Facebook and Google pressured EU experts to soften fake news regulations(opendemocracy.net)
opendemocracy.net
Facebook and Google pressured EU experts to soften fake news regulations
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/facebook-and-google-pressured-eu-experts-soften-fake-news-regulations-say-insiders/
130 comments
Case in point, the "fake news" law in France: it basically asks Facebook and friends to
1° detect abuse, propaganda and "fake news" 2° remove it automatically.
So they're handed altogether the power of police, jury and executioner. They're already much too powerful, and they were just given much more power for free. What will become of free speech under these conditions? Do you think Twitter will flag Macron's tweets when he spouts out blatant lies, which is actually quite often?
1° detect abuse, propaganda and "fake news" 2° remove it automatically.
So they're handed altogether the power of police, jury and executioner. They're already much too powerful, and they were just given much more power for free. What will become of free speech under these conditions? Do you think Twitter will flag Macron's tweets when he spouts out blatant lies, which is actually quite often?
Isn't that just the power every Editor wields? Perhaps its inappropriate to consider Facebook the 'publisher' of everything on the site. But its not more power than any other publisher possesses (choosing their own editorial staff).
It's fully appropriate to consider Facebook the publisher of everything on their site. They exercise editorial control.
No, it's not feasible for a few thousand people to exercise "editorial control" on billions of people.
This isn't at all like a newspaper which only has to do that on a few hundred people.
Scale matters!
This isn't at all like a newspaper which only has to do that on a few hundred people.
Scale matters!
Maybe that means facebook shouldn't exist as it is today.
That's basically saying that there should be no online public forums for discourse, anywhere, because the scale means they can't be properly moderated.
And to take this further: it also means that there should be no right to public assembly, because you can't moderate what's said there either.
No, not at all. The argument is that since Facebook moderates their site according to their own arbitrary standards, it's not a place for public assembly but a publication that Facebook is responsible for as if it were a newspaper. If they did not moderate, it would not apply.
Mastodon can help here, because it is not a single entity, but a federation with independent moderations.
Indeed. Distributed design is the intelligent way to go when it comes to mass communications systems. Too much centralization leads to many such problems
How so?
Facebook exercises editorial control on their website. That makes them its publisher and thus responsible for all content.
If they cannot publish Facebook responsibly, they cannot publish it period.
If they cannot publish Facebook responsibly, they cannot publish it period.
According to what legislation? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act states [0]:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Exercising editorial control does not make them liable for all content [1]:
Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party.
See [2] for some examples of online activities that are covered.
[0] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
[1] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-u...
[2] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-se...
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Exercising editorial control does not make them liable for all content [1]:
Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party.
See [2] for some examples of online activities that are covered.
[0] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
[1] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-u...
[2] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-se...
> According to what legislation?
The duty to be responsible has nothing to do with legislation.
The duty to be responsible has nothing to do with legislation.
There's no reason a Facebook-like experience couldn't be developed using distributed technology like SMTP and HTTP. It's just that no one has garnered enough traction yet.
How would that solve the issue of editorial control being impractical? It would make it strictly MORE impractical
It would mostly make the question moot. In a federated system, there is no worry about a single entity exerting editorial control. Every instance can set their own policies for content and who they wish to federate with. Individual users can find or setup an instance that meets their own needs and requirements.
I agree, but what’s the relevance of this to my comment?
[deleted]
Too Big To Not Fail
Point is that many disagree they should. If we take that Facebook is a critical network owned by a company, just like the internet is a critical network owned by many companies, is it not reasonable to assume it is infrastructure and not a publisher?
Not saying I agree or disagree, just playing devil's advocate.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just playing devil's advocate.
Facebook is definitely not a "critical network". It is a privately owned network operated by a corporation, it is not "critical" or even necessary, in fact, studies suggest increased use of Facebook correlates with poor mental health. Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook.
I agree in principle, but as a news publisher, you practically have to use Facebook to stay relevant. Same goes for Google to a lesser degree. All the laws like the EUs article 13 were tools in the fight between publishers and the internet giants.
They just have the masses of users.
They just have the masses of users.
You agree in principle that nobody needs Facebook while acknowledging that somebody needs Facebook?
As a business you need a way to engage with potential or existing customers. Yesterday that "way" was to pay newspapers, the Yellow Pages, etc to place ads. Then it moved to banner ads on various websites and today they use Facebook and Google (and other publishers/communities where people gather).
If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
The world does not need Facebook. If Facebook went away, people would use another service to find and communicate with businesses. Businesses would use another service to be found and be communicated with.
But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
And if FB went away tomorrow the companies would find another way. It's not like they weren't successful before FB came around. FB is only "critical" for as long as it exists in it's current form... which makes it not at all critical to begin with.
Right. This entire argument is semantics on the word 'critical'. FB is a "should probably be using" for publishers or ecommerce companies, but FB is not a critical component.
Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB to be a critical component simply because it makes a good premise for the argument of shutting FB down.
Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB to be a critical component simply because it makes a good premise for the argument of shutting FB down.
[deleted]
> Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook.
Nobody needs electricity either. The Amish get by without and I wouldn't be surprised if they had better mental health than us.
Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.
Nobody needs electricity either. The Amish get by without and I wouldn't be surprised if they had better mental health than us.
Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.
> Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.
Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critical national infrastructure that underpins literally every economic activity in the country lol.
Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critical national infrastructure that underpins literally every economic activity in the country lol.
It is "critical" in the sense that it is at this point it controls a large share of the "commons" where political speech takes place, and shutting down the ability of people to meaningfully participate in the political debate could very easily result in real world violence, which is what free speech is supposed to avoid.
If you think shutting down Facebook would result in people being unable to communicate and assemble you obviously haven't studied history or even been around on the Internet very long.
