51–60 of 236 posts
Facebook didn't doctor the video, out of all the content they could be blasted on this is pretty trivial. This is part of a larger trend in MSM to pry eyeballs away from social media and back to traditional one way media.
Facebook knew the video was doctored- it was a mainstream news story for days. They chose not to content ID it, but instead to continue spreading it. That seems deliberate.
I think several things can be true at the same time: * It's pretty worrying that our fascist-adjacent president is spreading doctored videos with essentially no repercussions. * Asking FB/Twitter/etc to police videos could be quite a mess in its own right. * This is a pressing problem for democracies around the world. (Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it freely with "people on the righ…
> Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it very freely with "people on the right they don't like". I think a person who loathes the free press, loves dictators, chafes at the idea of the rule of law, and threatens violence against political opponents fits the bill, though) You forgot "hates an independent judiciary" and "uses office for personal enrichment". Some may quibble with the use of…
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive...
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."..
Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents...
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It destroys intellectual curiosity, which the site exists for.
I don't think the idea that companies should host all content except for illegal content is a better approach. Porn is legal, as per the first amendment. Does that mean every social media platform is obligated to allow it? Furthermore it would eliminate the possibility of themed platforms. Things like pixiv and DeviantArt would have to allow content totally unrelated to art. The whole discussion is moot, at least not…
I’m more of the opinion that Facebook should be punished as an example. Don’t grow so big that your unilateral action could have devastating effects on society. Don’t do things with peoples data that remotely rises to the 1984 totalitarian level. See how fast we have publicly owned holdings companies of regional wellsfargo/BoA type banks, facebooks, credit reporting agencies, etc. It’s inline with concepts of having different forms of government at the local, regional, and federal levels.
I don't fully understand why people think Facebook should be policing content, yet no-one thinks the phone company should delete SMS messages that are spreading misinformation, or the postal service should destroy false mail etc. It it because Facebook makes it much easier to share something with a wide audience? Is it because "the algorithm" means Facebook has more responsibility than if it were a simple chronologic…
On top of that a phone call and an sms are 1 to few (mostly 1 to 1), facebook posts are 1 to many, this makes the damage exponentially greater...
I think several things can be true at the same time: * It's pretty worrying that our fascist-adjacent president is spreading doctored videos with essentially no repercussions. * Asking FB/Twitter/etc to police videos could be quite a mess in its own right. * This is a pressing problem for democracies around the world. (Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it freely with "people on the righ…
I was watching bill maher show on hbo and there was some older female guest( don't remember the name) and she was like maybe we should contact our uae friends and have them give our president the khashoggi treatment. Everyone in the room started clapping and cheering. wtf.
The audience is always extremely biased, and stops the flow of conversation every other sentence to clap and cheer. People in turn seem like they're just trying to get a soundbite off with a rise out of the audience. And then on top of this, the panels are 5 people, which feels like entirely too many.
Secondly, do you really want to make Facebook the great filter of political truth? Is this a role you want to give to a private company with its own agenda? Of course, for somebody working at The New York Times this kind of power is a dream scenario, where truth is simply whatever they write.
Criticism of the opinion article itself:
> Facebook decided to keep up a video deliberately and
> maliciously doctored to make it appear as if Speaker Nancy
> Pelosi was drunk or perhaps crazy.
Interesting wording, did Facebook decide to keep the video up or did it not decide to take it down? An assumption of malice is a dangerous place to start.
> The social media giant deemed the video a hoax and demoted
> its distribution, but the half-measure clearly didn’t
> work.
This is the truth of their opinion, only wiping all traces of problematic material from the internet is an acceptable solution, anything else is a half-measure. What if this video was a piece of art, a political statement, a meme? Is there anyone who we can trust to make the decision without asserting their own bias?
> “We think it’s important for people to make their own
> informed choice for what to believe,” [..] This is
> ridiculous.
When did a company passing the responsibility of interpretation to the viewers become controversial? Why is it ridiculous to think of content consumers as having the ability to decide what is real and what is not?
> Would a broadcast network air this? Never. Would a
> newspaper publish it? Not without serious repercussions.
> Would a marketing campaign like this ever pass muster?
> False advertising.
Newspapers and serious repercussions? You mean a (comparatively) small monetary fine at most? The biggest consequence of bad journalism I've ever seen was the phone hacking scandal for News of the World, where Rupert Murdoch was basically told to reorganize his assets and make the name "News of the World" disappear [2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDOo5nDJwgA
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between satire and downright slander if the viewers can't tell the difference if something is doctored.
Isn't it up to each viewer to determine the difference. Having some authority telling me what is or isn't real is not a world I'd choose the participate in. Let the user decide for themselves- one person's propaganda == another person's trusted source
I'm very uncomfortable with the current trend of trying to get big tech to self police. They'll never get it right because of moving goal posts and moreover I don't want a private company to have that power in shaping social discourse. If we as a society deem that type of content to be improper and that it should not be allowed on such platforms, then let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate the…
Most people would also be pretty uncomfortable with the government vicariously deciding what they can say through Facebook. I'm sure it would cut both ways, as well. Not a stretch to see a president using an "anti-fake news" provision to stop damaging news about a scandal spread about him on social media.
I don't think the idea that companies should host all content except for illegal content is a better approach. Porn is legal, as per the first amendment. Does that mean every social media platform is obligated to allow it? Furthermore it would eliminate the possibility of themed platforms. Things like pixiv and DeviantArt would have to allow content totally unrelated to art. The whole discussion is moot, at least not…
Actually, it’s entirely possible to have different legislation for different sized organizations. The tax bracket for individuals is an example. I’m more of the opinion that Facebook should be punished as an example. Don’t grow so big that your unilateral action could have devastating effects on society. Don’t do things with peoples data that remotely rises to the 1984 totalitarian level. See how fast we have publicl…
Still illegal as per the First Amendment. The government cannot compel speech, regardless of company size.
> I’m more of the opinion that Facebook should be punished as an example. Don’t grow so big that your unilateral action could have devastating effects on society. Don’t do things with peoples data that remotely rises to the 1984 totalitarian level. See how fast we have publicly owned holdings companies of regional wellsfargo/BoA type banks, facebooks, credit reporting agencies, etc. It’s inline with concepts of having different forms of government at the local, regional, and federal levels.
I'm not sure how any of this has to do with content moderation.
I think several things can be true at the same time: * It's pretty worrying that our fascist-adjacent president is spreading doctored videos with essentially no repercussions. * Asking FB/Twitter/etc to police videos could be quite a mess in its own right. * This is a pressing problem for democracies around the world. (Note: I don't use the 'f word' lightly. Too many on the left use it freely with "people on the righ…
Trump didn't spread the video, his lawyer Giuliani did. Trump pinned a video of spliced moments of Pelosi stumbling on her words: each segment was raw footage.