Security quote of the week
Posted Nov 19, 2020 9:58 UTC (Thu)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
So unless someone finds a way to remove useful idiots from the picture (good luck with that) filtering of what is published on social networks is inevitable. The only question is how much blood each individual country is willing to ignore before legislating.
Posted Nov 19, 2020 15:46 UTC (Thu)
by bfields (subscriber, #19510)
[Link] (27 responses)
Sure, we can argue about whether it's possible to set up organizations in a way that makes them capable of checking facts accurately despite political pressures.
I'd argue that while it's difficult, it's something we have to figure out how to do.
News organization did it traditionally, but they're shrinking, and more people are getting their news from Twitter and Facebook. Ideally people would figure out on their own that certain sources are wildly inaccurate, but it doesn't seem that they are.
So, what do we do? Honest question, I don't know.
Posted Nov 19, 2020 18:12 UTC (Thu)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (20 responses)
Agreed that it's not easy, and the devil is in the details.
The problem with this round of proposals in the UK is that the suggestions at hand are to have politically appointed (under control of the current government) fact checking; those fact-checkers are the final say, and they have already done things like say that the comment "I don't believe that the UK's COVID-19 response has been particularly good" is factually incorrect, because the UK government as a trusted source says it's false.
Look at all the fuss in the US about Facebook's fact-checkers getting it wrong - in many cases, it's not because the fact checkers are flagging disputed information, it's because people outright believe falsehoods and will complain that a fact-checker is in the wrong if they disagree with the poster. Add in that the people proposing these duties in the UK have been caught spreading deliberate disinformation themselves, and it all gets very murky - do we really want the arbiter of "fact" to be someone who has lied about the facts for political gain?
Posted Nov 20, 2020 10:03 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (19 responses)
Is it any better when fact-checkers are not even affiliated with government and declare things which president of the country said “unofficial” while the exact same things said by his opponent doesn't have such mark?
The one thing which we should accept is the fact that democracy doesn't work (if it ever worked) and accept the fact that someone (government or otherwise) have to censor social networks.
I think in most sane countries that would be government. And the global internet as we know it would cease to exist.
Sad outcome, but at this point I don't see how the global internet will survive. It's not working.
P.S. Sure, Tor and other such things may enable global underground. If no more than 1% of population would participate in it — governments would just ignore it. And if more than 1% participates then regular police have enough means to find out who does that and send the to jail.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 14:47 UTC (Fri)
by esemwy (guest, #83963)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2020 17:59 UTC (Fri)
by RogerOdle (subscriber, #60791)
[Link] (17 responses)
Fact checkers only serve the purpose of censoring political content for the benefit of the powerful. The political parties have already gamed the system. We need to take their toys away, not give them more ways to manipulate us. The best thing we can do for ourselves and the worst thing we can do to them is to drag their sorry butts into court and hit them in their pocketbooks.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 18:10 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (2 responses)
So who's going to sue Donald Trump for inflating the number of people at his inauguration?
Posted Nov 21, 2020 12:33 UTC (Sat)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 21, 2020 14:41 UTC (Sat)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2020 18:40 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (5 responses)
"Seditious sentiments" (not the same as actual sedition, which requires more than mere speech) are exactly the sort of thing the 1st Amendment was *meant* to cover. There is absolutely no point in having freedom of speech only for government-approved content. Speech which is popular with those in power needs no protection.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 19:55 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
There is. If you can only say what government approves then, at least, said government can govern.
If, instead, someone else, decides what you can or can not say then that means that someone other than government of the country governs.
I very much liked the idea of freedom of speech where supposedly noone decided for me what I can or can not say.
But that world no longer exists (even if it ever did). There are obviously guys who have taken on themselves the duty of deciding who's words are fake and who's words are not. It's very easy to observe their work — just look on Trump's twitter.
And if such censorship is inevitable then yes, I would much prefer for it to happen under government and, ideally, court observation.
Not like it happens now when we have no idea who and how does the censorship.