Within seconds of Facebook shutting down millions of people will have already migrated to something else that serves the same purpose. Then ten years later people will be saying things like, "Remember Facebook?" "Facebook?! Pfft! I remember MySpace!"
Within seconds of Facebook shutting down millions of people will have already migrated to something else that serves the same purpose. Then ten years later people will be saying things like, "Remember Facebook?" "Facebook?! Pfft! I remember MySpace!"
>If you think shutting down Facebook would result in people being unable to communicate and assemble you obviously haven't studied history or even been around on the Internet very long.
I don't think that, and I don't suggest it is the case in my comment. I do not think Facebook is critical in the sense that if it went down, people would be unable to communicate and assemble. Please read my comment more closely.
I don't think that, and I don't suggest it is the case in my comment. I do not think Facebook is critical in the sense that if it went down, people would be unable to communicate and assemble. Please read my comment more closely.
An individual does not have the choice of communicating via Facebook or shutting it down, only between communicating with someone on Facebook and not communicating with them on a platform they don't use.
Or you could use another method of communication. You are not entitled to the Facebook communication channel or any other privately owned channel. The unstated suggestion that lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to effective communication in our society is untrue. Just because the only contact you have for an individual is Facebook doesn't mean you're entitled to use Facebook. My only line of contact to my ex is her xbox-live account, does that mean I am entitled to XBLA or would you deign to allow Microsoft to ban people from the network it owns.
> it controls a large share of the "commons" where political speech takes place
"The commons" are not controlled by Facebook; people choose to use Facebook willingly, and wherever people are having conversations so will politics inevitably emerge. If people decided to have conversations on hacker news and reddit instead of Facebook that is where the political discussion would be and there is literally nothing Facebook could do about it. The fact that Facebook does not control the commons is precisely why they work so hard to engineer addictive engagement patterns: if they don't keep people hooked they will go elsewhere because there are hundreds of options and none of them cost the users any money.
> the ability of people to meaningfully participate in the political debate could very easily result in real world violence,
I think most people would agree that the existence of Facebook has done more to increase the potential for violence between opposing groups than reduce it, but even if that wasn't the case, people can still meaningfully participate in political debate without Facebook.
"The commons" are not controlled by Facebook; people choose to use Facebook willingly, and wherever people are having conversations so will politics inevitably emerge. If people decided to have conversations on hacker news and reddit instead of Facebook that is where the political discussion would be and there is literally nothing Facebook could do about it. The fact that Facebook does not control the commons is precisely why they work so hard to engineer addictive engagement patterns: if they don't keep people hooked they will go elsewhere because there are hundreds of options and none of them cost the users any money.
> the ability of people to meaningfully participate in the political debate could very easily result in real world violence,
I think most people would agree that the existence of Facebook has done more to increase the potential for violence between opposing groups than reduce it, but even if that wasn't the case, people can still meaningfully participate in political debate without Facebook.
>"The commons" are not controlled by Facebook;
The commons used to be where people gathered. Now people gather on places like Facebook. That's why I put commons in quotes. Facebook controls a significant chunk of the new "commons", and therefore has the ability to shut people out of a significant portion of the public political debate.
>If people decided to have conversations on hacker news and reddit instead of Facebook that is where the political discussion would be and there is literally nothing Facebook could do about it.
Irrelevant to the point I'm making. The fact of the matter is that Facebook is where much of the public political debate takes place.
>people can still meaningfully participate in political debate without Facebook.
They can't participate in the large portion of the political debate that takes place on Facebook if Facebook bans them, so their participation becomes less meaningful. When Twitter also deplatforms them, and Youtube follows suit, they are left with virtually no ability to meaningfully participate.
The commons used to be where people gathered. Now people gather on places like Facebook. That's why I put commons in quotes. Facebook controls a significant chunk of the new "commons", and therefore has the ability to shut people out of a significant portion of the public political debate.
>If people decided to have conversations on hacker news and reddit instead of Facebook that is where the political discussion would be and there is literally nothing Facebook could do about it.
Irrelevant to the point I'm making. The fact of the matter is that Facebook is where much of the public political debate takes place.
>people can still meaningfully participate in political debate without Facebook.
They can't participate in the large portion of the political debate that takes place on Facebook if Facebook bans them, so their participation becomes less meaningful. When Twitter also deplatforms them, and Youtube follows suit, they are left with virtually no ability to meaningfully participate.
Well, I have just compared them. If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting.
Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.
Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.
> Well, I have just compared them.
Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet.
> If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting.
I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet.
> If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting.
I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
The comparison is obvious but I'll spell it out for you. You claimed that nobody needs Facebook, providing the reasons:
1. Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation. This argument just doesn't make sense.
2. Facebook is not necessary because it's correlated with worse mental health. Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation.
3. Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care?
4. Another way to understand your post is that Facebook is not necessary (in general, not for every single human) because it tends to worsen mental health. That would mean that if (strict) Amish have better mental health than us, electricity is not critical. But it is.
1. Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation. This argument just doesn't make sense.
2. Facebook is not necessary because it's correlated with worse mental health. Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation.
3. Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care?
4. Another way to understand your post is that Facebook is not necessary (in general, not for every single human) because it tends to worsen mental health. That would mean that if (strict) Amish have better mental health than us, electricity is not critical. But it is.
> Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation
I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly.
> Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation.
You are correct. My point is to illustrate the commonly accepted understanding within our society that time spent on social media is generally considered unproductive and correlates (not necessarily causes) mental health problems; your reasoning is akin to suggesting that Fortnite is a necessity because its the most popular online game in the world. It's not.
> Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care?
