Jump to content
Stefani Tee
Sign in to follow this  
politics

The Hill: “Zuckerberg defends allowing misinformation in campaign ads…”

Featured Posts

MurderLipstick
44 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

That's a disingenuous argument. The position of people on the left about facebook and social media's role in shaping political opinions is NOT censor "ideas and beliefs you disagree with" its "FILTER conspiracy theories, blatant untruths, and misinformation that is MEANT to mislead people for political agendas before allowing them to run rampant because they are dangerous"

"Did Hillary kill people in 2016?" is not an "opinion, belief, or idea" to disagree with. It's a slanderous lie that is meant to drum up hatred for people while simultaneously furthering the political agendas of people who don't care at ALL about the people they are trying to convince to support them. And THAT runs contradictory to the purpose of Democracy itself. 

Far right and alt-right politics works by trying to posit Blatant lies and misinformation as "differences of opinion! look at the left, they don't believe in freedom of speech" and its a trap because they appeal to guys like Mark Zuckerberg on disingenuous principles. Obviously people believe in freedom of speech and are against censorship, so they approach it from that angle, but its not the truth. Mark Zuckerberg knows that the things these people posit on their ads and on their websites are not "differences of opinion being censored" but dangerous rhetoric that gets people KILLED and ruins lives and threatens democracy - but he is going to hide under the umbrella of "i believe we should accept all opinions, its a slippery slope" because he wants MONEY and he is afraid of losing even SOME of his wealth under a Warren or Sanders administration. He would rather throw the election and let millions of people cast their votes under the influence of white supremacists, misogynists, Russian influences, etc. if it means keeping his money. We know that he knows because he apologized for facebook's role in spreading misinformation after the 2016 election. If he didn't know the things being posted were false, he wouldn't have apologized.

