Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 110 posts

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#21

Post by uniqueuid »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #17

> "New research by two Mozilla Fellows reveals how malicious, coordinated, and inauthentic attacks on Twitter are undermining Kenyan civil society" i am glad that we here in the west are not subject to this sort of social media engineering and can participate in open and thoughtful debate on topics no matter how our elites feel about them

I honestly can't tell if you are cynical.

Because this is exactly what is the case! We are here and can participate in these discussions, more than ever before in history.

There are limits to free discussions (i.e. if you threaten or plot to kill somebody), but these limits have never been less in any country in any time.

So - let's not be overly pessimistic?

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#22

Post by ceilingcorner »

uniqueuid wrote: post #19
ceilingcorner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR is just as biased and deliberately misleading as any other organization. The fact that they have a link on their website is not much proof of anything. Replying to your edit: well, that is my point. They are all biased. This idea that having a public code of conduct means anything is nonsense. When’s the last time a mainstream media organization was held accountable for anything? Even the people that helped sell…

I'm sorry that you are downvoted, because your perception is pretty common and not completely wrong. There are many well-documented cases where accountability failed, and brilliant people have written about it (Chomsky, Lippmann etc.). But - and this is really important - it's not helpful to cynically assume that either everything is OK or that there is no accountability/meaning/use at all. All of the important thing…

I wouldn’t say I am cynical, merely realistic. In my opinion, it is a fool’s errand to think that accountability or unbiased news is even a possibility. It goes against the nature of the thing. An unbiased media has never been the case and never will be. Full stop.

Thus it is better to recognize that no single entity will ever be truly honest and to instead read a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#23

Post by ziml77 »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #13
ziml77 wrote: post #2

So 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.

Those are different people though? I don't think you can make everyone happy.

They can be the same people. A mentality of "delete the things I don't like, but you better not touch the things I do like"

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#24

Post by justaman »

nateabele wrote: post #20
uniqueuid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Fair, but there's a difference between creating tools that one may choose to opt into on an individual basis, and attempting to arbitrate truth on a societal level.

Without this activism, they could not compete with the big players in tech. At its essence, this activism is advocating for an alternative to the privacy unfriendly or in this case disinformation that is largely driven by "rage-clicks". It creates a conversation about the future of the information age outside of the business centric motive actions shown by say google.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#26

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

ziml77 wrote: post #2

So 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.

I'm confused as well. When it benefits these platforms to be private orgs they claim to be within their rights as a private org. When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square. If you think that moderating posts infringes on free speech then perhaps they should be regulated as a utility?

I personally have no issue with any of these platforms moderating to their heart's content for the following reasons:

We are entitled to free speech but we are not entitled to use Twitter's megaphone.

I am against megaphones. I don't like companies like Twitter. With any hope, the more they moderate the more people will move away from centralized platforms. Don't regulate them and they will moderate themselves out of existence (I wish).

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#27

Post by modo_mario »

uniqueuid wrote: post #10
ceilingcorner wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think he might be talking about other kinds of activism

They also do things like give a quarter million to black artists to make art about the effects of AI on systems of oppression. Half a million to broadband towers in the american south. Money for wetland restoration.

This may all seem neat and fine to do if they have that kind of money to hand out but these things come around the same time of having had a large swat of firings of people working on their projects like the Servo team, people working on firefox, etc. (The board also expanded and mitchell baker notably had her compensation increased by quite a lot)

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#28

Post by denton-scratch »

uniqueuid wrote: post #7
ceilingcorner wrote: post #3

Sorry 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…

> Media are legitimate influences

> Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence

So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex?

> Society agreed to allow media to exist

"Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it.

> (and are held to that standard)

Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#29

Post by AbrahamParangi »

uniqueuid wrote: post #7
ceilingcorner wrote: post #3

Sorry 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…

Fascinating to see this framed as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" vs true and false. I wonder how much disagreement on the topic comes from the distinctions in these meanings.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#30

Post by astura »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #26
ziml77 wrote: post #2

So 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.

I'm confused as well. When it benefits these platforms to be private orgs they claim to be within their rights as a private org. When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square. If you think that moderating posts infringes on free speech then perhaps they should be regulated as a utility? I personally have no issue with any of these platforms moderating to their heart'…

>When it's beneficial to claim they're a town square of sorts then suddenly they're a town square.

When did Twitter ever claim to be a "Town Square?" Furthermore, when would it benefit them to claim that?

Post reply on HN