Posted Nov 28, 2020 3:53 UTC (Sat)
by RogerOdle (subscriber, #60791)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2020 16:15 UTC (Sat)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (2 responses)
For advocacy of law-breaking to be sedition, it needs to encourage the undermining or overthrow of the established order. (And by some definitions, it's perfectly possible to be seditious without the specific actions you were encouraging being illegal when considered individually.)
> It is one thing to disagree with your government, it is another to advocate violence.
Indeed, those two things are distinct – so strongly distinct that they are at right angles to each other. You can enthusiastically advocate violence while agreeing with your government, and you can strongly disagree with your government while absolutely condemning violence.
(Indeed, under some interpretations of the nature of violence and government, agreeing with the very existence of government is advocacy of violence.)
Posted Nov 28, 2020 19:13 UTC (Sat)
by amacater (subscriber, #790)
[Link] (1 responses)
The world has enough to worry about aside from this.
Posted Nov 30, 2020 3:50 UTC (Mon)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
Posted Nov 20, 2020 19:23 UTC (Fri)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Hess v. Indiana (1973) have established a very generous (in favour of the speaker accused of violating some statute or other) boundary within which seditious sentiment remains protected speech under the First Amendment.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 19:41 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
No, the IRS they scrutinized organizations that were attempting to set themselves up as 501(c)(4) charities, which are to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare". Political activities are strictly prohibited for that type of organization -- And let's be honest here, any group calling themselves "tea party" is overtly political in nature.
Meanwhile, there were far more "progressive" organizations were caught up in that supposed scandal:
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555975207/as-irs-targeted-...
But regardless, the real goal of the "Tea Party" folks was to get funding for the IRS slashed, which they accomplished, not-so-coincidentally gutting the money allocated for enforcement and auditing, which conveniently benefited wealthy conservatives far more than it benefited poor progressives.
Additionally, cutting the IRS in the name of "eliminating government waste" (Another favorite Tea Party catchphrase) is so utterly preposterous when the Treasury Department estimates that each $1 in additional IRS funding brings in about $6 in additional tax revenue.
> Fact checkers only serve the purpose of censoring political content for the benefit of the powerful.
Fact checkers serve the purpose of calling out lies, and it so happens that most of these lies are made with political goals in mind... by the powerful. So it's no surprise that "the powerful" are so hostile towards fact checkers.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 19:46 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (5 responses)
> Why do you think that government fact checkers would be honest?
Who said I assume that? I don't. But at least government fact checkers would be visible. And known.
Let me state two facts… and think about these.
These are just facts. But they have very deep implications. This state of affairs, ultimately, means that US government doesn't govern.
If it couldn't ensure that voice of half of the country would be heard as loudly as voice of the other half then what's the point of the whole famed First Amendment or anything else?
Someone else, and not the official goverment decides what is possible to say and what's impossible to say, what would happen in that country and what wouldn't… and we don't even know who that is.
If having the fact-checkers is inevitable (and it looks like we don't really have a choice: fact-checkers are already everywhere and they act as if they have the right to censor everyone including POTUS and other people) then I very much prefer visible and known ones to invisible and unknown ones. Just please don't start on Biden being “obviously right” and Trump being “obviously wrong”. “Obviously wrong” guys don't get 40%+ of votes.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 19:59 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
The definition of "obviously right/wrong" can and does shift over time.
(And when "the other side" tries to claim that their freedoms are so absolute that they get to unilaterally risk the life of others, they are *obviously wrong* The USA's staggering COVID case loads and death rate speaks for itself)
Posted Nov 20, 2020 20:04 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 20, 2020 21:13 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
Even if that's true — this doesn't change anything. Even if all courts (which haven't found anything worthy of impeachment) where bought and all Trump supporters were mislead… this doesn't change the fact that Facebook and Twitter are acting as government and decide who have the right to speak and doesn't.
