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

31–40 of 110 posts

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#31

Post by uniqueuid »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #29
uniqueuid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, true and false are practically unusable concepts outside of (and sometimes even in) courts.

My use of (il-)legitimate ties to the legal framework, which means I don't need to take a normative (=subjective) position - I'm only describing the state of the rules and the mechanisms at play.

You can also use economic terms if you want: Illegitimate manipulation of public opinion doesn't pay (the platforms), advertisements as legitimate manipulation of public opinion pays (the platforms).

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#33

Post by uniqueuid »

denton-scratch wrote: post #28
uniqueuid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 permissi…

> 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?

Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc.

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

Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ...

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

Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#34

Post by astura »

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 are more often than not the same people. An example off the top of my head:

Florida governor signs bill barring social media companies from blocking political candidates - May 24, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/24/florida...

[Florida governor] applauds fired whistleblower’s Twitter suspension, the latest in an ongoing feud - June 7, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/07/rebekah-j...

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#35

Post by denton-scratch »

uniqueuid wrote: post #33
denton-scratch wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 permissi…

> 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? Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc. > "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask…

In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#36

Post by nradov »

astura wrote: post #30
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"A lot of people come to Twitter and they don’t actually see an app or a service, they see what kind of looks like a public square. And they have the same sort of expectations of a public square. And that is what we have to make sure that we get right. And also, make sure that everyone feels safe to participate in that public square.”

-Jack Dorsey

https://www.wired.com/story/jack-dorsey-twitters-role-free-s...

I am not endorsing his statement but Twitter's CEO apparently considers it as a town square.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#37

Post by [deleted] »

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).

[deleted]

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#38

Post by [deleted] »

justaman wrote: post #24
nateabele wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#39

Post by mc32 »

uniqueuid wrote: post #15

Having read the report, I think this is an interesting but rather weak analysis. Detection of inauthentic behavior is very hard and fraught with false positives, so it's really important to be very transparent in the methods. That said, the numbers are not too small, they do have some interviews with participants and Twitter seems to have removed some accounts - all these lend the report some credibility.

Mozilla and Twitter are US concerns. What is it their business how politics are conducted in other countries?

What’s the difference between Mozilla and United Fruit when it comes to political interference? They both were are agitating for their PoV and not concerned with local mores. They both have foreign agendas.

One could argue United fruit advanced agriculture and provided jobs whereas Mozilla gets involved but provides no jobs to locals. Yes United fruit engaged in bad behavior but Mozilla should not get a pass either for interfering in foreign affairs.

Re: Disinformation-for-hire in Kenya

#40

Post by harikb »

dexen wrote: post #5

Why 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…

The article is blaming Twitter for being callous with its trending algorithms being abused with some coordination between larger number of folks. I think this is very much Mozilla’s business, just as much as any campaign in the West.

The researchers are based in Kenya, writing about Kenyans. They just happen to be employed by Mozilla. Sorry I don’t get why that is a problem?

Post reply on HN