OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[I'm a loser baby...]

I dunno but Facebook certainly reads a f**k tonne. Did you see the news about them paying for all these moderators with various mental f**kouts?

I presume they would need reporting, and then would be assessed? Repeat shit-talkers get moderated more?

I didn't see that. And I assume you're probably close to right about the process but even so, I reckon it's going to be a novelty for a little while but will wear off and draw no more clicks. And they're stuck with the expense.

 

[Bazal]

I didn't see that. And I assume you're probably close to right about the process but even so, I reckon it's going to be a novelty for a little while but will wear off and draw no more clicks. And they're stuck with the expense.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/12/facebook-moderators-ptsd-settlement/

Just the first link I Googled. Pretty nuts though, really.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/12/facebook-moderators-ptsd-settlement/

Just the first link I Googled. Pretty nuts though, really.

I can imagine that really would do damage.

 

[wilco44]

This forum is crazy - 1 hour to log in and there is no support! WTF!

 

[Twizzle]

This forum is crazy - 1 hour to log in and there is no support! WTF!

say what ?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Project veritas? Lmao

Well no left wing fact checker was ever going to record big tech employees discussing shadow banning people they don't like.

Oh, and it seems you pulled that from the Twitter, so again, where;s the censorship?

As discussed in the video, the censorship is in shadow bans - hiding some content while promoting others.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Are they, though?

Or are they acknowledging things which may not be factual? There's a difference. After all, they don't present the posts, they just host them.

And anyway, a publisher has no obligation to publish facts. Have you used the right word there? (And I don't mean that in a snarky way btw)

'
Honestly, mate, I dunno, but it's the word that's being bandied around atm. Whether it's technically true in a legal sense...?

The point is there, though, which I get.

Looking at LU, where we are right now, and how they delete posts - could it be said that it might be for related reasons? Would, perhaps, Twitter have some legal reason for, let's say, making sure that blatant falsehoods (if that's what this is) aren't just left to run rampant?

I dunno, but what is clear is the likes of Twitter have changed what they do. Facebook has "fact checkers", too. Surely there are legal ramifications there and by changing what they do it also changes what they are...?

What that means...well, isn't Trump about to sign some EO around social media? Guess we won't have to wait too long to find out.

 

[Bandwagon]

Well no left wing fact checker was ever going to record big tech employees discussing shadow banning people they don't like.

As discussed in the video, the censorship is in shadow bans - hiding some content while promoting others.

Again, Lmao, Veritas aint no "fact checker"

They're more like some kinda propaganda driven lie machine, On the scale of credibility where one is sucky and ten is saintly, they'd rate about minus seven.

 

[Bandwagon]

'
Honestly, mate, I dunno, but it's the word that's being bandied around atm. Whether it's technically true in a legal sense...?

The point is there, though, which I get.

Looking at LU, where we are right now, and how they delete posts - could it be said that it might be for related reasons? Would, perhaps, Twitter have some legal reason for, let's say, making sure that blatant falsehoods (if that's what this is) aren't just left to run rampant?

I dunno, but what is clear is the likes of Twitter have changed what they do. Facebook has "fact checkers", too. Surely there are legal ramifications there and by changing what they do it also changes what they are...?

What that means...well, isn't Trump about to sign some EO around social media? Guess we won't have to wait too long to find out.

I don't think that facts have much to do with anything regards their status as a platform rather than a publisher.

There's an argument that if they exercise control over content then they are indeed a publisher, but then there are also areas where they ( or any social media platform ) are required by law to exercise control over content. Such as say terrorist or pedo shit.

Then there is the whole Russian interference thing from the 2016 election, which had all kinds of law enforcement crawling up their arse.

I think the whole argument is are they a conduit for content, or are they a creator of content, and that probably would revolve more around who makes money out of the content, where the money comes from, and how that money is made.

 

[Twizzle]

Looking at LU, where we are right now, and how they delete posts - could it be said that it might be for related reasons?

no it couldn't

posts are moderated (deleted) mainly for legal reasons, to protect the site primarily and the member secondary, most are removed for potential libel and/or defamation

 

[Gronk]

As Trump claims powers he doesn't have, Twitter draft order points to game plan
Trump's assertion that he could force governors to reopen their economies before they felt ready. "When somebody's the president of the United States, the authority is total," he claimed.

Trump soon dropped the threat, saying he would instead leave such decisions to the states. But he has revived the idea in recent days as he has tried to pressure governors to allow churches and other places of worship to hold in-person services, even where stay-at-home orders and other limits on large gatherings remain in effect.

When the President declared the pandemic a national emergency back in March, he activated more than 100 different statutory authorities. Yet Trump, said Vladeck, has failed to exercise many of them.

"I think one of the real ironies of this entire moment is that the President actually has a remarkable array of powers that he hasn't brought to bear. All the while he continues to claim stunning powers that he doesn't have," he said.

That includes the Defence Production Act, which Trump could have used far more aggressively to force companies to mass produce supplies like masks and ventilators. Instead, he used it in more limited ways. And while the Justice Department has threatened to join lawsuits against states that move too slowly, a statement of interest filed by the department in Illinois last week didn't raise any federal constitutional claims.

Jack Dorsey, co-founder and CEO of Twitter.

Photo: AP
Trump's threatened executive order - it could come as early as Thursday US time - is understood to request a review of a law that has long protected Twitter, Facebook and Google from being responsible for the material posted by their users, according to a draft seen by Reuters and a source familiar with the situation.

