7 ms·

Eh, I don't think it's going to have the impact you think it will. The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and

Eh, I don't think it's going to have the impact you think it will. The major criticism for S230 is that social media companies are rampant with fake news, and not doing enough to combat misinformation. If anything, it gives FB and Twitter a defense against an accusation of spreading political misinformation.

MuffinFlavored 6y ago
Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? If the roles were reversed and a similar story came out about Trump and his son, would Twitter and Facebook have taken it down as part of a misinformation campaign?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  > Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? Yes. Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target should be removed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lashes-out-new-york-post-429486 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-... There needs to be more censorship on FB and YouTube which are in addition to Fox News doing WAY more damage to the United States than any foreign terrorists could ever dream.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    Amusing you're citing the NYT. Their coverage in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion did more damage to this country, Her military, and the rest of the world than some mean tweets or made up BS about Russia. Should we ban the NYT, too?
  - aokiji 6y ago
    No, there does not need to be more censorship. You should realize by now the Russian boogeyman narrative has no power anymore. Not everything that favors Trump is a Russian initiative. Far from it.
  - dunkelheit 6y ago
    Right there in the first article: > There was no immediate indication of Russian involvement in the release of emails that the Post obtained, but its general thrust mirrors a narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies have described as part of an active Russian disinformation effort aimed at the 2020 election. So the only proof that it comes from Russia is basically "that's the kind of thing the Russians would do." Aren't you spreading disinformation yourself by claiming that it is Russian disinformation?
    - Rochetshipz 6y ago
      Particularly, claiming Russian collusion the last time did not turn out to be true, but the Media jumped on this narrative. Let's not do it again.
      - save_ferris 6y ago
        This has been repeatedly debunked. Crowdstrike, who was hired for the security audit, states very explicitly that their IR team had proof that COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR had breached the network.[0] > To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.” 0: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
        surge 6y ago
        OP is talking about collusion and the years of investigations and other nonsense. You're talking about an ineffective hack that's used for scaremongering, that was caught and had little to no effect on the out come of the election.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    What was the "disinformation" exactly? YouTube has spent the summer censoring doctors because their views didn't match the WHO. The WHO has changed its own views so much that it's now contradicted itself many times, showing how terribly naive Google's policies are on this. Google never used to be naive, but clearly, times have changed.
    - webXL 6y ago
      "disinformation" seems to be information that advances an unpopular narrative now. The latest newspeak for the feeble of mind.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Unfortunately this is 100% true. The real problem is that YouTube inexplicably chose to base its public health "ground truth" on WHO guidelines, when as a US company their appropriate source would have been the CDC. The two were often in conflict, particularly with regard to civilian usage of masks. The WHO spent a lot of time being wrong -- or, at best, confusing -- and a lot of people got sick unnecessarily as a result.
  - huntermeyer 6y ago
    > Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target ^ This is the actual disinformation.
  - vonseel 6y ago