Sigh. So you really are going to make me explain why "electricity" is a need but "Facebook" isn't. I'll use the same example I used down thread. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. That's why one is a "need" (electricity) and the other isn't (social media website).
I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly.
> Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation.
You are correct. My point is to illustrate the commonly accepted understanding within our society that time spent on social media is generally considered unproductive and correlates (not necessarily causes) mental health problems; your reasoning is akin to suggesting that Fortnite is a necessity because its the most popular online game in the world. It's not.
> Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care?
Sigh. So you really are going to make me explain why "electricity" is a need but "Facebook" isn't. I'll use the same example I used down thread. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. That's why one is a "need" (electricity) and the other isn't (social media website).
Just like electricity, Facebook is an enabler of business, just on a higher level. That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made.
The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
> That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made..
"Some kind of comparison" can be made between literally any two things; that is not in dispute. When I say "they cannot be compared" I don't mean that they are literally incomparable, I mean that the comparison is wildly inapt because the two things are so fundamentally different in terms of value, scale and necessity.
> FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends.
FB is not a public square, it's a publishing platform exclusively owned and funded by a corporation. Just because Facebook is popular doesn't mean it's a public square. Don't misunderstand, I definitely believe that Facebook needs to be regulated (primarily around privacy, tracking, and user-data rights), but not on the basis that people need to use or are entitled to use Facebook; this is demonstrably false. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month.
> a major driver of social trend
So is HBO; just because a company wields powerful social influence doesn't mean we need to regulate their platform.
> Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
So let them die? Facebook is a business and if they make bad business decisions they should feel the consequences. What's the problem?
"Some kind of comparison" can be made between literally any two things; that is not in dispute. When I say "they cannot be compared" I don't mean that they are literally incomparable, I mean that the comparison is wildly inapt because the two things are so fundamentally different in terms of value, scale and necessity.
> FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends.
FB is not a public square, it's a publishing platform exclusively owned and funded by a corporation. Just because Facebook is popular doesn't mean it's a public square. Don't misunderstand, I definitely believe that Facebook needs to be regulated (primarily around privacy, tracking, and user-data rights), but not on the basis that people need to use or are entitled to use Facebook; this is demonstrably false. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month.
> a major driver of social trend
So is HBO; just because a company wields powerful social influence doesn't mean we need to regulate their platform.
> Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
So let them die? Facebook is a business and if they make bad business decisions they should feel the consequences. What's the problem?
It's more like heroin, as I've already compared it to. Lots of good comes from electricity, which I use everyday.
I've never used Facebook nor heroin however. Both are addictions.
I've never used Facebook nor heroin however. Both are addictions.
They themselves have said they should. They actively censor their platform and enforce an editorial policy on the basis of their own business interests, nobody made them do that.
The Signal IM program is also run by a company. Unlike Facebook you could argue that what they're running is infrastructure. They aren't trying to say censor Alex Jones to be more appealing to advertisers.
Facebook is fully within their rights to run their company like that, but they can't expect to also have governments view them a common carrier when they're anything but.
The Signal IM program is also run by a company. Unlike Facebook you could argue that what they're running is infrastructure. They aren't trying to say censor Alex Jones to be more appealing to advertisers.
Facebook is fully within their rights to run their company like that, but they can't expect to also have governments view them a common carrier when they're anything but.
Not as long as they have "community standards".
In that case they should be held responsible for everything “they publish” from the first second on.
An alternative point of says they are platform which is censored.
Serious question: is celebrity gossip allowed? It’s a major source of ad revenue in the news business and has been for quite some time. There’s no way to tell what is fake and what is not? Not to mention nobody cares if it’s fake. They love the gossip. How is this handled?
>So they're handed altogether the power of police, jury and executioner.
I have that on any given site I make by default.
I have that on any given site I make by default.
As long as your site is small enough that having that power does not give you significantly more power than any other citizen has, that is not a problem. The threshold for "small enough" is of course fuzzy and debatable, but definitely lower than 2.3 Billion users.
This is an absurd slippery slope falacy.
If this was happening in isolation, that could be. But it's also happening in a general atmosphere of extreme police violence (6 months of constant protests, 1 dead, 5 hands ripped off, 23 eyes gouged, 3000 persons jailed for no discernible reason), authoritarian policy, and extending surveillance -- and no proper counter-power, making Macron almost indiscernible from his distinctly fascistic, official main opponent.
Later this week, in European elections, prepare to see a landslide of far-right parties of various racist, xenophobic flavours in all countries. A slippery slope? Looks like an oily slide into chaos indeed.
Later this week, in European elections, prepare to see a landslide of far-right parties of various racist, xenophobic flavours in all countries. A slippery slope? Looks like an oily slide into chaos indeed.
>I hope young people who are familiar with "fake news" but not necessarily as familiar with the history of propaganda and censorship will study that history.
What inspired me to learn about it was none other than a youtube video title "Rule From the Shadows: The Psychology of Control". Sure, it sounds like it'd be a conspiracy theory video, but it's far from it, listed all sources, and recommended books which were discussed.
Those books being: The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon, Crystallizing Public Opinion, and Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew.
That video on youtube really changed the way I view the world, especially media and "groups" of people, like antifa, the alt-right, or what have you. When you see the words of Le Bon or Bernays in action, it sends a shiver down your back. The downside being that most people will assume you're crazy or paranoid if you start talking about Bernays or Le Bon.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society." - Edward Bernays
What inspired me to learn about it was none other than a youtube video title "Rule From the Shadows: The Psychology of Control". Sure, it sounds like it'd be a conspiracy theory video, but it's far from it, listed all sources, and recommended books which were discussed.
Those books being: The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon, Crystallizing Public Opinion, and Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew.
