71–80 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is pinning the video not spreading it?
You are misreading my comment: there were two major videos of Pelosi that came to the fore recently. The one that Giuliani posted on his twitter was the one mentioned in the article, and the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down. Trump did not post this video. Trump posted the second video comprising of spliced segments of Pelosi speaking, each segment was raw footage of the House Speaker.
the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down
Broadcast television has much stronger legal standards than Facebook would ever consider, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are misreading my comment: there were two major videos of Pelosi that came to the fore recently. The one that Giuliani posted on his twitter was the one mentioned in the article, and the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down. Trump did not post this video. Trump posted the second video comprising of spliced segments of Pelosi speaking, each segment was raw footage of the House Speaker.
the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down Jimmy Kimmel has done this hundreds of times in his recurring "Drunk Donald Trump" segment over the past 3.5 years, usually with no disclaimer. Should he be censored? Broadcast television has much stronger legal standards than Facebook would ever consider, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would regulate his business and hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform. Given that he recently called for more regulation, surely he'll agree.
> I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would [...] hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that Zuckerberg should be held liable for untruthful content hosted on its platform, but you also believe that Zuckerberg should not be allowed to choose what content is hosted on its platform. How do…
I don't think the platform needs to go entirely, I just think it needs to get an incentive, financially for starters, if it fails to adhere to standards set by legislators.
Interesting how they're sidestepping the actually rather disfluent speech from Pelosi that prompted questions. Compare https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1131242531503534080 with the C-SPAN video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?460990-1/speaker-pelosi-presid... (e.g. from around 3:00): not edited.
My my Hacker News! How dare I link to an actual C-SPAN video, huh? Downvote away! Ignorance is bliss!
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…
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are misreading my comment: there were two major videos of Pelosi that came to the fore recently. The one that Giuliani posted on his twitter was the one mentioned in the article, and the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down. Trump did not post this video. Trump posted the second video comprising of spliced segments of Pelosi speaking, each segment was raw footage of the House Speaker.
the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down Jimmy Kimmel has done this hundreds of times in his recurring "Drunk Donald Trump" segment over the past 3.5 years, usually with no disclaimer. Should he be censored? Broadcast television has much stronger legal standards than Facebook would ever consider, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate speech and a slowed down video are two very different things.
slowed down to make the person look .... well sloooooooooow and senile. fact is the campaign was successful in fulfilling it's goal: disinformation. do we have to discuss if ageism is worse (more evil) than racism or vice versa? who will be the judge? isn't a spade a spade and "toxic" is simply toxic?