Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
foundation.mozilla.org
Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#2So are platforms supposed to regulate speech or not? People complain if they stay neutral and don't remove false information and people complain if they moderate and do remove false information.
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#3Sorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against Western values as disinformation.
Especially when it is described as ”This industry’s main goal is to sway public opinion during elections and protests” which is different than every other media organization how, exactly?
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#4Smallish discussion about the same topic yesterday:
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#5Why is Mozilla, of all orgs, performing foreign activism and reporting on Twitter users in hopes of getting them banned? "We want to do good", sure, but that's two bits of a stretch here.
Nothing in the article as posted indicates that the "disinformation influencers" were nefarious actors. For all the description given, it might have been grassroots citizens action, only labeled "disinformation" by officials or government-aligned sources. The end result is Mozilla making arbitrary choice between two opposing camps of political activists - and reports on Twitter users along those lines with clear hopes of getting them banned.
I'd understand the point if the activism was directly related to open internet, to freedom of expression, interoperability of services, ease of access and so forth - if there were concerns closely related to Mozilla's core mission. However nothing in the article nor in the linked PDF seem to allude to any of such concerns. It feels like a small group of Mozilla employees[1] ran this research and reported on users for their own private reasons.
[1] "in-house activists" might be a more charitable characterization
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#6Why is Mozilla, of all orgs, performing foreign activism and reporting on Twitter users in hopes of getting them banned? "We want to do good", sure, but that's two bits of a stretch here. Nothing in the article as posted indicates that the "disinformation influencers" were nefarious actors. For all the description given, it might have been grassroots citizens action, only labeled "disinformation" by officials or gove…
Mozilla has transformed into an activist organization over the last ~decade, with predictable consequences for their actual products and engineering.
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#7Sorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against Western values as disinformation. Especially when it is described as ”This industry’s main goal is to sway public opinion during elections and protests ” which is different than every other media organization how, exactly?
The whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy.
Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices.
Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices.
[edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. Legitimate here means: Society agreed to allow media to exist in the form that they do, by creating laws in support and by refraining from creating laws that would prevent them. As long as there is no political consensus and/or riots which would fundamentally undermine the media's standing, they benefit from a special role (and are held to that standard).
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#8Sorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against Western values as disinformation. Especially when it is described as ”This industry’s main goal is to sway public opinion during elections and protests ” which is different than every other media organization how, exactly?
The whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy. Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. [edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. L…
accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices
Are you seeing much of this lately? Lately as in the last 40 years? I certainly am not.
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#9So are platforms supposed to regulate speech or not? People complain if they stay neutral and don't remove false information and people complain if they moderate and do remove false information.
It's a normative continuum between full state regulation (i.e. totalitarian but defensive) and no state regulation (i.e. completely free speech but vulnerable).
The US is very liberal. Most European countries are leaning towards regulation.
See the book "How Democracies Die" for a summary of the three most prominent legal approaches.
Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya
#10Why is Mozilla, of all orgs, performing foreign activism and reporting on Twitter users in hopes of getting them banned? "We want to do good", sure, but that's two bits of a stretch here. Nothing in the article as posted indicates that the "disinformation influencers" were nefarious actors. For all the description given, it might have been grassroots citizens action, only labeled "disinformation" by officials or gove…
Mozilla has transformed into an activist organization over the last ~decade, with predictable consequences for their actual products and engineering.
Tongue in cheek but:
I really like their activist products such as container tabs, privacy enhancing technologies and reduced tracking (compared to Chrome, Safari etc).