That video on youtube really changed the way I view the world, especially media and "groups" of people, like antifa, the alt-right, or what have you. When you see the words of Le Bon or Bernays in action, it sends a shiver down your back. The downside being that most people will assume you're crazy or paranoid if you start talking about Bernays or Le Bon.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society." - Edward Bernays
We're already seeing a similar effect through privately run communication systems like Facebook too, though.
Facebook has clearly failed to take responsibility to combat fake news, as some of the most serious solutions to the problem pose existential threats to their entire business.
On top of that, we're also seeing high-profile figures and politicians pushing propaganda successfully without the need for censorship (the Obama birtherism conspiracy, the Jade Helm conspiracy, etc.) Whether or not they're willingly doing so is up for debate, but some of the conspiracies being pushed are inflammatory, ridiculous, and damaging to our civil discourse.
The heads of major political parties get to decide what is real information and what is fake now; they don't need censorship to do this.
Look at how many plainly absurd lies this administration has pushed about the most inane things (the inauguration attendance) to the most serious things (Trump dictating the false statement on the June 2016 meeting, etc.)
There's just no longer an incentive to have a good-faith debate on anything.
Facebook has clearly failed to take responsibility to combat fake news, as some of the most serious solutions to the problem pose existential threats to their entire business.
On top of that, we're also seeing high-profile figures and politicians pushing propaganda successfully without the need for censorship (the Obama birtherism conspiracy, the Jade Helm conspiracy, etc.) Whether or not they're willingly doing so is up for debate, but some of the conspiracies being pushed are inflammatory, ridiculous, and damaging to our civil discourse.
The heads of major political parties get to decide what is real information and what is fake now; they don't need censorship to do this.
Look at how many plainly absurd lies this administration has pushed about the most inane things (the inauguration attendance) to the most serious things (Trump dictating the false statement on the June 2016 meeting, etc.)
There's just no longer an incentive to have a good-faith debate on anything.
I have good faith debates all the time, and I can count on one hand how many times I've been arguing with someone that is relying on incorrect facts. People actually don't tend to disagree on facts very often, they disagree on conclusions. I don't want a political entity determine which conclusions are correct, because that is the job a long and public negotiation.
Your opinion doesn't make policy.
> "The heads of major political parties get to decide what is real information and what is fake now; they don't need censorship to do this."
I don't need a car to get to work. I've got a bicycle and five miles on a bike is nothing. But the car sure as hell makes it easier.
I don't need a car to get to work. I've got a bicycle and five miles on a bike is nothing. But the car sure as hell makes it easier.
In your analogy, you get to work either way.
In either case, our discourse continues to suffer. So what choice do we have? Maintain the current system and watch our process devolve slowly, or permit regulation which runs the risk of creating a power vacuum?
Our system suffers in either case. We're talking about damage control at this point; not actually fixing the problem.
In either case, our discourse continues to suffer. So what choice do we have? Maintain the current system and watch our process devolve slowly, or permit regulation which runs the risk of creating a power vacuum?
Our system suffers in either case. We're talking about damage control at this point; not actually fixing the problem.
One paragraph struck me as a pretty wild claim in an article about fake news:
> Last year, for example, the British music industry association UK Music calculated that Google had spent almost €31 million to lobby against a stricter copyright law.
Here is what I found:
https://corporateeurope.org/en/2018/12/copyright-directive-h...
> UK Music simply took the entire lobby budget declared by Google in 2017, €6 million, and added to that the budgets of all the organisations and think tanks it is a member of, declaring that the “The combined value of Google’s indirect lobbying of the EU amounts to €25.5m”.
> Last year, for example, the British music industry association UK Music calculated that Google had spent almost €31 million to lobby against a stricter copyright law.
Here is what I found:
https://corporateeurope.org/en/2018/12/copyright-directive-h...
> UK Music simply took the entire lobby budget declared by Google in 2017, €6 million, and added to that the budgets of all the organisations and think tanks it is a member of, declaring that the “The combined value of Google’s indirect lobbying of the EU amounts to €25.5m”.
I can't tell if that's honest or dishonest accounting.
I don't know if there is a definition of honest accounting that I should be aware of. I assume the numbers are reasonably correct, but ascribing 31m to google's lobbying effort against the copyright directive is more than dishonest. It is incorrectly quoting UK Music, which did the dishonest accounting.
For example, 1.75m from Konrad Adenauer-Stiftung, which is a think tank closely related to the party of the rapporteur responsible for the copyright directive. If they were engaged in lobbying related to the copyright directive, they most certainly would not align with google's interests. If you take a look at the transparency register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation...), you'll find that almost their entire budget for the declared activities comes from two german federal agencies.
For example, 1.75m from Konrad Adenauer-Stiftung, which is a think tank closely related to the party of the rapporteur responsible for the copyright directive. If they were engaged in lobbying related to the copyright directive, they most certainly would not align with google's interests. If you take a look at the transparency register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation...), you'll find that almost their entire budget for the declared activities comes from two german federal agencies.
Good to know Facebook and Google are fighting against censorship. I don't know why anyone would be outraged by this.
I am outraged that the government above my government is so gungho about censorship.
I am outraged by people making and spreading fake news though. These fake news kill people daily (the one that don't want to vaccinate).
They are destroying us as a civilization by spreading bullshit and making us believe that the current world is shit.
They are destroying us as a civilization by spreading bullshit and making us believe that the current world is shit.
What civilization are you talking about? The US, western Europe, capitalism, formally educated people? Who is 'they'? There's enough people who just want to watch the world burn, and they're very much part of society, paying taxes and going to clubs and shopping malls. For instance, all those highly capable developers and mathematicians on adtech payrolls. How is one supposed to concentrate on separating the wheat from the chaff when things engineered to distract and capture attention do exactly that?