    Your bias is clear for all to see.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    No. If there is damage done to United States, then it happens with the hands of people who suggest that undermining US tradition ( and constitution ) is the way to go. The will of the people to accept an invisible tyrant, who will allow only acceptable thoughts and punish wrongthink is terrifying and those clamor for it do more damage than any foreign terrorist could dream of. Twitter, FB et al made a mistake ( calculated or otherwise ) and it is now hard to argue in good faith that tech companies are neutral arbiters. To address your specific claim, if you showed me, say, RT post prior to yesterday that said what NY post posted, you would have a point. Instead, you have claims from Biden campaign staff and thanks to FB, Twitter, you now have a perceived bias in tech community that diminishes credibility of all those publications. The fact that you seem to suggest that more like bias is needed, is, and I put it mildly, counter productive. The story is already in full swing streisand effect mode. edit: corrected some prepositions
- bduerst 6y ago
  Yes, they were. The PDFs with the emails were created long after the laptop was allegedly dropped off and abandoned, and the tech store owner claims they only copied the hard drive. This is on top of obvious formatting errors and the removal of the email headers. None of the information was verified (even the easily verifiable bits) and the source, who was doxxed by the NYPost, is a Seth Rich conspiracist: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter... In some hypothetical "whatabout the other party", the only way to test it is if it were to happen.
- adventured 6y ago
  If the roles were reversed, the story would be on the lead story of every major left-leaning media outlet (which is all of them except Fox) in the nation for days: CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, Reuters, AP; all of them would carry it non-stop and beat it to death, covering every possible aspect and angle. Which is what they do any time there has been a hint of a story against Trump in the past four years. Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists and fake journalists completely in bed with the Democrats and very willing to conspire to throw an election and commit election interference. The barely existent election interference by the Russians is trivial compared to what big tech is doing out in the open (hell, they're practically bragging about it at this point it's so brazen). Several executives at big tech need to be put in prison for election interference. Start with Dorsey.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists Yeah, I remember when the editor-in-chief at WaPo settled a Federal suit for $20M to avoid facing charges for his role in running a fraudulent university. Good times. Then there was the NYT board member whose namesake cancer charity foundation was shut down by the state attorney general's office because it turned out to be a front for his own business and political interests. What a con artist, huh. Not to forget the time the chairman of the Democratic National Committee stiffed his contractors for $70 million on a casino project that later went bankrupt. There oughta be a law.
    - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
      Ad hominem. Trump may be awful, but that has no bearing on the argument you're responding to.
      - CamperBob2 6y ago
        I especially like how I'm guilty of an ad-hominem fallacy, while the person calling their opponents "con artists" while citing no evidence whatsoever wasn't. Re-examine your own biases, then post.
Niten 6y ago
The only thing that terrifies me more than Trump is the number of my tech industry colleagues who seem to think we can and should abuse our power to shape public discourse.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  Underrated comment.
- hef19898 6y ago
  You already do, don't you? Social Media created an algorithm based add industry that was and is easily highjacked for bad-faith propaganda purposes. A system that at its core is designed to exploit human psychology in ways and scales we never saw before. You cannot create such things, keep them under your control and just ignore the consequences.
- refurb 6y ago
  Highly underrated comment. It's easy to be a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views. It's not easy when it doesn't.
  - awerawerawrjhui 6y ago
    Being a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views is an oxymoron. Defending free speech by definition means defending people's right to say things you disagree with. If you only defend people's right to agree with you then you're not a free speech advocate.
    - robertlagrant 6y ago
      No. The point being made is that if your speech is being suppressed for whatever reason, you will care about free speech. If you're not being suppressed, you won't even realise you have it, and will happily advocate for censorship.
      - awerawerawrjhui 6y ago

