Haha that is funny. Gotta watch that video!
To the critics of free speech: I don’t think it will make me think less of Nancy Pelosi - in my book she is already ranked at the very bottom.
Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
81–90 of 236 posts
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#82that article is pushing the idea that Social networks should be better at policing speech on their platform.
As said in other comments pushing for more self policing is the worst thing that could happen for democracy and free-speech. The last thing I want is for a small clique of silicon valley tech execs to decide what I should or should not see on my feed.
I see two solutions on this:
- Censorship is coming from an elected government body
- No censorship and we let people decide what is news and what is fake news.
But having Zuck and his team manipulate newsfeed to push a political or social agenda is a terrible idea. This article is a shame.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#83that article is pushing the idea that Social networks should be better at policing speech on their platform. As said in other comments pushing for more self policing is the worst thing that could happen for democracy and free-speech. The last thing I want is for a small clique of silicon valley tech execs to decide what I should or should not see on my feed. I see two solutions on this: - Censorship is coming from an…
How are people supposed to make that decision if they are not armed with the information needed? If they only see the fake version, how will they know to even question it?
Truth matters. News distributers are expected to fact check and should be held accountable when spreading falsehoods.
Removing provably false manipulated media is not itself a manipulation. It is a correction.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#84that article is pushing the idea that Social networks should be better at policing speech on their platform. As said in other comments pushing for more self policing is the worst thing that could happen for democracy and free-speech. The last thing I want is for a small clique of silicon valley tech execs to decide what I should or should not see on my feed. I see two solutions on this: - Censorship is coming from an…
How are people supposed to make that decision if they are not armed with the information needed? If they only see the fake version, how will they know to even question it? Truth matters. News distributers are expected to fact check and should be held accountable when spreading falsehoods. Removing provably false manipulated media is not itself a manipulation. It is a correction.
Agreed, except Facebook is not a news distributor.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#85I 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…
tl;dr: yes, it's "the algorithm" Facebook (and Youtube et al) have chosen not to be content-agnostic distribution platforms (unlike the postal service and SMS). They perform a variety of editorial functions to curate content and provide recommendations with the objective of maximizing engagement and hence advertising impressions that they can sell. This is popularly known as "the algorithm". Given that these platform…
But "the algorithm" is impartial. Editorialized content implies there's a message being driven.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
the footage and audio was distorted and slowed down Jimmy Kimmel has done this hundreds of times in his recurring "Drunk Donald Trump" segment over the past 3.5 years, usually with no disclaimer. Should he be censored? Broadcast television has much stronger legal standards than Facebook would ever consider, too.
No, because it's comedy. If people are getting what they consider "news" from late night comedy they don't understand the purpose of the show. I'd say the same thing about the Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, etc. They're not news, they're comedy shows that focus on current events. The larger elephant in the room are the news network opinion shows like Hannity and Carlson. These shows open with something to the effect…
Why do we expect people to make this distinction for TV but not for things they read on the internet?
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#87A partial distributed solution would be for trusted sites to vouch for a hash of the video file, and the browser to be configured to flag or filter untrusted content. E.g. NYT, the DNC, Pelosi's own site, etc., would flag a hash of a file as valid. Those sites would be aggregated into a web of trust. Users subscribe to nodes of that web, e.g. I trust reporter A, celebrity B, newspaper C, advocacy group D ... and thei…
Corporate censorship built in to my browser? I'll pass.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
tl;dr: yes, it's "the algorithm" Facebook (and Youtube et al) have chosen not to be content-agnostic distribution platforms (unlike the postal service and SMS). They perform a variety of editorial functions to curate content and provide recommendations with the objective of maximizing engagement and hence advertising impressions that they can sell. This is popularly known as "the algorithm". Given that these platform…
But "the algorithm" is impartial. Editorialized content implies there's a message being driven.
The selection of the algorithm is not impartial. Algorithms are chosen to maximize some quantity for the benefit of the corporation.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
But "the algorithm" is impartial. Editorialized content implies there's a message being driven.
The selection of the algorithm is not impartial. Algorithms are chosen to maximize some quantity for the benefit of the corporation.
Impartial as in it's not treating certain types of content differently. It's one thing if "the algorithm" decided to push (or censor) an anti-Pelosi agenda across the board, another if it pushes anti-Pelosi content to people who already are anti-Pelosi.
Re: Nancy Pelosi and Fakebook Dirty Tricks
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The selection of the algorithm is not impartial. Algorithms are chosen to maximize some quantity for the benefit of the corporation.
Impartial as in it's not treating certain types of content differently. It's one thing if "the algorithm" decided to push (or censor) an anti-Pelosi agenda across the board, another if it pushes anti-Pelosi content to people who already are anti-Pelosi.
The entire point of a content algorithm is that it handles different content differently.
Regardless, the selection of the algorithm is not impartial. Content is pushed up or down to maximize engagement or whatever metric Facebook has decided it wants to maximize.