4 ms·

Warren Escalates War with Zuckerberg and Facebook

17 points by smacktoward 7y ago

Aperocky 7y ago
There's no doubt that facebook done a lot of harm by leaking private information, but it's disingenous to call facebook 'disinformation machine' when people actively chase and consume disinformation to satisfy their own bias. If they won't be able to find disinformation on facebook, they'll move to other echo chambers like reddit and continue to consume the same crap. To expect a substantial portion of population to suddenly gain the ability to think critically against their own bias is not realistic. Facebook is just a scapegoat in this regard.
- rcruzeiro 7y ago
  There will always be people who will go to the echo chamber platforms to consume their misinformation. This has happened ever since the beginning of the web. What has changed is that we now have huge platforms that can reach a ridiculously large number of people (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc) and these aren't regulated at all. The reach of this platforms is something that only a decade ago was possible only to big media (which tends to be somewhat regulated). We have seen people dying in India because of rumours spread on WhatsApp, a genocide was incited on Myanmar through Facebook, Facebook runs disinformation campaigns for politicians all over the world and earns big cash for it. I think disinformation machine or disinformation amplifier are correct terms to refer to Facebook.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    And how would you regulate user content without going into censorship akin to China? When arguably one of the biggest media in the United State is onboard on some of the dubious stuff spreading online.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it. Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties. Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        The courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Someone who is getting biased information can't logically be responsible for stepping outside of that context. It's a perfect example of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    It's easy to not get biased information, comparing sources and actually _reading_ the source is not a very hard thing to do. But most people don't, and in this environment the titles are driven to be as click-baity as possible. We can't blame facebook for what content producer and content consumers are doing, or are you suggesting thorough censorship? It's easy to point finger and blame others for their failures without coming up with a solution.
    - chris11 7y ago
      Facebook does have a moral responsibility for what they spread though. FB encourages clickbait and puts people in their own walled garden based on what they want to see.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      "It's easy to not get biased information" "Not getting biased information" sums up the entire history of human development, but particularly these fields come to mind: - Science and academic research - Business management - Military intelligence - Government administration - Artificial intelligence - Jurisprudence - Philosophy - Journalism - Statistics - Psychology I think the entirety of these fields is nontrivial. "are you suggesting thorough censorship?" Facebook is doing the censoring!! If they just showed you what your friends were posting in chronological order, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
newnewpdro 7y ago
I don't understand the logic behind politicians being exempted. Facebook's overtly being a propaganda delivery system, and is now explicitly marketing the privilege directly to politicians. It's absurd, we have laws about false advertising. In a system where elected officials are marketed to voters no differently than commercial goods and services, why wouldn't they be subject to similar (or more strict) regulation? The consequences for "buying" our politicians based on false advertising are much greater than purchasing commercial goods or services.
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  I have a nasty suspicion that there's already a thriving clandestine grey market in political services that politicians have been taking advantage of for awhile now.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  >we have laws about false advertising And thankfully we don’t have laws about “false political beliefs”.
- throwaway6734 7y ago
  Agree. What qualifies as political advertising? Could I make false claims about a product as long as I throw a "vote for john smith" on the bottom?
zaroth 7y ago
Spend a few hours on Facebook or Reddit and it’s glaring how tremendously unconcerned everyone is with the facts. Whatever your political viewpoints may be. A politician trying to suppress the reach of political ads run by their opponent is very concerning to me. In the political arena most especially. The platforms should absolutely not be in the business of filtering and approving political messages directly from political candidates. It’s absolutely up to the voters to decide for themselves. It’s a different matter entirely if the platform is being abused by bots, fake accounts, trolls, etc. versus a political message approved by the campaign. > A Facebook spokesperson said that the company believes political speech should be protected. “If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech,” the spokesperson said. I agree 100%. And her opponents can call her out. And the voters will decide. It’s absolutely not for Facebook to censor a political campaigns speaking for themselves. Platforms should follow the laws on political campaign messages as they exist on the books. Mainly, as I understand them, this involves properly labeling the ad and who paid for it.
Simulacra 7y ago
Facebook has enormous power to influence people. I wonder if Mark et al. has done the calculus to decide which President they would prefer to have as a company.