Allowing misinformation in campaign ads is INDEFENSIBLE without being blatantly anti-democracy, which is why he has to hide under this ruse. Thankfully progressives and many liberals (not all) know better.

~~~

Also, for the record, I'm not responding to you expecting to change your mind, so you don't have to respond :fan: 

 I'm posting this for onlookers who may not understand the problem in his statement and who may have also fallen into the trap of their methods: "Censoring information is wrong, websites shouldnt just remove the ideas, opinions and beliefs of people they disagree with" IS an agreeable statement and many fall for it - its not their faults though, the idea is meant to cater to their democratic sensibilities.. It's just not whats happening. 

I think that is a very polarizing question/statement for use as an ad/headline, which, grabs the audiences attention, and more than likely, they open the link to continue reading. One would hope that if they chose to open the link and further read, they analyze the article, they question it, and they do further research to become more informative on certain topics at hand.....rather than rely on ONE article, or worse yet, don’t continue further analysis other than simply reading a headline and believe it’s true.

If I recall, during the 2016 election the 2012 attack on Benghazi was brought up, and criticism followed once again as some felt it was grossly mishandled and could have been avoided....alluding to the fact that Hilary Clinton and other key figures had blood on their hands. This is somewhat similar to what we see now with Trump and the Turkey and Kurds situation. Some are for it, some against it, and others who publish articles with headlines stating “Tump has blood on his hands”. All of them are opinions, beliefs, and ideas. Do you agree that a statement like that regarding Trumps decision is, what you described earlier:

“not an "opinion,belief, or idea" to disagree with. It's a slanderous lie that is meant to drum up hatred for people while simultaneously furthering the political agendas of people who don't care at ALL about the people they are trying to convince to support them. And THAT runs contradictory to the purpose of Democracy itself.”

 

  • Like 1
  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meredith Grey

Let’s not act like he doesn’t have the funds to set up SOMETHING to regulate it. He owns Facebook, Insta and other companies. It wouldn’t even take 1% of the company’s money to set something up. I understand his point but it needs to be somewhere in the middle. He should set up something to regulate to do what they can and there should be some sort of course accessible to people on social media (especially older generations) to help them sort through the misinformation. Obviously there will be people who will remain ignorant and deny taking that course but social media is only 10 years old. We need to start doing something to work with this new technology and social world that comes with it.  I mean, even just verifying sources that give honest information would be a step forward. If we don’t start at least trying to problem solve then the issues will NEVER go away.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ProjectJoanne

I mean I don’t have much of a problem with it, you just gotta learn not to trust what Facebook advertises :shrug:

DCgaga
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adakam
3 hours ago, Lord Temptation said:

 

Everyone’s point of view must be tolerated. One man’s truth is another man’s tale.

"Free uncensored speech" in facebook brought us the antivaxxer plague and climate change denialism, a raise in flat earthers and conspiracy theorists in general, and a big push for stuff like alternative medicines like essential oils that people think are a substitute for every medicine out there.

 

I get your point, but you need to realize that society is stupid and easily brainwashed, letting content flow by itself without worrying about it being real or not, has and will keep bringing HUGE problems to our society. 

  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
bxr

One-off aside, but just a note, Zucks isn’t doing this for charity (so to speak)… so within that capacity, it’s not so much about “Free Speech,” as he asserts through false equivalency; it’s about optimizing his information dissemination platform for sale to the highest bidder — which during election season, happens to be campaigns with well-endowed coffers (which, in the immediate scope, happens to include candidates who support deregulation of a media marketplace driven by exploitation (a legal term for how one generates revenue from copyright, for instance) and manipulation (of information dissemination closely straddling the line of “news entertainment”) for the purpose of profit), perhaps. So, it’s seems like it’s not about free speech, it’s about deliberately disseminating misinformation for profit — moreover, misinformation influencing and “eroding the truth” regarding public figures, power structures and political institutions maintaining and regulating society. Not sure if this makes any sense the way it’s written, but, fundamentally, I don’t think Zucks is presenting the reality of the situation at hand … so it might be worth digging a bit deeper into what he’s presenting versus the reality of his business and media channel’s practices.

Additionally, (as I think it has been aforementioned) the regulation and fact-checking is about maintaining validity of information presented as “fact,” not censoring “opinion” (i.e. 2+2 = 5 is objectively false, and does not become true under the guise of free speech when/if an advertiser pays Facebook to promote it as information (as opposed to entertainment, for instance); it would be one thing if Facebook was open to accountability in light of their staunch stance on deregulation, but Zucks wants to profit off of distribution of misinformation (propaganda) and be cleared of all accountability when the consequences detrimentally impact society at scale — which, that doesn’t make sense (but it does move dollars) …