But I thought Facebook said that "Accountability of tech companies can only be achieved through the painstaking introduction of new rules for the internet"? [1]
They pay lip service to regulations when they're faced with public scrutiny or calls to be broken up. But when we actually try to regulate, they reveal how they truly feel.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-says-break-up-not-t...
They pay lip service to regulations when they're faced with public scrutiny or calls to be broken up. But when we actually try to regulate, they reveal how they truly feel.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-says-break-up-not-t...
Who is this news source? Is there a more reliable, possibly more neutral source of the same story?
Fake news gives an advantage to parties who are unconcerned about the truth.
This will only remain an advantage as long as we expect messages to contain verifiable facts.
We are in a transition period right now, and seem to be headed towards a post truth era, one where we will no longer agree upon a set of basic facts about the world, and where everything is merely opinion.
Once this transition is complete, then there will be no such thing as fake news, because all news will have become spin.
This will only remain an advantage as long as we expect messages to contain verifiable facts.
We are in a transition period right now, and seem to be headed towards a post truth era, one where we will no longer agree upon a set of basic facts about the world, and where everything is merely opinion.
Once this transition is complete, then there will be no such thing as fake news, because all news will have become spin.
It was never any different. Fake news and internationally driven propaganda are as old as time.
The reason modern actors are suddenly so upset about it is that the state-media complex in Western countries had, briefly, an unusual amount of control and wherewithal to spread their preferred propaganda thanks to the consolidation of media networks and television.
Go back to the Constitutional Convention and a major concern was rumors spread by ‘designing men’ who were subverting the government, and they had real-world examples there were referring to. Go back to Rome, where fake news sometimes got a lot of people killed, and changed the whole course of history. Go back to the 1940s when the British government spent a lot of time in money on a massive, secret campaign to crush US isolationism in our elections and spread propaganda that would ensure US intervention in WWII.
This is not a new justification for censorship. It’s a very, very old one.
The reason modern actors are suddenly so upset about it is that the state-media complex in Western countries had, briefly, an unusual amount of control and wherewithal to spread their preferred propaganda thanks to the consolidation of media networks and television.
Go back to the Constitutional Convention and a major concern was rumors spread by ‘designing men’ who were subverting the government, and they had real-world examples there were referring to. Go back to Rome, where fake news sometimes got a lot of people killed, and changed the whole course of history. Go back to the 1940s when the British government spent a lot of time in money on a massive, secret campaign to crush US isolationism in our elections and spread propaganda that would ensure US intervention in WWII.
This is not a new justification for censorship. It’s a very, very old one.
This is very likely, but it's a disaster for democracy as it's no longer possible for the public to make informed decisions.
> "This will only remain an advantage as long as we expect messages to contain verifiable facts."
In a way, many traditional reputable news organizations are guilty of perpetuating this lack of expectations among readers. It's still common, in this age of hypertext, to see major news organizations publishing stories online that don't have hyperlinks to the source documents. Presumably this is motivated by money; they don't want to send people away from their site, or an old newspaper mentality where hyperlinks didn't exist at all, but it's inexcusable in the modern digital era.
When reputable news organizations neglect to link to source documents, it provides cover for fake news organizations who also don't link to source documents by normalizing the appearance of articles that do not link to sources.
Here is a counterexample, of the NYTs actually doing the right thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court... In the first sentence you have a hyperlink to the pdf on supremecourt.gov. This should be the standard for modern reporting, but it seems to still be the exception rather than the rule.
On the other hand here you've got a New Yorker article talking about the same SCOTUS decision that contains no hyperlink to supremecourt.gov: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/27/the-abortion-f... Arguably in this case it's because they're stuck in a print mindset, but frankly I don't think that's a good excuse.
In a way, many traditional reputable news organizations are guilty of perpetuating this lack of expectations among readers. It's still common, in this age of hypertext, to see major news organizations publishing stories online that don't have hyperlinks to the source documents. Presumably this is motivated by money; they don't want to send people away from their site, or an old newspaper mentality where hyperlinks didn't exist at all, but it's inexcusable in the modern digital era.
When reputable news organizations neglect to link to source documents, it provides cover for fake news organizations who also don't link to source documents by normalizing the appearance of articles that do not link to sources.
Here is a counterexample, of the NYTs actually doing the right thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court... In the first sentence you have a hyperlink to the pdf on supremecourt.gov. This should be the standard for modern reporting, but it seems to still be the exception rather than the rule.
On the other hand here you've got a New Yorker article talking about the same SCOTUS decision that contains no hyperlink to supremecourt.gov: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/27/the-abortion-f... Arguably in this case it's because they're stuck in a print mindset, but frankly I don't think that's a good excuse.
The New Yorker is a magazine, and not a news outlet. By definition they are an analysis publication—that means their articles are essentially opinion pieces. They have no journalistic obligation to post sources.
Your positing that its about money might be correct, but for different reasons than you suggest. News and magazine publications often do link to a number of different documents. Many articles published are written pretty quickly and cheaply these days due to the demands of "no paywalls" and advertising that doesn't pay enough.
The situation isn't so black and white.
Your positing that its about money might be correct, but for different reasons than you suggest. News and magazine publications often do link to a number of different documents. Many articles published are written pretty quickly and cheaply these days due to the demands of "no paywalls" and advertising that doesn't pay enough.
The situation isn't so black and white.
That's just the "print mentality" excuse. There is no good reason for a 'magazine' to not hyperlink the documents they're talking about.
In the end you have to decide to trust someone. Who says the link might not be to some sock puppet websites?
