Magox Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: Personally, I think disinformation should be combated and this is a good method because it doesn't even censor the statement. Opinion is one thing, calculated lying is another. Try focusing on the mechanism. It could become a wiki sort of thing or something else. We'll see, but this idea is overdue. Wait till deepfake videos become the norm. Social media need this. The internet has been fine, is fine and will be fine. It's the biggest thing in the world and there's not much anyone can do but see where it goes and try to help shape it. Kind of like a free market. I wonder what the next wave of unregulated social media giants will be called? I'm all for the free market. The problem Gene is that most people get their information online, whether it's Google, Youtube, Twitter, FB etc. And when content is being controlled via Fact checks, censorship, algorithmic searches and display functionalities by these mediums then there has to be some oversight. Did you read Twitter's explanation? It was fact checked by CNN and WAPO. And did you see who provided the explanation? It was some left wing nut job. The fact checkers are just as egregious because not only do they often time use sources that support a verdict that has an inherent bias to justify their decisions it's the things they decide to fact check. Right wing views are fact checked much more often than left wing ones. They need to have an independent body that is made up of some sort of non partisan makeup, people from left and right where people can actually trust who censors and fact checks the content. To allow a company which clearly has employees that have a particular worldview to determine outcomes that are very impacting without hardly any oversight is crazy. They either just become a platform provider and allow the "free market" of speech to go on, or if they insist on getting into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of truth, then there has to be checks and balances so that the integrity of this decision making process can be trusted by it's users. 2 2
Doc Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said: How do you rationalize supporting the same candidate as Russia? Not an attack at all, just a question. I never believed they wanted Trump and have realized why. They only wanted to sow discord, which they did, thanks to the unwitting Dems. 2 1
Magox Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 10 minutes ago, LeGOATski said: As an impartial non-user of social media, fact-checking highly influential users seems like the correct slope to me. I wonder if there is a way to make an exception for that code, which could have more oversight from outside stake-holders. Yep, I made a suggestion but if I'm understanding you correctly I think we are in spirit thinking of something similar. They went down this path, they can either pull back from it or allow an independent body that can be trusted by the public to oversee this decision making process. 1 minute ago, Doc said: I never believed they wanted Trump and have realized why. They only wanted to sow discord, which they did, thanks to the unwitting Dems. This 100% They spent less than $30,000 on "electing" Trump. This was all a practice in sowing social discord. The DNC establishment and media played right into it. That is exactly what happened. 2 1
Doc Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 14 minutes ago, Magox said: This 100% They spent less than $30,000 on "electing" Trump. This was all a practice in sowing social discord. The DNC establishment and media played right into it. That is exactly what happened. The notion that a couple million (what I heard), much less $30,000, was enough to overcome the $1.2 BILLION (or more) that Hilly spent is another laughable notion. And points out that it was Hilly and Hilly alone that lost the election. 1 1
B-Man Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Critics of Twitter’s move were skeptical that they’d apply the same standards to everyone. After all, Twitter’s powers that be don’t seem to have a problem with Democratic politicians making unsubstantiated claims. Or Chinese government officials. 3 1
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 16 minutes ago, Doc said: I never believed they wanted Trump and have realized why. They only wanted to sow discord, which they did, thanks to the unwitting Dems. I guess. Maybe. You really think they didn't have a preference?
Doc Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said: I guess. Maybe. You really think they didn't have a preference? No, I think they wanted Hilly.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said: I guess. Maybe. You really think they didn't have a preference? They had a preference -- for chaos 1, and Clinton 2. Think it through. Why would they prefer Trump (we know for a fact now there was no collusion/blackmail reasons to want him) who was a complete wildcard and unknown over Clinton, a person they already worked well with for many years? Then there's the record while in office. Everything Trump's done since being elected has been against Russia's geopolitical goals both long term and short. He cratered their economy by making the US energy independent, he literally ordered the destruction of 200+ Russian mercenaries in Syria, and he's re-armed NATO and the US military. 1
Warren Zevon Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: (we know for a fact now there was no collusion/blackmail reasons to want him Not until the full Mueller report is released
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 8 minutes ago, Doc said: No, I think they wanted Hilly. Of course you do.
B-Man Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 (edited) Or switch to another service. I see it simply. The big social media companies have become the de facto public square, which is where political speech and debate happens. Thus, I have no problem with simply enacting legislation expanding the First Amendment and relevant caselaw to the new public square Edited May 27, 2020 by B-Man 1
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 40 minutes ago, Magox said: I'm all for the free market. The problem Gene is that most people get their information online, whether it's Google, Youtube, Twitter, FB etc. And when content is being controlled via Fact checks, censorship, algorithmic searches and display functionalities by these mediums then there has to be some oversight. Did you read Twitter's explanation? It was fact checked by CNN and WAPO. And did you see who provided the explanation? It was some left wing nut job. The fact checkers are just as egregious because not only do they often time use sources that support a verdict that has an inherent bias to justify their decisions it's the things they decide to fact check. Right wing views are fact checked much more often than left wing ones. They need to have an independent body that is made up of some sort of non partisan makeup, people from left and right where people can actually trust who censors and fact checks the content. To allow a company which clearly has employees that have a particular worldview to determine outcomes that are very impacting without hardly any oversight is crazy. They either just become a platform provider and allow the "free market" of speech to go on, or if they insist on getting into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of truth, then there has to be checks and balances so that the integrity of this decision making process can be trusted by it's users. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't know if you're going to have an independent body, per se, but maybe. I hope it's not heavily regulated by government. It will definitely be peoples' jobs. The "truer" the internet is, the better for all. Lies pollute it. I applaud the technology and am hopeful about where it might go, but I'm a sucker for technical solutions. It is a free market and in the end, it will reflect the will of the people of the world, which I personally think is cool. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 This thread rips apart twitter "fact checks." Added bonus is the CNN talking-head interrupting the AL SoS because she doesn't like what he's saying. 1 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Wow, even little Marco pointed out the obvious: 4 1
GG Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: Wow, even little Marco pointed out the obvious: The little dilemma that Gene has been ignoring in this thread. 3
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, GG said: The little dilemma that Gene has been ignoring in this thread. I think it's fine if you want to hold them accountable for the fact checks. I wouldn't want to see those be lies as well.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 You could even have a ratings system on the fact checks like reddit uses. I don't know. The thing is, this schitt keeps changing faster than laws can be written to control it. You get that part, right?
Buffalo_Gal Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: You could even have a ratings system on the fact checks like reddit uses. I don't know. The thing is, this schitt keeps changing faster than laws can be written to control it. You get that part, right? Yes, and no. There are already laws on the books that deal with this. Enforcing those laws is another matter.
GG Posted May 27, 2020 Posted May 27, 2020 25 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said: I think it's fine if you want to hold them accountable for the fact checks. I wouldn't want to see those be lies as well. Who's checking the lies? They can't have it both ways, either they are information platforms or content providers. They're being cute by straddling the existing regulations governing online services & media. They've just invited themselves to more regulation to address that pesky middle ground. 1
Recommended Posts