7 ms·

I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I d

I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate them.

daenz 7y ago
>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."
- devoply 7y ago
  I don't see any such law passing first amendment challenge that's why the modern censorship for the right reason supporting centrist is down relegating it to private corporations that are not beholden to the US constitution. Ultimately the fact is that freedom of speech does not actually work if people have actual freedom of speech. It only works under certain circumstances where most of the media toes the line with the political establishment and is relatively controlled.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I disagree profoundly. Free speech only "works" if it isn't free? Would need additional arguments for that...
- sgt101 7y ago
  What would be the problem of making it illegal to alter video or images of politicians?
  - cr1895 7y ago
    It plainly violates the 1st amendment.
    - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
      This and also sometimes a video has to be edited to make it watchable: remove the pauses, cut long sentences a bit...
  - mc32 7y ago
    Throw parody and mashups out the window? Ban SNL, ban the daily show?
  - oconnor663 7y ago
    If a politician gives a 20 minute speech, and I edit together a 1 minute summary of it, is that "altered"? Does it matter whether I chose the clips to make the politician look foolish? Who gets to decide what counts as foolish?
- roenxi 7y ago
  > Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. It isn't unusual to misrepresent a politician's message. It certainly isn't unusual for partisans to refuse to fairly represent their opponent's central point - either through a sense of mischief, because they just don't understand it or a genuine belief that there are more important issues at stake. This video is clearly a low blow, and deceptive, but it isn't at all obvious that it is different from lying about something that Nancy Pelosi said. 'Solving' that in any way will likely cause some spectacular partisan fireworks when a difficult case comes by. Whoever gets control of the body that gets to choose what is fact and what is fiction is going to have disproportionate power.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  That standard would also not be met by traditional outlets. Cutting videos to underline the message of a text is pretty common. This is not a new problem.
Macross8299 7y ago
>let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate them. Most people would also be pretty uncomfortable with the government vicariously deciding what they can say through Facebook. I'm sure it would cut both ways, as well. Not a stretch to see a president using an "anti-fake news" provision to stop damaging news about a scandal spread about him on social media.
slg 7y ago
In the US that would require a constitutional amendment to alter the First Amendment. The chances of that happening are infinitesimally small compared to companies being shamed into doing that "right thing" through public pressure.
- rickycook 7y ago
  i don’t think it would tbh... the US already places limitations on free speech: you’re not allowed to advertise using false information, the “fire in a crowded place” type thing you might SAY that it’s a slippery slope but i’d argue that it’s likely (not that i know for certain) that there would have been just as much angst about these limits that are not only seen as common sense these days, but necessary
- gjm11 7y ago
  Until quite recently the FCC had a "fairness doctrine" requiring broadcasters to treat politics evenhandedly. That seems far harder to reconcile with the First Amendment than a "no faked propaganda videos" rule. The Supreme Court explicitly said it was OK. The US has truth-in-advertising laws, which forbid advertisers to make certain kinds of deceptive claims. I'm not sure whether the Supreme Court has explicitly considered whether they're constitutional, but it's certainly heard plenty of cases related to those laws and never taken the opportunity to say "oh, and by the way, laws against false advertising are unconstitutional". If there's some reason why a law forbidding the use of faked/manipulated videos for political propaganda would be more inconsistent with the First Amendment than those, I'm not seeing it at all.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The FCC rules were conditions of broadcast licences, and fairness in advertising laws relate to the prohibition of committing fraud. Neither of those are particularly relevant to concerns around free speech. Political propaganda on the other hand is entirely protected by the first amendment. The term propaganda covers nearly all forms of political speech.
- mgoetzke 7y ago
Yoric 7y ago
Well, many believe that "big tech" (social networks and search engine, I'd say) have essentially replaced traditional news networks. I don't have a clear opinion on this yet, but if that's the case, it makes sense to regulate "big tech" in the same manner as traditional news.
- amelius 7y ago
  Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).
  - Yoric 7y ago
    What do you mean?
    - fragmede 7y ago
      I can't message my friends on Snapchat from Instagram, but I can call my friends on T-Mobile and ATT from Verizon. Phone companies shenanigans go back a long way, so there are more than a few lawsuits involved, in order to get to our current state for calling.
      - mises 7y ago
        That's a nonsensical comparison. Phones all have one purpose and mechanism: voice calling. Instagram is based around a public photo-blog. Snapchat is ephemeral photo-mesaging. You would be requiring social media sites to replicate each other's functionality. If I want to send a message to a twitter user, can it be longer than 140 characters? What if I am john.doe one one platform but you have the same name on another? Who keeps it? No, telcos were interoperable by fiat because there can only be so many phone lines.
        chillacy 7y ago
        I’ll add that laws like that are usually well intentioned but make no sense 30 years later, where the law still exists and everyone is wasting time implementing something from the past. Like IE6 browser requirements in South Korea.
PixyMisa 7y ago
First Amendment.
mc32 7y ago
Especially with regard to politicians, regulating speech in this area like that video treads right on parody. Do they ban SNL impersonations too, Latenight TV mashups? No more Dana Carvey or Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey. Is that what they want?
- tus87 7y ago
  Sudden break out of common sense on HN. What happened?
- thrusong 7y ago
  The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.
  - golergka 7y ago
    I think that you're right in that statement, but I also think that this is an editorial decision, not a technological one. If Facebook takes it upon itself to make such a decision, then it acts as an editor of it's users content and should be liable as an editor. Not as a communication platform.
    - vuln 7y ago
      Facebook curates and removes content all of the time. They are 100% an editor and should have their safe harbor revoked as they can and do control what is posted on their platform.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Similar could be claimed regarding Kimmel videos on late night but few (maybe some Trump supporters) clamor to shut that down.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    It’s always propaganda when it’s pillorying someone you like, and parody when it’s pillorying someone you don’t. If the video would have been right at home on late night television, it should be right at home on Facebook. Do you think the late night shows aren’t being used to convince people to feel a certain way about Trump? This is the shoe on the other foot, and if doesn’t feel so right, the wrong lesson is to blame the foot.
beaner 7y ago
Also the internet has always been this way and it's never been a problem. It was only once Trump was elected that the media started to promote the idea of censorship.
AlexandrB 7y ago
> I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. They already have that power - they've had it for a while. All that's being debated is how they should use it.
mgoetzke 7y ago
if it was a Disney movie being shared they would be all over it. It would be down in minutes
raxxorrax 7y ago
> If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper I don't think there is any consent for this.
MarkMc 7y ago
You make it sound like the 'current trend' is a new phenomenon, but before the rise of Facebook newspaper and TV companies were self-policing and it was essentially impossible to publish a message to millions of people without going through some sort of editorial filter. The new trend is that someone with a few thousand dollars can tell 10 million people that the Pope has endorsed a particular politician and a million people will believe it. I'd like to think that we are not so easily influenced, but then I find myself clicking on a screenshot I created just 30 seconds earlier and I realise the human brain just isn't designed to be constantly alert to fakery.
TimJRobinson 7y ago
I just want more control over what appears in my feed. If all I saw were posts from my friends I never would have come across this video, but instead my feed is a combination of celebrities, pages, promoted content etc. I could unfollow everything outside of my friend group but then Facebook still shows random posts friends (or sometimes barely even aquaintances) have liked or replied to. I rarely use Facebook anymore anyway, most of my chat happens in private groups or on scuttlebutt because at least there I have some control over what I see.

