OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror watchlist: lawsuits(nypost.com)
nypost.com
OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror watchlist: lawsuits
https://nypost.com/2022/08/09/onlyfans-bribed-meta-to-put-thousands-of-porn-stars-on-terror-watchlist-suits-claim/
353 comments
You know that there's a US terrorist watch list with a million names on it, no due process necessary to be added to it, and no discernible process to be removed from it? That's aside from local gang membership lists, which have the same complete lack of safeguards.
We're not heading back into anything. We love blacklists.
We're not heading back into anything. We love blacklists.
That's hardly unique to the US
British Border Agent Fired for Putting Wife on Terrorist Watch List https://www.wired.com/2011/02/uk-border-fired/
British Border Agent Fired for Putting Wife on Terrorist Watch List https://www.wired.com/2011/02/uk-border-fired/
My uncle matches against that list, so they gave him a redressal number that fast tracks him through this process.
I seriously doubt there are more than 1000 potential terrorists that are US citizens. Any list with far more than that on it is suspect.
potential terrorists? I mean, who isn't a potential terrorist?!
adds jrochkind1 to watchlist
Probably people people who don't fit a certain profile, in the extreme people like kids, old people, billionaires, most politicians, priests, disabled people. Sure kids could grow to become terrorists but I doubt there are any 2 year olds in those lists. I don't know how many women fit the profile of a terrorist though.
The world will tremble at the sound of our burps and toots.
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06/class-action-suit-target...
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06/class-action-suit-target...
You have far too much faith in organizations
I'm not one.
The problem is even if you aren't one and even if you are not the one targeted by DHS/FBI, you could still be caught in it if someone with a similar name was caught up on it (like "Judy Smith", an alias used by an actual US domestic terrorist, which significantly inconvenienced a lot of Judy Smiths).
I mean, sure programs like TSA TRIP exists to mitigate this, but in practice no-one outside of TSA readily honors or knows them (and certainly not Equifax, which considering credit scores are widely utilized, would definitely impact their day-to-day life).
I mean, sure programs like TSA TRIP exists to mitigate this, but in practice no-one outside of TSA readily honors or knows them (and certainly not Equifax, which considering credit scores are widely utilized, would definitely impact their day-to-day life).
There's also the fact you can end up on a DHS list and there seems no real way to get off of it, even after being interrogated by HSI / DHS on many occasions and them seemingly being satisfied you are indeed not a terrorist. See my post below for more on how I know this.
That classification is rather arbitrary and not yours to make.
That's kinda the whole problem with it
And it's kinda nonsense, isn't the point of the nutty airport security to catch people in a terrorizing act?
That's kinda the whole problem with it
And it's kinda nonsense, isn't the point of the nutty airport security to catch people in a terrorizing act?
That is of course until the laws change and what you formally considered a fundamental right becomes an act of terrorism.
Have you ever worn a beard, or a hoodie?
maybe, but you are potentially accusable of being one.
If you piss off a border guard or they don't like the cut of your jib they could put you on the watch list.
Maybe not today, but maybe tomorrow!
How do you know?
Go through the US border. You'll find out. Even if you are a US citizen. I got thrown on something like this almost a decade ago when I fought alongside the YPG, a US backed Kurdish militia that fought against literal ISIS.
DHS/CBP put me on some fucked up list and now everytime I re-enter the US I get detained, accused of crimes, tossed in holding cell. Last time it was 16 hours and they involuntarily took me to two hospitals, got a warrant to "internally search me" (anally), and drove me 60 miles to two different hospitals against my will while chained and cuffed while being accused of being a smuggler with no basis whatsoever. Later the hospitals sent me the bill, even though I never consented to anything, and there was no true medical reason for being dragged to the hospitals against my will, and despite DHS/CBP lying and saying they would pay for the hospital bills. I also filed complaints with the board for the medical professionals, and of course was told that a nurse can perform a law enforcement "search" without consent even without a warrant (the warrant was actually not served until after I went through the hospitals) and without even a court order or even being arrested (I wasn't arrested).
