's okay for one person, then it's okay for everyone. You give permission for a virtual lynch mob to assemble itself using your platform.

How does one police the feelings of others?

(October 12, 2018 at 2:31 pm)CarveTheFive Wrote: If it were my world popular social media sites wouldn’t censor any content whatsoever even if the end results were harmful to mankind.

As far as I know there's no law against you starting your own social media site and having it completely open like that, if you want to.