daenz 7y ago

>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."

devoply 7y ago
I don't see any such law passing first amendment challenge that's why the modern censorship for the right reason supporting centrist is down relegating it to private corporations that are not beholden to the US constitution. Ultimately the fact is that freedom of speech does not actually work if people have actual freedom of speech. It only works under certain circumstances where most of the media toes the line with the political establishment and is relatively controlled.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I disagree profoundly. Free speech only "works" if it isn't free? Would need additional arguments for that...
sgt101 7y ago
What would be the problem of making it illegal to alter video or images of politicians?
- cr1895 7y ago
  It plainly violates the 1st amendment.
  - AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
    This and also sometimes a video has to be edited to make it watchable: remove the pauses, cut long sentences a bit...
- mc32 7y ago
  Throw parody and mashups out the window? Ban SNL, ban the daily show?
- oconnor663 7y ago
  If a politician gives a 20 minute speech, and I edit together a 1 minute summary of it, is that "altered"? Does it matter whether I chose the clips to make the politician look foolish? Who gets to decide what counts as foolish?
roenxi 7y ago
> Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. It isn't unusual to misrepresent a politician's message. It certainly isn't unusual for partisans to refuse to fairly represent their opponent's central point - either through a sense of mischief, because they just don't understand it or a genuine belief that there are more important issues at stake. This video is clearly a low blow, and deceptive, but it isn't at all obvious that it is different from lying about something that Nancy Pelosi said. 'Solving' that in any way will likely cause some spectacular partisan fireworks when a difficult case comes by. Whoever gets control of the body that gets to choose what is fact and what is fiction is going to have disproportionate power.
raxxorrax 7y ago
That standard would also not be met by traditional outlets. Cutting videos to underline the message of a text is pretty common. This is not a new problem.

