4 ms·

Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says

23 points by TechBro8615 5y ago

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"The Biden administration is playing an active role in flagging Facebook posts it considers to be “problematic” or “disinformation,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki" Where's the outrage and hysteria about this? Such a thing would have been an intolerable attack on democracy if the last administration did it.
curiousgeorgio 5y ago
How is this okay, people? Seriously, how can people turn a blind eye to this, when it's not even a secret operation or a conspiracy theory? When the administration openly describes how they're colluding with a private company to censor speech (and obviously not the kind of speech that isn't protected), without any apology or promise to correct the course, you know we're in serious trouble. Have we really forgotten the countless times this has played out in history, and where it leads? Also: mods - if this article is flagged for being "too political", I urge you to reconsider this one. I don't care which administration did this, but I certainly feel like it represents a major historical point in the conversation around free speech.
- jka 5y ago
  Because misinformation is rife, dangerous, and is being weaponized. Ideally any measures to control misinformation - like societal restrictions during the pandemic - are temporary and rolled back when the situation is more stable. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that climate change denial, addictive pharmaceuticals, unsustainable energy production and the potential for human suffering as a result of any and all of those are areas where malignant (and often well-funded) actors see potential opportunities. Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this topic should not be flagged.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    >I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. >Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I mean, sure. But we aren't talking about the traditional restrictions on free speech, which have fairly well understood legal precedents and have laws about them. I don't even know what "permit destructive behaviour for profit" means, since one person's destruction is another person's creation (just look at the ad ecosystem on the internet). If 9/11 was the justification for an ever-expanding state surveillance/security apparatus, then the Pandemic will be the justification for ever-increasing collusion between the "democratic" government of an ostensibly free country and the massive multi-national tech companies who have the means to control what is and isn't said on the internet. The people who warned us about the PATRIOT Act turned out to be right.
    - jka 5y ago
      > This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. That's a valid perspective, yes - but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. A business that would quite happily take the reins of power, sure, but a business that is nonetheless under the legal remit of the U.S.
      - remarkEon 5y ago
a0-prw 5y ago
They are trying to take back their traditional power to control the narrative. That's how censorship has historically been achieved in the West while being able to claim, "We have free speech".

23 points by TechBro8615 5y ago

>"The Biden administration is playing an active role in flagging Facebook posts it considers to be “problematic” or “disinformation,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki" Where's the outrage and hysteria about this? Such a thing would have been an intolerable attack on democracy if the last administration did it.

curiousgeorgio 5y ago

How is this okay, people? Seriously, how can people turn a blind eye to this, when it's not even a secret operation or a conspiracy theory? When the administration openly describes how they're colluding with a private company to censor speech (and obviously not the kind of speech that isn't protected), without any apology or promise to correct the course, you know we're in serious trouble. Have we really forgotten the countless times this has played out in history, and where it leads? Also: mods - if this article is flagged for being "too political", I urge you to reconsider this one. I don't care which administration did this, but I certainly feel like it represents a major historical point in the conversation around free speech.

jka 5y ago
Because misinformation is rife, dangerous, and is being weaponized. Ideally any measures to control misinformation - like societal restrictions during the pandemic - are temporary and rolled back when the situation is more stable. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that climate change denial, addictive pharmaceuticals, unsustainable energy production and the potential for human suffering as a result of any and all of those are areas where malignant (and often well-funded) actors see potential opportunities. Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this topic should not be flagged.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >I'm glad to see democratically elected representatives of the U.S. take up their responsibilities rather than pandering to corporate and oligarchical interests. This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. >Many folks on HN here love the concept of "free speech" without restrictions because we've been drawn into a world of binary outcomes and absolutes. That's not the way the world works, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to permit destructive behaviour for profit. I mean, sure. But we aren't talking about the traditional restrictions on free speech, which have fairly well understood legal precedents and have laws about them. I don't even know what "permit destructive behaviour for profit" means, since one person's destruction is another person's creation (just look at the ad ecosystem on the internet). If 9/11 was the justification for an ever-expanding state surveillance/security apparatus, then the Pandemic will be the justification for ever-increasing collusion between the "democratic" government of an ostensibly free country and the massive multi-national tech companies who have the means to control what is and isn't said on the internet. The people who warned us about the PATRIOT Act turned out to be right.
  - jka 5y ago
    > This isn't some noble representative getting a bill passed through Congress to stick it to Big Tech for profiting off of outrage media, click-bait, surveillance capitalism, etc etc (I wish it were thus). This is the executive branch of an administration colluding with those corporations to provide "guidance" on what the permitted narrative is. That's a valid perspective, yes - but I can almost guarantee you that it's a team of people using evidence, data and analysis to determine what they believe is best for their population, in co-operation (rather than collusion) with a business. A business that would quite happily take the reins of power, sure, but a business that is nonetheless under the legal remit of the U.S.
    - remarkEon 5y ago

a0-prw 5y ago

They are trying to take back their traditional power to control the narrative. That's how censorship has historically been achieved in the West while being able to claim, "We have free speech".