See: https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html
See: https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/hh/thompson/trust.html
Trust in The New Yorker is not in question. The matter of concern is reputable news sources, of which The New Yorker is only one example of many, behaving in ways that makes it easier for fake news sites to emulate their appearance. Whether you trust the compiler your browser was built with is also not a serious consideration; pull your head out of the clouds.
> pull your head out of the clouds.
Wow, that's uncalled for, but moving on.
I actually know a lot of journalists, so I'm familiar with the way they work.
Even though they don't include hyperlinks, most of them go to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of what they write about.
Also it's a bit naive of you to assume every piece of source data has (or even could have) a URI.
While this is not a bad idea, it's not possible for a variety of reasons from the purely technical to the practical.
Wow, that's uncalled for, but moving on.
I actually know a lot of journalists, so I'm familiar with the way they work.
Even though they don't include hyperlinks, most of them go to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of what they write about.
Also it's a bit naive of you to assume every piece of source data has (or even could have) a URI.
While this is not a bad idea, it's not possible for a variety of reasons from the purely technical to the practical.
I think it might just be that you don't like magazine article format. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take—but it doesn't mean their model is flawed. They've been operating the same way since long before personal computers. Their editorial practices have kept them relevant.
I wonder: does the "fake news" regulation also apply to fake (i.e. false, misleading, fraudulent, conspiratorial) advertisements?
This is a good thing. Letting government regulate fake news lets them regulate all news leading to a top down fake news. I would rather prefer a world with bottoms up fake news. This is not a bad thing.
The solution to a problem is never to ignore it, lock it away, out of sight where it will just fester. The people who produce bullshit (maybe for a living, maybe as a hobby) don't just disappear.
Aggressive filtering of what people see in their feeds is not a solution. What do all those able to discern bullshit from factual content have in common? Exercise for the reader as I don't have a definitive answer. A proper education can be thrown away or ignored when convenient; some people just seem to have a good nose for bs. I dunno.
Aggressive filtering of what people see in their feeds is not a solution. What do all those able to discern bullshit from factual content have in common? Exercise for the reader as I don't have a definitive answer. A proper education can be thrown away or ignored when convenient; some people just seem to have a good nose for bs. I dunno.
This is a George Soros organization calling for more internet censorship to "protect democracy" of course under the guise of "taking on the big evil corporations".
Don't fall for it.
Don't fall for it.
I think Facebook is in a tough spot.
Unlike news providers (who write the stories, and pay the writers) Facebook is giving it's customers a platform to speak from. If they muzzle the story providers, they are muzzling their own customers.
I agree Facebook is part of the puzzle, but it probably has to be approached from a different angle.
Unlike news providers (who write the stories, and pay the writers) Facebook is giving it's customers a platform to speak from. If they muzzle the story providers, they are muzzling their own customers.
I agree Facebook is part of the puzzle, but it probably has to be approached from a different angle.
The problem is that at pretty much every turn, Facebook does the wrong thing and fritters away it’s reputation and public trust. So at this point nobody trusts Facebook to do the right thing, and all the proposals I’ve seen involve Facebook being coerced to do something.
Oh wow, that's really rough:
"Monique Goyens – director-general of BEUC, which is also known as The European Consumer Association – is blunter. 'We were blackmailed,' she says. [...]
Facebook’s chief lobbyist, Richard Allan – another member of the expert group – said [...] to another group member: 'He threatened that if we did not stop talking about competition tools, Facebook would stop its support for journalistic and academic projects.'"
"Monique Goyens – director-general of BEUC, which is also known as The European Consumer Association – is blunter. 'We were blackmailed,' she says. [...]
Facebook’s chief lobbyist, Richard Allan – another member of the expert group – said [...] to another group member: 'He threatened that if we did not stop talking about competition tools, Facebook would stop its support for journalistic and academic projects.'"
> Monique Goyens ... 'We were blackmailed'
Blackmailing is telling people that you're been doing something illegal or immoral if you don't meet demands. Is the BEUC admitting here that they were doing something illegal or immoral?
Blackmailing is telling people that you're been doing something illegal or immoral if you don't meet demands. Is the BEUC admitting here that they were doing something illegal or immoral?
I can think of several European languages where the native "blackmail" word would be used in a situation like this. But that's irrelevant, because this is not a forum of chatbots, is it? We can figure out what was meant, can't we?
Pointless nitpicking and wasting our time.
Pointless nitpicking and wasting our time.
Probably not a native English speaker.
Doesn't seem advisable to make serious legal statements if you're not confident in the language - let an expert speak on your behalf.
That's rich coming from someone who probably speaks one language.
99,9% of people understand what she means, even if it isn't the legally correct word. The other 0,01% are pedantics like yourself.
Furthermore there is no evidence that she used this word, the interview might've been in Dutch or French and translated by the authors.
99,9% of people understand what she means, even if it isn't the legally correct word. The other 0,01% are pedantics like yourself.
Furthermore there is no evidence that she used this word, the interview might've been in Dutch or French and translated by the authors.
> The other 0,01% are pedantics like yourself.
The noun is 'pedants'.
The noun is 'pedants'.
> blackmail, n.: the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.
Compromising information could be information of various kinds, not all of that evidence of illegal or immoral deeds.
Compromising information could be information of various kinds, not all of that evidence of illegal or immoral deeds.
But there's no compromising information at all, is there?
Technically it’s extortion, of which blackmail is a type but not the right type. Cherry picking the wording feels pedantic here.
I’m not sure if this is legal and I think it varies by jurisdiction. For example, in the US I don’t think it’s actually legal to give donations to political offices contingent on them passing certain policies. You can, however, donate freely, imply you favor certain policies, show them more stacks of cash in your future lobbying fund, and wink.