But, tbh, I never really know, this was just a one-off “imo,” might make zero sense, and might not be binding after further review … but, in the meantime, just a fwiw memo

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
20 hours ago, MurderLipstick said:

I think that is a very polarizing question/statement for use as an ad/headline, which, grabs the audiences attention, and more than likely, they open the link to continue reading. One would hope that if they chose to open the link and further read, they analyze the article, they question it, and they do further research to become more informative on certain topics at hand.....rather than rely on ONE article, or worse yet, don’t continue further analysis other than simply reading a headline and believe it’s true.

If I recall, during the 2016 election the 2012 attack on Benghazi was brought up, and criticism followed once again as some felt it was grossly mishandled and could have been avoided....alluding to the fact that Hilary Clinton and other key figures had blood on their hands. This is somewhat similar to what we see now with Trump and the Turkey and Kurds situation. Some are for it, some against it, and others who publish articles with headlines stating “Tump has blood on his hands”. All of them are opinions, beliefs, and ideas. Do you agree that a statement like that regarding Trumps decision is, what you described earlier:

“not an "opinion,belief, or idea" to disagree with. It's a slanderous lie that is meant to drum up hatred for people while simultaneously furthering the political agendas of people who don't care at ALL about the people they are trying to convince to support them. And THAT runs contradictory to the purpose of Democracy itself.”

 

1) We already know from studies that the people getting their news from facebook and social media are not politically responsible citizens - they read a headline from an article they see on facebook or twitter, and that is IT. They don't investigate multiple sources, they don't read entire lengthy articles. It's Fox News, CNN, Facebook, and other articles posted on twitter, sometimes youtube, etc. You're giving people too much credit. These people also tend to be older and white as I recall, so a sizeable voting block in American politics.

This is why there is a vast difference in the awareness of complex issues between people that do and people that don't. I can immediately tell when I'm talking to someone who only knows headline level information or who gets their "news" from Fox or other right propaganda.

2) You're making my point here. It's facts versus fiction, and fiction pretending to be "facts" for an audience that they KNOW is under educated and easily persuaded, given what we know from my first point.

Here are the facts: Hillary was exonerated of criminal culpability in her role in Benghazi, after an excruciating ELEVEN-HOUR HEARING and EIGHT-HOUR TESTIMONY. Further briefings have stressed repeatedly that what happened in Benghazi isn't directly something Hillary Clinton is to blame for.

Here are ALSO the facts: Donald Trump decided without the advisory of his council to remove Troops, directly inviting Turkey to attack the Kurds. Bloodshed insued almost immediately afterwards. He has since supported this decision by making blatant lies: "The Kurds didn't help us" and more gaslighting "It was never our border to defend" etc. We also know he has had close talks with Erdogan surrounding this decision.

So yes, any articles that falsely exonerate Trump from this should not be passed out as fact. Trump irresponsibly and rushingly pulling troops out of Syria directly resulted in the deaths of people who considered us allies, that fought and died for American interests after 9/11 and may lead to a resurgence of ISIS and reconstitution of terrorist influence Against America in the future.

They are Not. Equatable. Any attempts to equate the two directly mislead the American people.

 

Edited by ItsTommyBitch
私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから
  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ltlmnstr

Corporatists in this threads...

Freedom of speech means the government can’t prosecute you without a viable reason. Go yell bomb when there isn’t one and see what happens.

Facebook isn’t a government entity and we can see everyday Zuckerberg is trying to become a government form of technology. Politics have been dumbed down to like/dislike buttons. It’s manipulator’s dream! This is the aftermath of Citizens United when SCOTUS said corporations are considered a people. It puts “everything has a price” to the extreme.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Temptation
19 minutes ago, ltlmnstr said:

Corporatists in this threads...

Freedom of speech means the government can’t prosecute you without a viable reason. Go yell bomb when there isn’t one and see what happens.

Facebook isn’t a government entity and we can see everyday Zuckerberg is trying to become a government form of technology. Politics have been dumbed down to like/dislike buttons. It’s manipulator’s dream! This is the aftermath of Citizens United when SCOTUS said corporations are considered a people. It puts “everything has a price” to the extreme.

Facebook has always been kind of like a shadow government. It’s only now merging with the actual government. Yes, it’s scary. But it was always inevitable. Kids of today don’t read newspapers like their parents did. And kids don’t like CNN or Fox because they are clearly biased. Facebook will eventually become like the “fourth branch” of government, and the major issue with that is how to make Facebook neutral and accountable.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Florian
22 hours ago, FATCAT said:

Russian disinformation campaigns are meant to fool average everyday people. This isn't about whether people should know fact from fiction, it's that foreign adversaries are pushing fiction as fact & then creating divides among the American people. 