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? If the roles were reversed and a similar story came out about Trump and his son, would Twitter and Facebook have taken it down as part of a misinformation campaign?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
res0nat0r 6y ago
> Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? Yes. Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target should be removed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lashes-out-new-york-post-429486 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-... There needs to be more censorship on FB and YouTube which are in addition to Fox News doing WAY more damage to the United States than any foreign terrorists could ever dream.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Amusing you're citing the NYT. Their coverage in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion did more damage to this country, Her military, and the rest of the world than some mean tweets or made up BS about Russia. Should we ban the NYT, too?
- aokiji 6y ago
  No, there does not need to be more censorship. You should realize by now the Russian boogeyman narrative has no power anymore. Not everything that favors Trump is a Russian initiative. Far from it.
- dunkelheit 6y ago
  Right there in the first article: > There was no immediate indication of Russian involvement in the release of emails that the Post obtained, but its general thrust mirrors a narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies have described as part of an active Russian disinformation effort aimed at the 2020 election. So the only proof that it comes from Russia is basically "that's the kind of thing the Russians would do." Aren't you spreading disinformation yourself by claiming that it is Russian disinformation?
  - Rochetshipz 6y ago
    Particularly, claiming Russian collusion the last time did not turn out to be true, but the Media jumped on this narrative. Let's not do it again.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      This has been repeatedly debunked. Crowdstrike, who was hired for the security audit, states very explicitly that their IR team had proof that COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR had breached the network.[0] > To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.” 0: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
      - surge 6y ago
        OP is talking about collusion and the years of investigations and other nonsense. You're talking about an ineffective hack that's used for scaremongering, that was caught and had little to no effect on the out come of the election.
- thu2111 6y ago
  What was the "disinformation" exactly? YouTube has spent the summer censoring doctors because their views didn't match the WHO. The WHO has changed its own views so much that it's now contradicted itself many times, showing how terribly naive Google's policies are on this. Google never used to be naive, but clearly, times have changed.
  - webXL 6y ago
    "disinformation" seems to be information that advances an unpopular narrative now. The latest newspeak for the feeble of mind.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Unfortunately this is 100% true. The real problem is that YouTube inexplicably chose to base its public health "ground truth" on WHO guidelines, when as a US company their appropriate source would have been the CDC. The two were often in conflict, particularly with regard to civilian usage of masks. The WHO spent a lot of time being wrong -- or, at best, confusing -- and a lot of people got sick unnecessarily as a result.
- huntermeyer 6y ago
  > Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target ^ This is the actual disinformation.
- vonseel 6y ago
  Your bias is clear for all to see.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  No. If there is damage done to United States, then it happens with the hands of people who suggest that undermining US tradition ( and constitution ) is the way to go. The will of the people to accept an invisible tyrant, who will allow only acceptable thoughts and punish wrongthink is terrifying and those clamor for it do more damage than any foreign terrorist could dream of. Twitter, FB et al made a mistake ( calculated or otherwise ) and it is now hard to argue in good faith that tech companies are neutral arbiters. To address your specific claim, if you showed me, say, RT post prior to yesterday that said what NY post posted, you would have a point. Instead, you have claims from Biden campaign staff and thanks to FB, Twitter, you now have a perceived bias in tech community that diminishes credibility of all those publications. The fact that you seem to suggest that more like bias is needed, is, and I put it mildly, counter productive. The story is already in full swing streisand effect mode. edit: corrected some prepositions
bduerst 6y ago
Yes, they were. The PDFs with the emails were created long after the laptop was allegedly dropped off and abandoned, and the tech store owner claims they only copied the hard drive. This is on top of obvious formatting errors and the removal of the email headers. None of the information was verified (even the easily verifiable bits) and the source, who was doxxed by the NYPost, is a Seth Rich conspiracist: https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunter... In some hypothetical "whatabout the other party", the only way to test it is if it were to happen.
adventured 6y ago
If the roles were reversed, the story would be on the lead story of every major left-leaning media outlet (which is all of them except Fox) in the nation for days: CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, Reuters, AP; all of them would carry it non-stop and beat it to death, covering every possible aspect and angle. Which is what they do any time there has been a hint of a story against Trump in the past four years. Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists and fake journalists completely in bed with the Democrats and very willing to conspire to throw an election and commit election interference. The barely existent election interference by the Russians is trivial compared to what big tech is doing out in the open (hell, they're practically bragging about it at this point it's so brazen). Several executives at big tech need to be put in prison for election interference. Start with Dorsey.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists Yeah, I remember when the editor-in-chief at WaPo settled a Federal suit for $20M to avoid facing charges for his role in running a fraudulent university. Good times. Then there was the NYT board member whose namesake cancer charity foundation was shut down by the state attorney general's office because it turned out to be a front for his own business and political interests. What a con artist, huh. Not to forget the time the chairman of the Democratic National Committee stiffed his contractors for $70 million on a casino project that later went bankrupt. There oughta be a law.
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Ad hominem. Trump may be awful, but that has no bearing on the argument you're responding to.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      I especially like how I'm guilty of an ad-hominem fallacy, while the person calling their opponents "con artists" while citing no evidence whatsoever wasn't. Re-examine your own biases, then post.

Niten 6y ago

The only thing that terrifies me more than Trump is the number of my tech industry colleagues who seem to think we can and should abuse our power to shape public discourse.

OneGuy123 6y ago
Underrated comment.
hef19898 6y ago
You already do, don't you? Social Media created an algorithm based add industry that was and is easily highjacked for bad-faith propaganda purposes. A system that at its core is designed to exploit human psychology in ways and scales we never saw before. You cannot create such things, keep them under your control and just ignore the consequences.
refurb 6y ago
Highly underrated comment. It's easy to be a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views. It's not easy when it doesn't.
- awerawerawrjhui 6y ago
  Being a free speech advocate when it benefits your own views is an oxymoron. Defending free speech by definition means defending people's right to say things you disagree with. If you only defend people's right to agree with you then you're not a free speech advocate.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    No. The point being made is that if your speech is being suppressed for whatever reason, you will care about free speech. If you're not being suppressed, you won't even realise you have it, and will happily advocate for censorship.
    - awerawerawrjhui 6y ago