121–130 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How is pinning the video not spreading it?
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…
>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."
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…
You dobn't have to remove the content either, lower the priority of that content dramatically compared to content about family updates. If Facebook is supposed to be about connecting people, stop the radical from using it as a cheap publishing outlet. If Facebook is a news publishing platform Mark Zuckergberg is the editor in charge. He has to pick a side because it's clear this is not sustainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>that type of content Therein lies the problem. The video was slowed down and the audio slightly distorted. I don't see a set of metrics that can capture that "type" of alteration that doesn't also capture tons of content. Unless, of course, you go down the route of saying "it's illegal to post any altered video or image of any politician."
I don't see any such law passing first amendment challenge that's why the modern censorship for the right reason supporting centrist is down relegating it to private corporations that are not beholden to the US constitution. Ultimately the fact is that freedom of speech does not actually work if people have actual freedom of speech. It only works under certain circumstances where most of the media toes the line with…
What should be the rule about what videos are banned? We don't want to ban parodies I suppose? What if the author of the Pelosi video claims it's a parody? It would be great if we could allow parodies and jokes as long as a reasonable person can tell that this is indeed a joke. But that won't work since people disagree about what's "reasonable". I guess we can require that parodies and jokes are tagged as such, so pe…
Facebook is too popular? I agree, but that is something everyone has to decide for themselves.
I do think people who are frustrated about current global politics want to restrict the net in the hopes that people adopt "correct" positions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and big tech should similarly be regulated like traditional telecommunications, where subscribers of telco A can call subscribers of telco B without problems (unlike most chat services).
What do you mean?
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.
Why is Facebook obligated to play the role of referee in games of political fact?
Because that is the role they have chosen by becoming a non neutral information distributor.
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…
Especially with regard to politicians, regulating speech in this area like that video treads right on parody. Do they ban SNL impersonations too, Latenight TV mashups? No more Dana Carvey or Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey. Is that what they want?