9 ms·
Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
- ziml77 5y agoSo are platforms supposed to regulate speech or not? People complain if they stay neutral and don't remove false information and people complain if they moderate and do remove false information.
- uniqueuid 5y agoIt's a normative continuum between full state regulation (i.e. totalitarian but defensive) and no state regulation (i.e. completely free speech but vulnerable). The US is very liberal. Most European countries are leaning towards regulation. See the book "How Democracies Die" for a summary of the three most prominent legal approaches.
- FeepingCreature 5y agoThose are different people though? I don't think you can make everyone happy.
- uniqueuid 5y agoOh, sometimes those are the same people. Offense giving and offense taking can both be used strategically by the same group. See e.g. the book "Hate Spin" on religious hate speech which explicitly deals with this two-sided phenomenon.
- ziml77 5y agoThey can be the same people. A mentality of "delete the things I don't like, but you better not touch the things I do like"
- astura 5y agoThey are more often than not the same people. An example off the top of my head: Florida governor signs bill barring social media companies from blocking political candidates - May 24, 2021 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/24/florida-gov-social-media-230/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/24/florida... [Florida governor] applauds fired whistleblower’s Twitter suspension, the latest in an ongoing feud - June 7, 2021 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/07/rebekah-jones-twitter-desantis/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/07/rebekah-j...
- bo1024 5y agoIf your algorithm is deciding what to promote or display to people, then you’re already not staying neutral.
- DFHippie 5y agoOne should hope that one can distinguish between lies and nonsense on the one hand and fact and honest debate on the other, good faith and bad faith engagement, without discriminating between ideological positions. If you find your ideological position is indistinguishable from lies and nonsense ... well ... that could happen. But the idea non-partisan platforms that censor content are working from is that nonsense is apart from partisanship.
- bo1024 5y agoI'm happy to recognize the distinction between fact-checking and partisanship. But if you're running an algorithm that decides who sees what content, you're responsible for the choices that algorithm makes. I think platforms try to disclaim responsibility by claiming to be "neutral" in the sense that they don't actively censor based on partisan preferences, and this is disingenuous.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoI'm confused as well. When it benefits these platforms to be private orgs they claim to be within their rights as a private org. When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square. If you think that moderating posts infringes on free speech then perhaps they should be regulated as a utility? I personally have no issue with any of these platforms moderating to their heart's content for the following reasons: We are entitled to free speech but we are not entitled to use Twitter's megaphone. I am against megaphones. I don't like companies like Twitter. With any hope, the more they moderate the more people will move away from centralized platforms. Don't regulate them and they will moderate themselves out of existence (I wish).
- astura 5y ago>When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square. When did Twitter ever claim to be a "Town Square?" Furthermore, when would it benefit them to claim that?
- nradov 5y ago"A lot of people come to Twitter and they don’t actually see an app or a service, they see what kind of looks like a public square. And they have the same sort of expectations of a public square. And that is what we have to make sure that we get right. And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square.” -Jack Dorsey https://www.wired.com/story/jack-dorsey-twitters-role-free-speech-filter-bubbles/ https://www.wired.com/story/jack-dorsey-twitters-role-free-s... I am not endorsing his statement but Twitter's CEO apparently considers it as a town square.
- ceilingcorner 5y agoSorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against Western values as disinformation. Especially when it is described as ”This industry’s main goal is to sway public opinion during elections and protests” which is different than every other media organization how, exactly?
- uniqueuid 5y agoThe whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy. Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. [edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. Legitimate here means: Society agreed to allow media to exist in the form that they do, by creating laws in support and by refraining from creating laws that would prevent them. As long as there is no political consensus and/or riots which would fundamentally undermine the media's standing, they benefit from a special role (and are held to that standard).
- ceilingcorner 5y agoaccountability, transparency and formal ethics codices Are you seeing much of this lately? Lately as in the last 40 years? I certainly am not.
- uniqueuid 5y agoDisclaimer: I study this stuff as a scientist. Yes accountability especially in the US is lacking. But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools). If you compare the US media to other nations, and especially if you look at them historically, they have been pretty good at this. I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some. [edit due to reply limit]: Of course NPR is biased, what do you expect? There is no neutrality in things that human believe. The difference is having public guidelines, committing to them and listening to criticism That's accountability.
- merricksb 5y agoSmallish discussion about the same topic yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28444490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28444490
- dexen 5y agoWhy is Mozilla, of all orgs, performing foreign activism and reporting on Twitter users in hopes of getting them banned? "We want to do good", sure, but that's two bits of a stretch here. Nothing in the article as posted indicates that the "disinformation influencers" were nefarious actors. For all the description given, it might have been grassroots citizens action, only labeled "disinformation" by officials or government-aligned sources. The end result is Mozilla making arbitrary choice between two opposing camps of political activists - and reports on Twitter users along those lines with clear hopes of getting them banned. I'd understand the point if the activism was directly related to open internet, to freedom of expression, interoperability of services, ease of access and so forth - if there were concerns closely related to Mozilla's core mission. However nothing in the article nor in the linked PDF seem to allude to any of such concerns. It feels like a small group of Mozilla employees[1] ran this research and reported on users for their own private reasons. [1] "in-house activists" might be a more charitable characterization
- ceilingcorner 5y agoMozilla has transformed into an activist organization over the last ~decade, with predictable consequences for their actual products and engineering.