The order could change before it is finalised. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose and clarify regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law largely exempting online platforms from legal liability for the material their users post. Such changes could expose tech companies to more lawsuits.

The order asks the FCC to examine whether actions related to the editing of content by social media companies should potentially lead to the platform forfeiting its protections under section 230.

It requires the agency to look at whether a social media platform uses deceptive policies to moderate content and if its policies are inconsistent with its terms of service.

The draft also states that the White House Office of Digital Strategy will re-establish a tool to help citizens report cases of online censorship.

Called the White House Tech Bias Reporting Tool, it will collect complaints of online censorship and submit them to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

It requires the FTC to then "consider taking action", look into whether complaints violate the law, develop a report describing such complaints and make the report publicly available.

The draft order also requires the Attorney-General to establish a working group including state attorneys-general that will examine the enforcement of state laws that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts.

Federal spending on online advertising will also be reviewed by US government agencies to ensure there are no speech restrictions by the relevant platform.

Even if he doesn't follow through on threats, Trump's statements still can have consequences as he uses his bully pulpit.

"He's still trying to wield his often outrageous interpretations of the law as a cudgel to bludgeon others," said Joshua Geltzer, founding executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Centre.

For Rutgers University media professor John Pavlik, who studies online misinformation, Trump is simply trying to fire up his political base.

"For Trump," he said, "this is about politics."

AP, Reuters

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...rder-points-to-game-plan-20200528-p54xfn.html

 

[Gronk]

100k covid deaths. Protests about the death in custody of (another) black person and he is worried about his right to refute (or create) fake news on social media.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Bums on seats is bums on seats, the CFO wouldn't give a f**k why they're there, only that for whatever the reason is, they keep on coming back for it.

I f**king guarantee you that whatever view is projected of the politics of Twitter as an organisation, it's a thoughtfully crafted one, with the idea being to maximise Twitter's profit.

I was joking about the bums on seats things. Thats not how it would play out if they were to strongly poke the bear. People will f**king boycott.

I highly doubt that they'd be happy with the prospect of a large number of people hating them. Their corporate communications folks would be having conniptions if it were to flare up. Social licence = $ and even the CFO listens to that.

A couple of 'fact check' labels is neither here nor there but they have set a marker and I'm interested to see how much further they go.

 

[strider]

Crazy shit live on 9 news atm in minneapolis

 

[strider]

Crowds in streets. Police scared inside.

White dude stabs black dude in crowd.

People catch white dude hold him at gunpoint. Civilians try to help stabbed dude cos emergency services cant come.

Police eventually try to come in to help heavily armed. People start attacking them. They respond

Mad loonies

 

[Bazal]

Crowds in streets. Police scared inside.

White dude stabs black dude in crowd.

People catch white dude hold him at gunpoint. Civilians try to help stabbed dude cos emergency services cant come.

Police eventually try to come in to help heavily armed. People start attacking them. They respond

Mad loonies

It's nuts... They react to what they perceive as targeted prejudices against African Americans (which, y'know....) with out and out violence on a ridiculous scale

Murica

 

[Gronk]

Crowds in streets. Police scared inside.

White dude stabs black dude in crowd.

People catch white dude hold him at gunpoint. Civilians try to help stabbed dude cos emergency services cant come.

Police eventually try to come in to help heavily armed. People start attacking them. They respond

Mad loonies

IMHO it all stems from the ingrained gun culture. Gun crime is huge. Cops are nervous. Gun crimes are most likely committed by minority groups. Cops uneasy therefore about encountering minorities in the street. Racism and intolerance coupled with jumpy cops leads to heavy handed confrontations. Tensions rise.Whites sick of crime, Blacks sick of being racially profiled. Perceived lack of justice against minorities vs whites. #blacklivesmatter #notallwhites #whitelivesmattertoo #theysaftermuhguns #itsoktobewhite

But twitter !

 

[Bazal]

IMHO it all stems from the ingrained gun culture. Gun crime is huge. Cops are nervous. Gun crimes are most likely committed by minority groups. Cops uneasy therefore about encountering minorities in the street. Racism and intolerance coupled with jumpy cops leads to heavy handed confrontations. Tensions rise.Whites sick of crime, Blacks sick of being racially profiled. Perceived lack of justice against minorities vs whites. #blacklivesmatter #notallwhites #whitelivesmattertoo #theysaftermuhguns #itsoktobewhite

But twitter !

I'm anti guns in the American sense (pro restrictions is probably more accurate) but I don't agree.

I think it's the reverse. The same feeling of absolute righteousness, of being special and "super free" and the land of opportunity and all that propaganda they're exposed to.. All that seems to be instilled in the American people as a mass. And I can't help but think that's the root of the problem.

Majority of Americans as individuals are great people. But there is undeniable arrogance ingrained in the population as a whole.

 

[strider]

The home of the free ... free to act like mad muthaf**kers

 

[Bazal]

The home of the free ... free to act like mad muthaf**kers

Exactly. It seems to become a process of something like:

I have the right to be free, I am American!
I have the right to free speech, I am American!
I have the right to say what I want, I am American!
I have the right to this weapon, I am American!
I have the right to self defense, I am American!
I have the right to use this weapon on people who I believe are my enemy for whatever reason, I am American!!

It's a national cult, and now with suhh a savage political divide as well... It's a mess, man.