Forcing platforms to filter missinformations for user is like putting concealer on dark eyes. It's a superficial trick that does not resolve the issue. What you need is to fix your bad habits of not sleeping enough.

And what people need is to be tought by parents and school to be intellectually curious, to be interest in something as important as politics and fact-check things (and that's true for more fields than just politics).

People need to stop thinking that people are dumb and that everything should be given and pre-processed for them. That's actually by thinking that people are dumb that you will really make them dumb. Take the issues at the roots instead of trying to cut leaves.

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
FATCAT
3 minutes ago, Florian said:

Forcing platforms to filter missinformations for user is like putting concealer on dark eyes. It's a superficial trick that does not resolve the issue. What you need is to fix your bad habits of not sleeping enough.

And what people need is to be tought by parents and school to be intellectually curious, to be interest in something as important as politics and fact-check things (and that's true for more fields than just politics).

People need to stop thinking that people are dumb and that everything should be given and pre-processed for them. That's actually by thinking that people are dumb that you will really make them dumb. Take the issues at the roots instead of trying to cut leaves.

Yes, it won't solve a lot of the issues that plague our political era, but it will help until we can solve those issues. It will take a generation or more to fix issues with education and political involvement, but if we can take flush the toilet from time to time it will help.

█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓ This püssy grabs back. █▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓█▓

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Temptation
10 minutes ago, Florian said:

Forcing platforms to filter missinformations for user is like putting concealer on dark eyes. It's a superficial trick that does not resolve the issue. What you need is to fix your bad habits of not sleeping enough.

And what people need is to be tought by parents and school to be intellectually curious, to be interest in something as important as politics and fact-check things (and that's true for more fields than just politics).

People need to stop thinking that people are dumb and that everything should be given and pre-processed for them. That's actually by thinking that people are dumb that you will really make them dumb. Take the issues at the roots instead of trying to cut leaves.

Thank you. I praise you and your sanity for writing this. There needs to be more personal accountability, rather than just assuming that giving 100% complete trust to an agency will deliver the best outcome. Having a certain level of distrust in news is actually healthy for our brains. We should all be allowed to question the facts. In fact, being able to question the facts IS precisely what intelligence is. 

People who are just forcefed the truth eventually die of malnutrition. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
4 hours ago, Florian said:

Forcing platforms to filter missinformations for user is like putting concealer on dark eyes. It's a superficial trick that does not resolve the issue. What you need is to fix your bad habits of not sleeping enough.

And what people need is to be tought by parents and school to be intellectually curious, to be interest in something as important as politics and fact-check things (and that's true for more fields than just politics).

People need to stop thinking that people are dumb and that everything should be given and pre-processed for them. That's actually by thinking that people are dumb that you will really make them dumb. Take the issues at the roots instead of trying to cut leaves.

None of this is a reason to not act NOW. You're suggesting more education and cultural reform, and we won't get to where u are suggesting without taking tangible steps against misinformation - and wouldn't you know it, the same people pushing for more misinformation are the same people fighting against those steps to make the public more engaged and educated. It's almost like they feed off of ignorance and don't want people to know better because thats why this works.  

Knowing the root of a problem has never been a reason to ignore the symptoms - we can and should do both.

私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering

The "right to lie" as part of free speech is a myth. Judges have said for our entire history that intentional lies were not intended to be protected. 

Lies are not inherently protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the value in protecting falsehoods is typically outweighed by the harm that they cause.

Lying under oath, lying to federal investigators, lying to Congress, libel, slander, fraud, and false advertising are already illegal. Broadcasting provable falsehoods can easily be made illegal.

Edited by Whispering
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
uo111

Money money money

We can pretend this is about other things, but we all know what this is about.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ltlmnstr
3 hours ago, Whispering said:

The "right to lie" as part of free speech is a myth. Judges have said for our entire history that intentional lies were not intended to be protected. 

Lies are not inherently protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the value in protecting falsehoods is typically outweighed by the harm that they cause.

Lying under oath, lying to federal investigators, lying to Congress, libel, slander, fraud, and false advertising are already illegal. Broadcasting provable falsehoods can easily be made illegal.

I really really agree with everything you said

But if we’re gonna buckle down on “doing our own research” ...(not you but others have said this in this thread) 

Can you provide the names of the court cases?

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...