Twits “I have won” were almost identical on both sides. Trump's was censored. Biden's wasn't. End of story.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 22:35 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
Impeachment happens in Congress, not the courts. And, I might add, Congress _did_ pass articles of impeachment. So, um, you are incorrect.
> This doesn't change the fact that Facebook and Twitter are acting as government and decide who have the right to speak and doesn't.
Nope. Twitter, Facebook are treated the same as LWN and my personal web sites -- site owners & operators are under no obligation to allow anyone to use their platforms to publish whatever they'd like. Freedom of association also means freedom to *not* associate.
> Twits “I have won” were almost identical on both sides. Trump's was censored. Biden's wasn't. End of story.
You are incorrect. Twitter has not taken down (ie "censored") anything Trump has said with regards to elections or their outcome.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 22:56 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
It has annotated them with notes that they are disputed, which is... ah... a generous interpretation of the facts (almost all of them are outright *wrong*, though I'm not sure one could call them lies: one can only lie if one can distinguish between truth and falsity. They are, however, bullshit, under Harry Frankfurt's definition of the term.)
Posted Nov 20, 2020 5:26 UTC (Fri)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link] (5 responses)
The onus would then be on "us" to make sure there is plenty of good quality (highly-linked) content arguing for "not A".
I wouldn't mind seeing occasional (or even frequent) arguments for opinions that differ from mine ... providing they were coherent (when I go looking for contrary opinions, I find it hard to find coherent content).
Posted Nov 20, 2020 9:30 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Cheers,
Posted Nov 20, 2020 10:13 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (3 responses)
Echo-chamber and other such effects are not the root of the problem.
US and, to lesser degree, other Western countries knowingly and consciously turned Internet into a battle-ground.
Most news (both fake and otherwise) are pushed around by people who are paid to do that.
The solution was shown by China: block. Just block all these Facebooks, Twitters and so on. Make them ask for permissions if they want to talk to your citizens.
Am I happy with that reality? No. But I don't see how can we avoid that.
Even relatively mild requirements of GDPR made many US companies stop serving EU citizens.
When real, serious sanctions would be applied and governments would start doing things needed to control the Internet… the big, global Internet as we know it is going to end pretty soon.
We have to prepare.
Posted Nov 20, 2020 10:39 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
And not everybody agrees with the US's handling of those priorities...
Social media allows those of a like mind to clump together, close their mind to the alternatives, and fragment society. The more sources there are of "news", the easier it is to only hear what you want to hear and to close your mind. Back in the day when the news was the newspapers, while nationally there may have been many, locally everybody only had the choice of a few. Opinions were channeled into a few big groupings, not fragmenting everywhere.
Cheers,
Posted Nov 20, 2020 15:55 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (1 responses)
The economy is not zero-sum. One person getting richer does not necessarily imply that anyone else has become poorer, other than by comparison. And while *relative* "poverty" might inspire envy it does not imply "loss of security".
Posted Nov 20, 2020 19:11 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Until you actually look at the real world, and realise that the greater the skew in wealth, the greater the proportion of people in real poverty.
If you want to be an academic in an ivory tower, you're right. If you look at the facts on the ground, you'll realise it DOES.
Cheers,
Posted Nov 20, 2020 11:42 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
> There is absolutely no point in having freedom of speech only for government-approved content.
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week - enough with the US civics lessons, arguments over free speech etc.?
not necessarily the appropriate forum to be trying to score debating points over each other although LWN does tend to be more civilised
than most fora.
Security quote of the week - enough with the US civics lessons, arguments over free speech etc.?
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
You assume that both sides lie at the same rate. And this is simply not true.
> You assume that both sides lie at the same rate. And this is simply not true.
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
If that is accepted, then increasing cross-pollination is something that might be technically possible.
i.e. if someone's echo-chamber results in them seeing a disproportionate amount of opinion "A", then the platform starts showing them some random examples of "not A".
Security quote of the week
Wol
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Wol
Security quote of the week
Security quote of the week
Wol
Security quote of the week