151–160 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they allow BS they agree What BS specifically do you disagree with? Do you realize your own bias with that statement?
yup, bias is unavoidable. human rights organizations are obviously biased and not only am okay with that, but I support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech Punishing people for spreading information you don't like in the name of protecting free speech is double speak
Punishing people who willfully concocts false information and disseminates for the purpose of spreading racist/intolerant views are very different than what you've highlighted. Thinking a group of people is lesser than you because of the arrangement of their skin color pigmentation, and crying freedom of speech is being attacked, is not going to get you a lot of sympathy, especially when you now try to actively shut…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speed and scale of speech do not impact whether or not it's got an equal seat at the table. It just means you're cool with any expression as long as it's not threatening. Which there's nothing special about, it's how basically everyone is by default. There's no principle there.
Propaganda is used because it works and scale ends up changing type. Consider the difference from 1 dead cell vs 1 million dead cells at the tip of your finger vs 1 billion dead cells in your arm.
So how does Facebook really know if something is fake? You can't trust user reports. They will say a story is fake when they don't like it. You can't trust some worker in Bangladesh to determine this either just as easily as you can determine if something is NSFW. You still can't trust AI. So how? It hires specialists in each field to determine what is real and what is not?
Which is strange, because didn't they just get a lot of flak for having "editors" that they subsequently had to let go?
The risk here is not that the system will have bad goals, it's that it's easy for manipulation to redefine the core terms used to classify "bad" content. Even now, we regularly see even clear terms like "correct" or "incorrect" applied by fact-checking websites through a fairly biased lens. This is not a partisan issue, when you start down the road of handing the keys to shaping public thought to a powerful party, yo…
The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven f…
You'll likely attract down votes with this edit regardless of whether members agree with the sentiment, as it's counter to the guidelines:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
So how does Facebook really know if something is fake? You can't trust user reports. They will say a story is fake when they don't like it. You can't trust some worker in Bangladesh to determine this either just as easily as you can determine if something is NSFW. You still can't trust AI. So how? It hires specialists in each field to determine what is real and what is not?
Articles is a pretty charitable term for them I guess but headlines like:
"Tiffany Trump's IQ will shock you" "You won't believe what she looks like today" "Plastic surgery nightmares"
and so on... does Salon get docked for Outbrain's lack of integrity? Does Salon's "organic shares" get penalized? What about sputnik news or Russia Today (RT.com)?
I think it is a great step in the right direction, but they have far more responsibility than just refusing money from them for ads.
Bots on the Hamilton 68 dashboard http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/ clearly work together to amplify the voices of antidemocratic forces. FB & twitter should (in my opinion) detect and prevent fake-viral root and branch.
Unfortunately we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, we could have completely open and unfiltered platforms which guarantee freedom of expression but at the same time leave our institutions (public and private) vulnerable to malicious influence. On the other hand, we could attempt to build systems whose purpose is to remove fake news, so defending ourselves against a particularly aggressive fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crowds up close in the ceremony but further out Obama had more overflow.
I'm talking about images like this: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump... . You can count the lanes that run across the mall before you see any open space, and the photo on the right was clearly not taken any time near the actual ceremony because my memory of live video and recorded video during the ceremony simply doesn't come close to matching. I really don't care how it actually compares…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/...
The risk here is not that the system will have bad goals, it's that it's easy for manipulation to redefine the core terms used to classify "bad" content. Even now, we regularly see even clear terms like "correct" or "incorrect" applied by fact-checking websites through a fairly biased lens. This is not a partisan issue, when you start down the road of handing the keys to shaping public thought to a powerful party, yo…
The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven f…