3 ms·

If FB outright banned your post and it did not contain graphic content, then that was wrong and an abuse on their part. But this modification isn't taking conte

If FB outright banned your post and it did not contain graphic content, then that was wrong and an abuse on their part. But this modification isn't taking content down, they are adding a flag to posts identifying the source as suspect and, more importantly, why it is considered suspect. This is a much more transparent solution because we can see what FB is flagging, why it is being flagged, and openly discuss whether the flag is fair or not.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Right, now they may possibly allow me to post the Snowden documents or let's say a report from SANA about a successful campaign to save people from terrorist captors. But it could be marked by a stamp basically telling people: "Don't look at this. Don't take it seriously." People will be trained not to click on the reason for why, and they won't have the context to - as it was the case when the Snowden Documents were first coming out - differentiate "This post was marked fake news because the government engages in 'bulk collection' NOT 'mass surveillance'" from an legitimate reason to pariah the post and poster. The type of influence this gives Facebook as a provider is one of scale, not one of instance. If large numbers of people are discouraged from engaging with certain ideas while each individual case has to be litigated individually and during a time later when the news and narrative making is already completed and people have moved on, it's a serious problem. I would criticize China if they intended to put branding marks on reporting, analysis and posts that they don't consider trustworthy or factual. It is this same criticality that I aim at Facebook and the United States. There are other, better solutions. I looked at the list of 'fact-checkers'. They don't pass the sniff test. Finally, there's no way Facebook is going to mark its advertising, partnered content and purchased 'likes' as fake. It's just not in the calculation. I will agree with you however that the abuse of taking down posts or ranking them so that nobody sees them (another issue I've encountered) is 'worse' in its immediate affect. Though I think it's more explicit. I can talk to other people who have had their posts censored and it isn't deniable. This solution, on the other hand, is extremely deniable. I don't like having to pick between two poisons. I've had quite enough of that.

jwtadvice 10y ago

Right, now they may possibly allow me to post the Snowden documents or let's say a report from SANA about a successful campaign to save people from terrorist captors. But it could be marked by a stamp basically telling people: "Don't look at this. Don't take it seriously." People will be trained not to click on the reason for why, and they won't have the context to - as it was the case when the Snowden Documents were first coming out - differentiate "This post was marked fake news because the government engages in 'bulk collection' NOT 'mass surveillance'" from an legitimate reason to pariah the post and poster. The type of influence this gives Facebook as a provider is one of scale, not one of instance. If large numbers of people are discouraged from engaging with certain ideas while each individual case has to be litigated individually and during a time later when the news and narrative making is already completed and people have moved on, it's a serious problem. I would criticize China if they intended to put branding marks on reporting, analysis and posts that they don't consider trustworthy or factual. It is this same criticality that I aim at Facebook and the United States. There are other, better solutions. I looked at the list of 'fact-checkers'. They don't pass the sniff test. Finally, there's no way Facebook is going to mark its advertising, partnered content and purchased 'likes' as fake. It's just not in the calculation. I will agree with you however that the abuse of taking down posts or ranking them so that nobody sees them (another issue I've encountered) is 'worse' in its immediate affect. Though I think it's more explicit. I can talk to other people who have had their posts censored and it isn't deniable. This solution, on the other hand, is extremely deniable. I don't like having to pick between two poisons. I've had quite enough of that.