5 ms·

The implication from the committee is that these companies should have monitored and suppressed/censored their users harder? Is the committee looking for a scap

by umvi 5y ago

The implication from the committee is that these companies should have monitored and suppressed/censored their users harder? Is the committee looking for a scapegoat or something?

tonfreed 5y ago
Amazing that you can burn down all the poor areas in cities all across the US and be declared heroes by these people, but by gosh if you raid the Congress candy drawer you're in deep trouble.
geodel 5y ago
Well, I mean ofcourse. They are just "restoring" the democracy
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 5y ago
Is it? What I got from the quotations the article chose to use was “we don’t have enough info and we think you have not told us everything we need to know to about what happened”.
gilbetron 5y ago
No, the "inadequate response" they are talking about is that the companies didn't give them the information the committee is asking for. So they are using subpoenas to get it. If there is a trump org, or connected org, that was pushing propaganda on Facebook trying to get people to do something violent, that is extremely important and fully within congress' mandate to have access to. Likewise, if the opposite occurred, and if there isn't any propaganda or misinformation, that's important as well.
DerpyBaby123 5y ago
Why do you jump to that conclusion? Youtube's algo is long suspected of pushing more and more extreme/radical content, and the comittee seems to be looking for more information on if that process affected the Jan 6 riot That's not looking for a scapegoat; it's looking for a set of root causes
- jimbob45 5y ago
  YouTube shows you more of what you look for. If it stops doing that, people will use a 3rd-party search tool that lawmakers will be unable to censor (e.g. Reddit, Digg, 9gag, 4chan). It's a scapegoat. If you want people to stop looking up content about distrusting the government, the solution is a more transparent government, not to stop them from watching the content.
  - DerpyBaby123 5y ago
    It doesn't just do that, it pushes you more and more into specific niches. It doesn't have to do that either, but Youtube has designed it to do it, to put users into the famous Youtube Rabbit Hole. This rabbit hole encourages extremism in some people, and that can be harmful to society. Why the defeatist attitude, that huge companies have to encourage extremism or people will stop using their products? That's non-sensical
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I sense there are two processes at work here. One is simply an algorithm that recommends more of the same. If I watch a Jordan Peterson video, I start seeing recommendations for his other lectures and podcasts. I doubt YouTube's algorithm is specifically trying to change my views politically. Likewise, if I end up seeing a lefty BreadTuber's video, I start to see more socialist videos. The other thing is that we really don't have shared definition or word-feel for "extremism". The people who are the most vocal about curbing extremist content also happen to be wildly partisan. I don't think that is a coincidence. I sense the false-positive rate is extremely high in this regard.
    - 5y ago
dukeofdoom 5y ago
shrimpx 5y ago
They’re trying to find out if Facebook intentionally bypassed their own policies and allowed election propaganda to run wild because it was to their benefit. (E.g., a trump coup would have been good for Facebook.) Basically are they stupid or evil. And if they’re evil, is there a larger conspiracy involving other people of interest?

by umvi 5y ago

The implication from the committee is that these companies should have monitored and suppressed/censored their users harder? Is the committee looking for a scapegoat or something?

tonfreed 5y ago

Amazing that you can burn down all the poor areas in cities all across the US and be declared heroes by these people, but by gosh if you raid the Congress candy drawer you're in deep trouble.

geodel 5y ago

Well, I mean ofcourse. They are just "restoring" the democracy

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ben_w 5y ago

Is it? What I got from the quotations the article chose to use was “we don’t have enough info and we think you have not told us everything we need to know to about what happened”.

gilbetron 5y ago

No, the "inadequate response" they are talking about is that the companies didn't give them the information the committee is asking for. So they are using subpoenas to get it. If there is a trump org, or connected org, that was pushing propaganda on Facebook trying to get people to do something violent, that is extremely important and fully within congress' mandate to have access to. Likewise, if the opposite occurred, and if there isn't any propaganda or misinformation, that's important as well.

DerpyBaby123 5y ago

Why do you jump to that conclusion? Youtube's algo is long suspected of pushing more and more extreme/radical content, and the comittee seems to be looking for more information on if that process affected the Jan 6 riot That's not looking for a scapegoat; it's looking for a set of root causes

jimbob45 5y ago
YouTube shows you more of what you look for. If it stops doing that, people will use a 3rd-party search tool that lawmakers will be unable to censor (e.g. Reddit, Digg, 9gag, 4chan). It's a scapegoat. If you want people to stop looking up content about distrusting the government, the solution is a more transparent government, not to stop them from watching the content.
- DerpyBaby123 5y ago
  It doesn't just do that, it pushes you more and more into specific niches. It doesn't have to do that either, but Youtube has designed it to do it, to put users into the famous Youtube Rabbit Hole. This rabbit hole encourages extremism in some people, and that can be harmful to society. Why the defeatist attitude, that huge companies have to encourage extremism or people will stop using their products? That's non-sensical
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I sense there are two processes at work here. One is simply an algorithm that recommends more of the same. If I watch a Jordan Peterson video, I start seeing recommendations for his other lectures and podcasts. I doubt YouTube's algorithm is specifically trying to change my views politically. Likewise, if I end up seeing a lefty BreadTuber's video, I start to see more socialist videos. The other thing is that we really don't have shared definition or word-feel for "extremism". The people who are the most vocal about curbing extremist content also happen to be wildly partisan. I don't think that is a coincidence. I sense the false-positive rate is extremely high in this regard.
  - 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago

shrimpx 5y ago

They’re trying to find out if Facebook intentionally bypassed their own policies and allowed election propaganda to run wild because it was to their benefit. (E.g., a trump coup would have been good for Facebook.) Basically are they stupid or evil. And if they’re evil, is there a larger conspiracy involving other people of interest?