Macross8299 7y ago

>let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate them. Most people would also be pretty uncomfortable with the government vicariously deciding what they can say through Facebook. I'm sure it would cut both ways, as well. Not a stretch to see a president using an "anti-fake news" provision to stop damaging news about a scandal spread about him on social media.

slg 7y ago

In the US that would require a constitutional amendment to alter the First Amendment. The chances of that happening are infinitesimally small compared to companies being shamed into doing that "right thing" through public pressure.

rickycook 7y ago
i don’t think it would tbh... the US already places limitations on free speech: you’re not allowed to advertise using false information, the “fire in a crowded place” type thing you might SAY that it’s a slippery slope but i’d argue that it’s likely (not that i know for certain) that there would have been just as much angst about these limits that are not only seen as common sense these days, but necessary
gjm11 7y ago
Until quite recently the FCC had a "fairness doctrine" requiring broadcasters to treat politics evenhandedly. That seems far harder to reconcile with the First Amendment than a "no faked propaganda videos" rule. The Supreme Court explicitly said it was OK. The US has truth-in-advertising laws, which forbid advertisers to make certain kinds of deceptive claims. I'm not sure whether the Supreme Court has explicitly considered whether they're constitutional, but it's certainly heard plenty of cases related to those laws and never taken the opportunity to say "oh, and by the way, laws against false advertising are unconstitutional". If there's some reason why a law forbidding the use of faked/manipulated videos for political propaganda would be more inconsistent with the First Amendment than those, I'm not seeing it at all.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The FCC rules were conditions of broadcast licences, and fairness in advertising laws relate to the prohibition of committing fraud. Neither of those are particularly relevant to concerns around free speech. Political propaganda on the other hand is entirely protected by the first amendment. The term propaganda covers nearly all forms of political speech.
mgoetzke 7y ago

Yoric 7y ago

Well, many believe that "big tech" (social networks and search engine, I'd say) have essentially replaced traditional news networks. I don't have a clear opinion on this yet, but if that's the case, it makes sense to regulate "big tech" in the same manner as traditional news.

amelius 7y ago
Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).
- Yoric 7y ago
  What do you mean?
  - fragmede 7y ago
    I can't message my friends on Snapchat from Instagram, but I can call my friends on T-Mobile and ATT from Verizon. Phone companies shenanigans go back a long way, so there are more than a few lawsuits involved, in order to get to our current state for calling.
    - mises 7y ago
      That's a nonsensical comparison. Phones all have one purpose and mechanism: voice calling. Instagram is based around a public photo-blog. Snapchat is ephemeral photo-mesaging. You would be requiring social media sites to replicate each other's functionality. If I want to send a message to a twitter user, can it be longer than 140 characters? What if I am john.doe one one platform but you have the same name on another? Who keeps it? No, telcos were interoperable by fiat because there can only be so many phone lines.
      - chillacy 7y ago
        I’ll add that laws like that are usually well intentioned but make no sense 30 years later, where the law still exists and everyone is wasting time implementing something from the past. Like IE6 browser requirements in South Korea.

PixyMisa 7y ago

First Amendment.

mc32 7y ago

Especially with regard to politicians, regulating speech in this area like that video treads right on parody. Do they ban SNL impersonations too, Latenight TV mashups? No more Dana Carvey or Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey. Is that what they want?

tus87 7y ago
Sudden break out of common sense on HN. What happened?
thrusong 7y ago
The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.
- golergka 7y ago
  I think that you're right in that statement, but I also think that this is an editorial decision, not a technological one. If Facebook takes it upon itself to make such a decision, then it acts as an editor of it's users content and should be liable as an editor. Not as a communication platform.
  - vuln 7y ago
    Facebook curates and removes content all of the time. They are 100% an editor and should have their safe harbor revoked as they can and do control what is posted on their platform.
- mc32 7y ago
  Similar could be claimed regarding Kimmel videos on late night but few (maybe some Trump supporters) clamor to shut that down.
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s always propaganda when it’s pillorying someone you like, and parody when it’s pillorying someone you don’t. If the video would have been right at home on late night television, it should be right at home on Facebook. Do you think the late night shows aren’t being used to convince people to feel a certain way about Trump? This is the shoe on the other foot, and if doesn’t feel so right, the wrong lesson is to blame the foot.

beaner 7y ago

Also the internet has always been this way and it's never been a problem. It was only once Trump was elected that the media started to promote the idea of censorship.

AlexandrB 7y ago

> I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. They already have that power - they've had it for a while. All that's being debated is how they should use it.

mgoetzke 7y ago

if it was a Disney movie being shared they would be all over it. It would be down in minutes

raxxorrax 7y ago

> If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper I don't think there is any consent for this.

MarkMc 7y ago

You make it sound like the 'current trend' is a new phenomenon, but before the rise of Facebook newspaper and TV companies were self-policing and it was essentially impossible to publish a message to millions of people without going through some sort of editorial filter. The new trend is that someone with a few thousand dollars can tell 10 million people that the Pope has endorsed a particular politician and a million people will believe it. I'd like to think that we are not so easily influenced, but then I find myself clicking on a screenshot I created just 30 seconds earlier and I realise the human brain just isn't designed to be constantly alert to fakery.

TimJRobinson 7y ago

I just want more control over what appears in my feed. If all I saw were posts from my friends I never would have come across this video, but instead my feed is a combination of celebrities, pages, promoted content etc. I could unfollow everything outside of my friend group but then Facebook still shows random posts friends (or sometimes barely even aquaintances) have liked or replied to. I rarely use Facebook anymore anyway, most of my chat happens in private groups or on scuttlebutt because at least there I have some control over what I see.