5 ms·

> Everyone now knows that foreign governments, most notably Russia, have been using social media aggressively to promote their interests. And if anyone is goin

by imgabe 8y ago

> Everyone now knows that foreign governments, most notably Russia, have been using social media aggressively to promote their interests. And if anyone is going to be using social media to manipulate public opinion in the US, it should be the US government, goddamnit!

whatislovecraft 8y ago
> And if anyone is going to be using social media to manipulate public opinion in the US, it should be the US government, goddamnit! Well yeah? I mean, our laws matter here and they don't in Russia. So Russia can go write down direct lies about people and publish them and spread them. No consequence. In the USA you go to.... Jail! (Edit: Not jail, 'just' fines?) Right? It's at least illegal (libel/slander/defamation/etc) and there is very strong disincentive to lie about public figures as a US entity. It's different. It's not everything, but it's a major start and there are major reasons to prevent foreign influence on domestic elections. But regardless, nobody should be telling anything close to a falsehood, trying to dissuade anyone from voting, or providing incentives to not vote, etc. That's bad for democracy regardless of who is doing it.
- imgabe 8y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure libel / slander is not a criminal offense anywhere in the US. You could get sued, if you lie about someone and they can actually prove that it caused them some monetary damage, but no, you don't go to jail.
  - whatislovecraft 8y ago
    Okay. It's still illegal and my point stands. There are disincentives for it here and that matters.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Your point does not stand. It's not illegal (a violation of civil or criminal law) in most jurisdictions. It's a slam dunk lawsuit though. There's basically just strict liability for any harm that comes of it (yes, I know I'm over-generalizing). Being liable for damages caused by making damaging false statements is basically the court forcing you to accept personal responsibility and making you make it right. Actions that constitute libel rarely violate a civil or criminal law (in the US). A lot of things are slam dunk lawsuits that aren't illegal (e.g. breach of contract).
mc32 8y ago
And preferably the incumbents!! I think we know that with all kinds of foreign media ownership with diverse interests makes Russia a moot subject, except Russia does it by subversive methods rather than overt accepted methods.
justinmchase 8y ago
I don't think a compelling case has been made that Russia is doing this "aggressively". At least compared to the US, China or perhaps some other countries.
ForHackernews 8y ago
Maybe, yeah. I'm not a cultural relativist: Democracies are better than dictatorships; freedom of expression is better than repression; pluralism is better than chauvinism. Every major technology platform in the West exists as result of small-l liberal enlightenment values. Maybe I wouldn't name the current United States as my ideal champion for those values, but I don't have any problem with the general suggestion that Western tech companies should be promoting liberal values around the world.
- imgabe 8y ago
  If the government can control the primary means of communication and only allows "state-sanctioned" messages, the we will no longer be a democracy in any meaningful sense Yes, maybe that is alarmist, after all they are only concerned about foreign influence, but this isn't the first time in US history where you could just accuse someone of being a Russian agent to shut them up if you don't like what they say.
- zaarn 8y ago
  If a single corporation can control the primary means of communication and only allows "corporate-sanctioned" messages, then we will no longer be a democracy in any meaningful sense. Yes, maybe that is alarmist, after all they are only concerned about corporate influence, but this isn't the first time in Facebook history where you could just accuse someone of being a bot to shut them up if you don't like what they say.

by imgabe 8y ago

whatislovecraft 8y ago

> And if anyone is going to be using social media to manipulate public opinion in the US, it should be the US government, goddamnit! Well yeah? I mean, our laws matter here and they don't in Russia. So Russia can go write down direct lies about people and publish them and spread them. No consequence. In the USA you go to.... Jail! (Edit: Not jail, 'just' fines?) Right? It's at least illegal (libel/slander/defamation/etc) and there is very strong disincentive to lie about public figures as a US entity. It's different. It's not everything, but it's a major start and there are major reasons to prevent foreign influence on domestic elections. But regardless, nobody should be telling anything close to a falsehood, trying to dissuade anyone from voting, or providing incentives to not vote, etc. That's bad for democracy regardless of who is doing it.

imgabe 8y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure libel / slander is not a criminal offense anywhere in the US. You could get sued, if you lie about someone and they can actually prove that it caused them some monetary damage, but no, you don't go to jail.
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  Okay. It's still illegal and my point stands. There are disincentives for it here and that matters.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Your point does not stand. It's not illegal (a violation of civil or criminal law) in most jurisdictions. It's a slam dunk lawsuit though. There's basically just strict liability for any harm that comes of it (yes, I know I'm over-generalizing). Being liable for damages caused by making damaging false statements is basically the court forcing you to accept personal responsibility and making you make it right. Actions that constitute libel rarely violate a civil or criminal law (in the US). A lot of things are slam dunk lawsuits that aren't illegal (e.g. breach of contract).

mc32 8y ago

And preferably the incumbents!! I think we know that with all kinds of foreign media ownership with diverse interests makes Russia a moot subject, except Russia does it by subversive methods rather than overt accepted methods.

justinmchase 8y ago

I don't think a compelling case has been made that Russia is doing this "aggressively". At least compared to the US, China or perhaps some other countries.

ForHackernews 8y ago

Maybe, yeah. I'm not a cultural relativist: Democracies are better than dictatorships; freedom of expression is better than repression; pluralism is better than chauvinism. Every major technology platform in the West exists as result of small-l liberal enlightenment values. Maybe I wouldn't name the current United States as my ideal champion for those values, but I don't have any problem with the general suggestion that Western tech companies should be promoting liberal values around the world.

imgabe 8y ago
If the government can control the primary means of communication and only allows "state-sanctioned" messages, the we will no longer be a democracy in any meaningful sense Yes, maybe that is alarmist, after all they are only concerned about foreign influence, but this isn't the first time in US history where you could just accuse someone of being a Russian agent to shut them up if you don't like what they say.
zaarn 8y ago
If a single corporation can control the primary means of communication and only allows "corporate-sanctioned" messages, then we will no longer be a democracy in any meaningful sense. Yes, maybe that is alarmist, after all they are only concerned about corporate influence, but this isn't the first time in Facebook history where you could just accuse someone of being a bot to shut them up if you don't like what they say.