- uniqueuid 5y agoTongue in cheek but: I really like their activist products such as container tabs, privacy enhancing technologies and reduced tracking (compared to Chrome, Safari etc).
- uniqueuid 5y agoHaving read the report, I think this is an interesting but rather weak analysis. Detection of inauthentic behavior is very hard and fraught with false positives, so it's really important to be very transparent in the methods. That said, the numbers are not too small, they do have some interviews with participants and Twitter seems to have removed some accounts - all these lend the report some credibility.
- mc32 5y agoMozilla and Twitter are US concerns. What is it their business how politics are conducted in other countries? What’s the difference between Mozilla and United Fruit when it comes to political interference? They both were are agitating for their PoV and not concerned with local mores. They both have foreign agendas. One could argue United fruit advanced agriculture and provided jobs whereas Mozilla gets involved but provides no jobs to locals. Yes United fruit engaged in bad behavior but Mozilla should not get a pass either for interfering in foreign affairs.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ceilingcorner 5y agoAbsolutely no difference. Just imperialism recontextualized for a new century with new profits to be made.
- orangepurple 5y agoTwitter removes accounts at the whim of specious evidence. The removal does not make the evidence more credible.
- uniqueuid 5y agoAgreed. But if they (at some point) include it in an official report on inauthentic behavior, then that's added credibility.
- 5y ago
- recursivedoubts 5y ago> "New research by two Mozilla Fellows reveals how malicious, coordinated, and inauthentic attacks on Twitter are undermining Kenyan civil society" i am glad that we here in the west are not subject to this sort of social media engineering and can participate in open and thoughtful debate on topics no matter how our elites feel about them
- uniqueuid 5y agoI honestly can't tell if you are cynical. Because this is exactly what is the case! We are here and can participate in these discussions, more than ever before in history. There are limits to free discussions (i.e. if you threaten or plot to kill somebody), but these limits have never been less in any country in any time. So - let's not be overly pessimistic?
- mc32 5y agoDeplatforming unpopular voices. And there is corruption everywhere as exemplified by the Cuomo shenanigans and now sime activists are quitting because their superiors were using them as puppets to enhance their agendas.
- lostgame 5y agoWhen these free discussions turn into anti-vax bullshit which has literally made people willing to have people die than listen to reason, it’s caused me to wonder when free speech goes too far.
- ipaddr 5y agoFree discussion can happen until it goes into a subject you have made up your mind on? Whether you are on your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th vax shot what fully vaxed means is different around the globe. The poorest coutries haven't receive many/enough. Strange health issues are coming up as side effects. The first long term trial ends in 2024. I don't think shutting down discussion on such an important issue makes sense. The science isn't in... maybe something will emerge that will even change your mind.
- gootler 5y agoSounds like the CNN bot army
- h2odragon 5y agoShould we be looking forward to a "Mozilla Misinformation Registry" and a web browser that will only show us clean sites?
- orangepurple 5y agoIt will be a whitelist solely containing www.disney.com
- bunnernana 5y agoAm reading through the comments and I have to say westerners really think all news is about them. People who don't understand the context of a story arguing out the ethics of a story they have no idea about. PS: I am a Kenyan. That being said, any Kenyan here who uses Twitter regularly will agree with the article. Go to Twitter right now and you will see the disinformation in action. Trend number 1 (Nyonga) Trend number 3 (Kenya under Raila) are all political trends that are being promoted by "fake accounts" pushing the hashtags. Everyday new hashtags come up peddling the same misinformation against political rivals. This has been happening almost EVERYDAY for the last several months and it will only get worse as we near elections which is exactly one year away.
- mfer 5y ago> Am reading through the comments and I have to say westerners really think all news is about them. As a westerner, I've discovered that we forget that we are less than 20% of the global population. Bringing that up in conversation can surprise people.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y agoFor news, is global population the best metric to use? Wouldn’t you want maybe the “origin of things that will effect everyone”? What percent of the global economy? What percent of industry/invention? What percent of entertainment? What percent of military? Edit: No one wants to address military
- ascar 5y agoI have the feeling your response just highlights the misconceptions from another angle. From my personal experience living abroad, we westerners highly overestimate the consumption of our entertainment (movies/shows/music/games) in the non-western world. E.g. log into your favorite western online game in Japan and see what players you end up playing with. Hint: It's basically noone Japanese. Regarding economy: based on the wikipedia data available here [1] USA+EU+Australia (with GB i think still included in EU there) makes up less than 50% of the global economy, tendency downwards. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy
- bob229 5y agoTwitter is a cancer. Only a fool uses it
- koreanguy 5y agomozilla.org is for a profit organisation, do not listen to anybody else. they have huge profits from their Firefox browser.
- aaccount 5y agomissed the opportunity to call it Disinformation As A Service