I’m not sure if this is legal and I think it varies by jurisdiction. For example, in the US I don’t think it’s actually legal to give donations to political offices contingent on them passing certain policies. You can, however, donate freely, imply you favor certain policies, show them more stacks of cash in your future lobbying fund, and wink.
No, I think the EU was inflammatory with wording: "heavy-arm wrestling in the corridors", "blackmail". At least in the US, you can't throw "blackmail" around casually as it carries a heavy criminal implication. We're talking about gifts and donations they have no rights to and that Facebook has no obligation to give.
Now the gifts themselves are a conflict of interest so they should never be allowed. Show of EU hands, who wants to outlaw all FB/GOOG gifts?
This is a case of wanting to bite the hand that feeds you and then whine when the hand yanks back the handouts too. Sure FB/GOOG plays a little dirty, but all corps/political states play this game.
Now the gifts themselves are a conflict of interest so they should never be allowed. Show of EU hands, who wants to outlaw all FB/GOOG gifts?
This is a case of wanting to bite the hand that feeds you and then whine when the hand yanks back the handouts too. Sure FB/GOOG plays a little dirty, but all corps/political states play this game.
> We're talking about gifts and donations they have no rights to and that Facebook has no obligation to give.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure this is true (everywhere or anywhere in particular). A donation has to be a donation, free of stipulations. If you say you intend to give a donation and you say that if you don't get certain policies then you won't give the donation; then its clear that you intend to receive a service for your donation, making it a business transaction (and potentially an illegal one).
As I said before, there are easy ways to accomplish the same thing. You're just not supposed to explicitly say "if you don't give me what I want, the money stops".
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure this is true (everywhere or anywhere in particular). A donation has to be a donation, free of stipulations. If you say you intend to give a donation and you say that if you don't get certain policies then you won't give the donation; then its clear that you intend to receive a service for your donation, making it a business transaction (and potentially an illegal one).
As I said before, there are easy ways to accomplish the same thing. You're just not supposed to explicitly say "if you don't give me what I want, the money stops".
I'm guessing she meant to say, "We were extorted," which makes FB and Google look even worse.
All of this “do good” nonsense FB and Google do is just another tool in their arsenal to support and serve their main business. They don’t care who it helps or hurts. They only care that these proxies help them.
I think the really damning bit is:
> According to Frau-Meigs, independent funding for academics as well as journalists is extremely important. “Google and Facebook are paying these partnerships from their direct marketing arm, not through more neutral foundations,” she says.
This seems to be implying that Facebook and Google are paying these partnerships partly or mainly to coopt the researchers in order to avoid public relations or regulatory issues.
> According to Frau-Meigs, independent funding for academics as well as journalists is extremely important. “Google and Facebook are paying these partnerships from their direct marketing arm, not through more neutral foundations,” she says.
This seems to be implying that Facebook and Google are paying these partnerships partly or mainly to coopt the researchers in order to avoid public relations or regulatory issues.
That is a funny Freudian slip on her part for someone involved with the government.
Blackmail implies they were doing something illegal or immoral - extortion implies they were innocent and threatened.
Blackmail implies they were doing something illegal or immoral - extortion implies they were innocent and threatened.
Alternatively: a Belgian makes a mistake, one that is common even amongst natives, in a foreign language
could it be a machine translation from "chantage" to "blackmail" ? "chantage" in Dutch doesn't sound like it necessarily implies the target has committed a crime...
[deleted]
Actually the word should be 'bribe', shouldn't it?
> "if we did not stop talking about competition tools, Facebook would stop its support for journalistic [...] projects"
I don't see a downside.
I don't see a downside.
From the article: "In particular, [they] opposed proposals that would have forced them to be more transparent about their business models"
Hm. It's not immediately clear to me why fake news regulation would require Google and FB to share more information about their business models with the EU.
I also feel that in the wake of a large number of EU fines, laws, decisions etc that specifically attack FB and Google, it's perhaps not unreasonable that there might be some scepticism that the EU would not abuse this information to levy yet further fines.
Some reasonable people might argue that a number of the EU fines have been justified - possibly in isolation I might agree with one or two - but there are also less defensible examples, such as defining "free mobile operating systems" as a market sector separate from all other operating systems and platforms, to allow them to find Google guilty of a monopoly.
I feel like the EU is trying to have it both ways here - it seems unreasonable for the EU to spend so much time attacking big tech firms and then to expect them to welcome further regulation.
Hm. It's not immediately clear to me why fake news regulation would require Google and FB to share more information about their business models with the EU.
I also feel that in the wake of a large number of EU fines, laws, decisions etc that specifically attack FB and Google, it's perhaps not unreasonable that there might be some scepticism that the EU would not abuse this information to levy yet further fines.
Some reasonable people might argue that a number of the EU fines have been justified - possibly in isolation I might agree with one or two - but there are also less defensible examples, such as defining "free mobile operating systems" as a market sector separate from all other operating systems and platforms, to allow them to find Google guilty of a monopoly.
I feel like the EU is trying to have it both ways here - it seems unreasonable for the EU to spend so much time attacking big tech firms and then to expect them to welcome further regulation.
> why fake news regulation would require Google and FB to share more information about their business models
The answer is buried in paragraph 28 of the article: advertisement
European Commission... acknowledged the need to improve the scrutiny of advertisement placements
The answer is buried in paragraph 28 of the article: advertisement
European Commission... acknowledged the need to improve the scrutiny of advertisement placements
The article goes to length about backroom dealings but has a lot of unnamed accounts, rumors and speculation. For me this is just an authority argument (trust us but not them) which doesn't work for me since I don't know this organization.
