131–140 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But people clearly want to see what's popular in their own bubble. Facebook just gives people what they want.
Like heroin dealers? Because people want it doesn't mean that it can be part of a stable society.
I think part of the problem here is that Facebook doesn't want to be an impartial common carrier, so they have to take responsibility for "content". Then you have one of the most influential venues (which has taken over much of the use cases of the original open Web and Internet) having to answer to politicians about what speech it should censor.
I remember some years ago that when papers wrote articles about how they will keep being critical on Facebook, despite their cooperation. That was sad to read.
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…
In the US that would require a constitutional amendment to alter the First Amendment. The chances of that happening are infinitesimally small compared to companies being shamed into doing that "right thing" through public pressure.
The US has truth-in-advertising laws, which forbid advertisers to make certain kinds of deceptive claims. I'm not sure whether the Supreme Court has explicitly considered whether they're constitutional, but it's certainly heard plenty of cases related to those laws and never taken the opportunity to say "oh, and by the way, laws against false advertising are unconstitutional".
If there's some reason why a law forbidding the use of faked/manipulated videos for political propaganda would be more inconsistent with the First Amendment than those, I'm not seeing it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.
Not as a communication platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.
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?
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…
Word "every" implies that there are a lot of them in more or less equal competition, but there aren't. The issue here is monopoly: Facebook and Twitter have too much influence.
Social media should go through process of federalisation and become like email and websites, so that every user can consume content hosted by different companies and each of those companies can determine it's own rules on 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…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is pinning the video not spreading it?
It's a different video. The one Trump retweeted is undoctored footage of Pelosi stumbling over words, because she actually does that.
People “know” Trump spread the video, even though it’s simple irrefutable fact that he did not.
The media is often responsible for amplifying and distorting an act to the point where the original act and actor are indistinguishable. Kind of exactly like what happened in the doctored video.
This is perhaps an incredible example of the pot calling the kettle black. Just yesterday, the TIMES reporter tweeting a fake quote of the President, only admitting he made it up after it went viral, and claiming, “it was plausible”.
IMO the media does this against Trump pervasively and highly effectively, to the point where it is nearly impossible to distinguish what Trump may have actually said, forget about what he meant.
I’d say the Charlottesville comments are probably the most famous example of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The Nancy Pelosi videos tread on propaganda. It's being used to convince people "Wacky Nancy" or whatever Trump calls her is not fit for office, using actual news clips. It's clearly different from parody provided by a comedian on a show known for being a sketch comedy show.
If the video would have been right at home on late night television, it should be right at home on Facebook.
Do you think the late night shows aren’t being used to convince people to feel a certain way about Trump?
This is the shoe on the other foot, and if doesn’t feel so right, the wrong lesson is to blame the foot.