5 ms·
The ex-CIA agents deciding Facebook's content policy (2022)
- alephnerd 1y ago[flagged]
- impossiblefork 1y agoWasn't that reasonable though, considering what came after? Obviously there's some deal with the Turks so that we'll tolerate their guys running it, but you know they're terrorists and murderers, right?
- bhouston 1y agoIs this article incorrect in itself? I am confused about your objection. There is a lot of reporting on Meta's collaboration with IDF in restricting content: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palestine-censorship-sjp/ https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti... https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/... > has consistently interviewed Houthi leadership. Why should we ban someone who interviews leaders of news making groups? I don't like Netanyahu, and he is wanted for international war crimes, but I don't advocate banning news sources that interview him.
- alephnerd 1y agoIf they give a proscribed terrorist organization an actual platform WITHOUT pushback then they are biased. CNN or NYT will bring Israeli government and IDF spox but also ask hard questions about civilian casualties (and Israelis get annoyed by that) and/or bring in a spox on the Palestinian or activist side. Yet MintPress does the opposite by providing fawning coverage for them and other movements that were previously allied with the Assad government. PBS has interviewed the Houthis via Frontline, yet also made sure to also push harsh and tough questions about their atrocities. MintPress didn't. > Is this article incorrect in itself I do not trust it. At some point you need to also validate whether your source is credible or not. And MintPress simply is not a credible source. Edit: Cannot reply below, so I will say this about the BBC - they try to be unbiased where possible and have reported on Houthi war crimes such as child soldiers on multiple occasions. A credible news source is a source that tries to reduce it's bias where possible and rectify by giving multiple different sides a voice Otherwise, it's an agenda-driven platform.
- bhouston 1y ago> proscribed terroist organization Terrorist designations are local to each country and the language you are using is UK language. Which countries rules do you want to enforce here in your censorship? > CNN or NYT will bring Israeli government and IDF spox but also ask hard questions about civilian casualties Also do we have to ban BBC News from here for interview Houthis? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOH00weB24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOH00weB24 > I do not trust it. At some point you need to also validate whether your source is credible or not. And MintPress simply is not a credible source. "I do not trust it" is the worst response. Find a reason to say it is incorrect rather than these double standard censorship claims. Or just downvote it and move on.
- buyucu 1y agoMeta has basically been taken over by US and Israeli intelligence agencies.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- drukenemo 1y agoIt was always in their hands.
- giancarlostoro 1y agoIf you see "Trust and Safety" it is actually a partnership between major tech companies. It provides guidance on how their TOS / community standards should be defined. Twitter was also a member until Elon bought it out. This is where things like policies on misinformation come from (or anything in general really). Every major social media company you can imagine is part of it, Discord, Reddit, Meta, Apple, etc. The part that always concerns me is things like this are ripe for abuse. Whoever controls the partnership potentially controls all major platforms. They'll say you dont have to follow it to the letter, but that doesn't mean some wont. This is also why when reddit changes internal rules Discord follows suit. I am interested in this subject because I've seen Facebook become hostile over the years on specific types of remarks. I actually quit Facebook over its AI moderation, I made a harmless meme / joke comment and it flagged me, and when I appealed, it flagged me. Meanwhile others post much worse and I get dinged for making meme references that harm no one, my what? 50 friends on facebook will read it and not get my reference? I've also seen other platforms shift their policies (a reddit comment section today is a night and day difference from a reddit thread in say 2010). Digital Trust & Safety Partnership website here: https://dtspartnership.org/ https://dtspartnership.org/
- jennyholzer 1y agodoes "a partnership between major tech companies" mean "centralized control"?
- giancarlostoro 1y agoThat's my question after learning about DTS.
- newsclues 1y agoPartners are big tech and government (or government staffed and funded 3rd parties).
- potato3732842 1y agoIt's not "centralized control" in the same way that a closed market with a few players not caring to compete on price isn't a "conspiracy" to keep prices high. Nobody is coordinating, corresponding or otherwise conspiring but everyone is smart enough to know what's good for them.
- jennyholzer 1y agoMy cousin doesn't buy it when I tell him the United States has more aggressively censored media than China.
- jennyholzer 1y agowe're 20 years into social media 1984 and Americans still want to believe that it's unimaginably worse in China.
- ch4s3 1y agoIt seem by all account imaginably worse in China, particularly in Xinjiang. I might also call to attention the disappearance from western social media of a prominent Chinese maker. I'm also unaware of anyone in the US being sent to prison for political speech online.
- buyucu 1y agoJulian Assange might disagree with that.
- ch4s3 1y agoWhat exactly did he say online that got him accused of espionage? I seem to remember the issue being that he was accused of conspiring with Manning to release classified documents, and possibly gaining unauthorized access to congressional records via an exploit in the systems access controls. I don't like the idea of the US government hounding journalists who work with leakers, but Assange was always tiptoeing up to and possibly just past laws unrelated to speech. I not a simple and straightforward case and does not prove that the US is like China in terms of censorship. You can be jailed in China for simply talking about the Tienanmen Square massacre or implying Taiwanese sovereignty, nothing comparable happens in the US.
- buyucu 1y agoWhen China throws people into prison, it's authoritarianism. When America does it, it's for FREEDOM!!!! This is you in a nutshell.
- varelse 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago(2022) Discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32191637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32191637
- zthrowaway 1y agoI remember when this was dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy theory.
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]
- r721 1y ago>Originally published: MintPress News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
- guizadillas 1y agoRight now Tiktok is suppressing any content related to the LA protests, they adopted new terms to avoid this censorship by saying they are 'music festivals' It reminds me of the play on words they do in Chinese's social media to avoid this kind of censorship
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lobf 1y ago>It reminds me of the play on words they do in Chinese's social media to avoid this kind of censorship A new way of speaking which removes nuance and is formed entirely of acceptable concepts and terminology as determined by the regime. We could call it newspeak. Seems double-plus ungood to me.
- legitster 1y agoKeep in mind the government pumps tens of thousands of enlisted through military intelligence analyst programs every year. These people are trained to sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day reading mostly garbage and making objective summaries. So a lot of highly trained intelligence analysts hit the market every year (I personally know about half a dozen). It's just going to be natural that some of the more experienced intelligence analysts are going to be sought out for these content moderation positions, especially now that foreign and nation-state actors are present. I am pretty skeptical more of the more "deep-state"/"thought-police" concerns. Obviously these people are going to be biased towards collecting intelligence and collaborating with the government. But the CIA would almost certainly rather keep any media manipulation campaigns clandestine and in-house rather than trust former analysts to do their bidding.
- skarz 1y ago>These people are trained to sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day reading mostly garbage and making objective summaries. You just described the entire Cyber Mission Force, lol.
- MeIam 1y agoEven the article itself gives people a pause in order to avoid being blacklisted. It basically says that they are watching you so you will self censor.