That being said, this kind of sponsored opinions is kind what of the EU does. NGOs get grants, EU asks NGOs opinions on legislation. It can all be fare and right but it sure looks like the same.
That being said, this kind of sponsored opinions is kind what of the EU does. NGOs get grants, EU asks NGOs opinions on legislation. It can all be fare and right but it sure looks like the same.
I wonder who is behind that article - the mention of lobbying against music group copyright extension seems a telling non-sequitior. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand yet they are upset enough to bring it up as they see it as something worthy of bashing.
That isn't complaining about corporate influence but about who is winning essentially and sounds a lot like the agenda of angry old media that the world changed on them.
That isn't complaining about corporate influence but about who is winning essentially and sounds a lot like the agenda of angry old media that the world changed on them.
This news source is funded by George Soros.
Facebook and Google will beg and plead for content. They must have it to survive. Yet they do not want to hire journalists and create news content. They take all the ad revenue that news media would take, they spread the "news", but they do not produce it. They are middlemen. Rent collectors. Middlemen who want to "self-regulate".
Yes they are platform providers for user generated content, which competes against traditional news media, and they take their cut by placing advertisements.
I don't see why they shouldn't have a right to earn money or should be obligated to hire journalists. That's like saying social media shouldn't be allowed to compete with traditional news media.
Technological change is about disruption and this is just disruption. To oppose it is to oppose technological progress in order to protect incumbents' market shares.
I don't see why they shouldn't have a right to earn money or should be obligated to hire journalists. That's like saying social media shouldn't be allowed to compete with traditional news media.
Technological change is about disruption and this is just disruption. To oppose it is to oppose technological progress in order to protect incumbents' market shares.
_To oppose it is to oppose technological progress in order to protect incumbents' market shares._
Sorry, that is not correct. That is one of many reasons to oppose technological change. Some technological change introduces undesirable side-effects, like pollution. Can we not oppose that change on the basis of its pollution?
People are trying to disrupt the automobile and trucking industries with autonomous vehicles. If they are in the habit of killing their drivers or pedestrians, can we not raise our hand and say, "Whoa, not so fast, let's make sure they're safe?"
There are many reasons why people might oppose a particular disruptor, it may be that as a side-effect of their opposition that the incumbent is favoured, but that isn't necessarily why they oppose the disruptor, and the disruptor doesn't get a pass on their concerns just because we bow to the almighty God Of Technological Progress.
Addressing people's needs is progress, too.
Sorry, that is not correct. That is one of many reasons to oppose technological change. Some technological change introduces undesirable side-effects, like pollution. Can we not oppose that change on the basis of its pollution?
People are trying to disrupt the automobile and trucking industries with autonomous vehicles. If they are in the habit of killing their drivers or pedestrians, can we not raise our hand and say, "Whoa, not so fast, let's make sure they're safe?"
There are many reasons why people might oppose a particular disruptor, it may be that as a side-effect of their opposition that the incumbent is favoured, but that isn't necessarily why they oppose the disruptor, and the disruptor doesn't get a pass on their concerns just because we bow to the almighty God Of Technological Progress.
Addressing people's needs is progress, too.
[deleted]
>> That's like saying social media shouldn't be allowed to compete with traditional news media.
Social media companies could be allowed to compete with traditional news media, if they were obliged to abide by the same standards, principles and legal regulations that apply to traditional news media companies.
In most EU countries, any newspaper spreading the kind of garbage you see on Facebook could (and probably would) be called to a public hearing in parliament and risk being shut down, and further legal action, if it was proven that it was publishing stories without doing proper due diligence.
Social media companies could be allowed to compete with traditional news media, if they were obliged to abide by the same standards, principles and legal regulations that apply to traditional news media companies.
In most EU countries, any newspaper spreading the kind of garbage you see on Facebook could (and probably would) be called to a public hearing in parliament and risk being shut down, and further legal action, if it was proven that it was publishing stories without doing proper due diligence.
>In most EU countries, any newspaper spreading the kind of garbage you see on Facebook could (and probably would) be called to a public hearing in parliament and risk being shut down, and further legal action
Can you give some evidence for this? Because I see media in the EU lying through their teeth sometimes. We all know about the daily mail and its ilk, yet they've existed for many years as news organizations. I've not heard of these kinds of limitations you're talking about.
Can you give some evidence for this? Because I see media in the EU lying through their teeth sometimes. We all know about the daily mail and its ilk, yet they've existed for many years as news organizations. I've not heard of these kinds of limitations you're talking about.
> Technological change is about disruption and this is just disruption. To oppose it is to oppose technological progress in order to protect incumbents' market shares.
Do I take it you are in favor of Sci-hub and against Elsevier's efforts to protect its market share?
After all, what could be a greater disruption than using zero-marginal cost data to do an end run around a publisher restricting access to journal articles?
Do I take it you are in favor of Sci-hub and against Elsevier's efforts to protect its market share?
After all, what could be a greater disruption than using zero-marginal cost data to do an end run around a publisher restricting access to journal articles?
I don't know what should be done about intellectual property. My first instinct is that it legal protections for intellectual property shouldn't exist.
I hope young people who are familiar with "fake news" but not necessarily as familiar with the history of propaganda and censorship will study that history.
The big issue is there is enthusiasm for censorship, and the problem with censorship is who gets to decide what is real information and what is fake. The interests with the most power will have more control over information as censorship increases.
Because the same power that is supposedly only used to suppress propaganda from some other country is used to suppress internal dissent or criticism.
This is actually very dangerous for multiple reasons. One big reason is that propaganda (internal to the country, i.e. by the same people who will be deciding what is fake news) is usually critical in terms of jump-starting and maintaining enthusiasm for wars.