17 points by smacktoward 7y ago

There's no doubt that facebook done a lot of harm by leaking private information, but it's disingenous to call facebook 'disinformation machine' when people actively chase and consume disinformation to satisfy their own bias. If they won't be able to find disinformation on facebook, they'll move to other echo chambers like reddit and continue to consume the same crap. To expect a substantial portion of population to suddenly gain the ability to think critically against their own bias is not realistic. Facebook is just a scapegoat in this regard.

rcruzeiro 7y ago
There will always be people who will go to the echo chamber platforms to consume their misinformation. This has happened ever since the beginning of the web. What has changed is that we now have huge platforms that can reach a ridiculously large number of people (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc) and these aren't regulated at all. The reach of this platforms is something that only a decade ago was possible only to big media (which tends to be somewhat regulated). We have seen people dying in India because of rumours spread on WhatsApp, a genocide was incited on Myanmar through Facebook, Facebook runs disinformation campaigns for politicians all over the world and earns big cash for it. I think disinformation machine or disinformation amplifier are correct terms to refer to Facebook.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  And how would you regulate user content without going into censorship akin to China? When arguably one of the biggest media in the United State is onboard on some of the dubious stuff spreading online.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it. Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties. Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      The courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.
perl4ever 7y ago
Someone who is getting biased information can't logically be responsible for stepping outside of that context. It's a perfect example of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  It's easy to not get biased information, comparing sources and actually _reading_ the source is not a very hard thing to do. But most people don't, and in this environment the titles are driven to be as click-baity as possible. We can't blame facebook for what content producer and content consumers are doing, or are you suggesting thorough censorship? It's easy to point finger and blame others for their failures without coming up with a solution.
  - chris11 7y ago
    Facebook does have a moral responsibility for what they spread though. FB encourages clickbait and puts people in their own walled garden based on what they want to see.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "It's easy to not get biased information" "Not getting biased information" sums up the entire history of human development, but particularly these fields come to mind: - Science and academic research - Business management - Military intelligence - Government administration - Artificial intelligence - Jurisprudence - Philosophy - Journalism - Statistics - Psychology I think the entirety of these fields is nontrivial. "are you suggesting thorough censorship?" Facebook is doing the censoring!! If they just showed you what your friends were posting in chronological order, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

newnewpdro 7y ago

I don't understand the logic behind politicians being exempted. Facebook's overtly being a propaganda delivery system, and is now explicitly marketing the privilege directly to politicians. It's absurd, we have laws about false advertising. In a system where elected officials are marketed to voters no differently than commercial goods and services, why wouldn't they be subject to similar (or more strict) regulation? The consequences for "buying" our politicians based on false advertising are much greater than purchasing commercial goods or services.

vinceguidry 7y ago
I have a nasty suspicion that there's already a thriving clandestine grey market in political services that politicians have been taking advantage of for awhile now.
remarkEon 7y ago
>we have laws about false advertising And thankfully we don’t have laws about “false political beliefs”.
throwaway6734 7y ago
Agree. What qualifies as political advertising? Could I make false claims about a product as long as I throw a "vote for john smith" on the bottom?

zaroth 7y ago

Spend a few hours on Facebook or Reddit and it’s glaring how tremendously unconcerned everyone is with the facts. Whatever your political viewpoints may be. A politician trying to suppress the reach of political ads run by their opponent is very concerning to me. In the political arena most especially. The platforms should absolutely not be in the business of filtering and approving political messages directly from political candidates. It’s absolutely up to the voters to decide for themselves. It’s a different matter entirely if the platform is being abused by bots, fake accounts, trolls, etc. versus a political message approved by the campaign. > A Facebook spokesperson said that the company believes political speech should be protected. “If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech,” the spokesperson said. I agree 100%. And her opponents can call her out. And the voters will decide. It’s absolutely not for Facebook to censor a political campaigns speaking for themselves. Platforms should follow the laws on political campaign messages as they exist on the books. Mainly, as I understand them, this involves properly labeling the ad and who paid for it.

Simulacra 7y ago

Facebook has enormous power to influence people. I wonder if Mark et al. has done the calculus to decide which President they would prefer to have as a company.