6 ms·

I mean, it's a stupid plan. A whistleblower to advocate for censorship? Do they think the people are that stupid? I guess like most things they don't need the

I mean, it's a stupid plan. A whistleblower to advocate for censorship? Do they think the people are that stupid? I guess like most things they don't need the majority of public on board, just a bit of plausible deniability. If anyone was really concerned about the algorithms, they'd make transparency requirements, not censorship requirements. If anyone was really concerned about the results of teenagers in the study, they'd go after TikTok, where teenagers are and where they rank them by looks. If anyone was really concerned about bad foreign actors on social media they'd go after the Taliban and the Ayatollah on Twitter.

rscoots 5y ago
Actually this messaging has achieved significant impact in the past 3 years. They might not have the majority of the public on board, but they do have the majority of Dems: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americ... Unfortunately for them it seems to be having the opposite affect on Republicans, but not to the same degree.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  They always have the Dems on board. Every little plot they do. Christine Blasey Ford, Eric Ciamarella, it never ends. They'll find one person to exploit or pay off (respectively) and create a show around them. Their base will get riled up, the R base will see through it but be ignored and dehumanized. Also, FB is more conservative overall in the US as it attracts an older audience. Dems are more likely to be on Twitter and other social media.
unethical_ban 5y ago
The Taliban aren't running disinformation campaigns on Americans via Facebook or Twitter. Like it or not, people care more about a problem that affects them. That's like saying "if Americans /really/ cared about democracy, they would all be advocating for an invasion of Belarus".
- hunterb123 5y ago
  First off, yes they are. Second, the CCP use "disinformation" as a reason for censoring too. Americans aren't orchestrating this, Democrats are. The Taliban comparison was in relation to the FB Myanmar issue the "whistleblower" brought up. Just as the TikTok comparison was in relation to the girl's study. The point is, the Dems are laser focused on Facebook because they want to silence conservatives, not because of some virtue to help people.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas. The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "more truth" win against "lies"? Or should we try to limit facebook groups and twitter feeds that say Biden lost the election against all facts and evidence, when we see millions of people believe it just because it feels right to them? It's not an easy problem, and doesn't seem to have any easy solution.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      They are banning dissenting information that looks bad for them. Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example. The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals. Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were broken during the 2020 election. It's fine to want to audit and make sure something is secure, especially after we spent $20 million and 5 years investigating the 2016 election for "Russian interference".
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        A simple search for "hunter biden laptop" on Facebook immediately kicks up three news articles, dozens of site posts, and (in the bubble I can see from my own friends list) several dozen posts on the topic from the point of view that the laptop was real. If this is Democratic censorship in action, it's incredibly bad at its goals.

rscoots 5y ago

Actually this messaging has achieved significant impact in the past 3 years. They might not have the majority of the public on board, but they do have the majority of Dems: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americ... Unfortunately for them it seems to be having the opposite affect on Republicans, but not to the same degree.

hunterb123 5y ago
They always have the Dems on board. Every little plot they do. Christine Blasey Ford, Eric Ciamarella, it never ends. They'll find one person to exploit or pay off (respectively) and create a show around them. Their base will get riled up, the R base will see through it but be ignored and dehumanized. Also, FB is more conservative overall in the US as it attracts an older audience. Dems are more likely to be on Twitter and other social media.

unethical_ban 5y ago

The Taliban aren't running disinformation campaigns on Americans via Facebook or Twitter. Like it or not, people care more about a problem that affects them. That's like saying "if Americans /really/ cared about democracy, they would all be advocating for an invasion of Belarus".

hunterb123 5y ago
First off, yes they are. Second, the CCP use "disinformation" as a reason for censoring too. Americans aren't orchestrating this, Democrats are. The Taliban comparison was in relation to the FB Myanmar issue the "whistleblower" brought up. Just as the TikTok comparison was in relation to the girl's study. The point is, the Dems are laser focused on Facebook because they want to silence conservatives, not because of some virtue to help people.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas. The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "more truth" win against "lies"? Or should we try to limit facebook groups and twitter feeds that say Biden lost the election against all facts and evidence, when we see millions of people believe it just because it feels right to them? It's not an easy problem, and doesn't seem to have any easy solution.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    They are banning dissenting information that looks bad for them. Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example. The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals. Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were broken during the 2020 election. It's fine to want to audit and make sure something is secure, especially after we spent $20 million and 5 years investigating the 2016 election for "Russian interference".
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      A simple search for "hunter biden laptop" on Facebook immediately kicks up three news articles, dozens of site posts, and (in the bubble I can see from my own friends list) several dozen posts on the topic from the point of view that the laptop was real. If this is Democratic censorship in action, it's incredibly bad at its goals.