Yes that's right, the Arizona nursing board says nurses can act as sworn law enforcement and can search you without even a warrant or probable cause and even if you never consent to any medical care or even being touched, and that they can provide medical care against your consent even if it's not an emergency and without a court order or warrant and without you even having been arrested. DHS has taken profit off of this opinion and now uses nurses to search people on their list without having to get their own hands dirty and minimize their own constitutional limitations.
Let me count a few other occasions. Another time I was told I would never be allowed to re-enter the US; yes that as a US citizen I could not enter the United States. On yet another occasion I was told my passport would be cancelled, even though there's no real legal mechanism for them to do that. You can imagine what it's like to smile and nod your head while being told these wild lies by officers who may even be poorly trained enough to believe this themselves. It's always 4+ hours of detainment to cross a border along with intense attempted interrogation by DHS/HSI detectives. Ah yes, I've been fingerprinted and "booked" by DHS as well, on what basis I don't understand, even without being arrested.
I have never been charged of any crimes, I have no criminal record, and in fact the only thing I did "wrong" was help protect people from actual terrorists.
So yeah, if you want to find out. Jus cross the border, turn around and come back. You'll find out quite agressively.
DHS/CBP put me on some fucked up list and now everytime I re-enter the US I get detained, accused of crimes, tossed in holding cell. Last time it was 16 hours and they involuntarily took me to two hospitals, got a warrant to "internally search me" (anally), and drove me 60 miles to two different hospitals against my will while chained and cuffed while being accused of being a smuggler with no basis whatsoever. Later the hospitals sent me the bill, even though I never consented to anything, and there was no true medical reason for being dragged to the hospitals against my will, and despite DHS/CBP lying and saying they would pay for the hospital bills. I also filed complaints with the board for the medical professionals, and of course was told that a nurse can perform a law enforcement "search" without consent even without a warrant (the warrant was actually not served until after I went through the hospitals) and without even a court order or even being arrested (I wasn't arrested).
Yes that's right, the Arizona nursing board says nurses can act as sworn law enforcement and can search you without even a warrant or probable cause and even if you never consent to any medical care or even being touched, and that they can provide medical care against your consent even if it's not an emergency and without a court order or warrant and without you even having been arrested. DHS has taken profit off of this opinion and now uses nurses to search people on their list without having to get their own hands dirty and minimize their own constitutional limitations.
Let me count a few other occasions. Another time I was told I would never be allowed to re-enter the US; yes that as a US citizen I could not enter the United States. On yet another occasion I was told my passport would be cancelled, even though there's no real legal mechanism for them to do that. You can imagine what it's like to smile and nod your head while being told these wild lies by officers who may even be poorly trained enough to believe this themselves. It's always 4+ hours of detainment to cross a border along with intense attempted interrogation by DHS/HSI detectives. Ah yes, I've been fingerprinted and "booked" by DHS as well, on what basis I don't understand, even without being arrested.
I have never been charged of any crimes, I have no criminal record, and in fact the only thing I did "wrong" was help protect people from actual terrorists.
So yeah, if you want to find out. Jus cross the border, turn around and come back. You'll find out quite agressively.
>So yeah, if you want to find out. Jus cross the border, turn around and come back. You'll find out quite agressively.
Were you deployed or did you go there on your own? Joining with a militia and fighting in a war zone full of terrorists is the sort of activity that should trip all the red flags. US-backing doesn't necessarily mean the group is without their own controversies and if you weren't deployed how the hell do they actually know what your goals were while you were there?
I get it, your situation sucks ass and you shouldn't be subject to abuse but you're absolutely not a normal case and 'fighting with a foreign militia' is exactly the sort of activity customs is going to want to know the story behind.
Were you deployed or did you go there on your own? Joining with a militia and fighting in a war zone full of terrorists is the sort of activity that should trip all the red flags. US-backing doesn't necessarily mean the group is without their own controversies and if you weren't deployed how the hell do they actually know what your goals were while you were there?
I get it, your situation sucks ass and you shouldn't be subject to abuse but you're absolutely not a normal case and 'fighting with a foreign militia' is exactly the sort of activity customs is going to want to know the story behind.
Should something that "trips the red flags" result in someone being treated that way? I would think at this point the security police would already know the "story behind" it, or if they don't it doesn't seem like more of the same kinds of interrogations are going to help; do you think they learn more of the "story behind" it each time? Or, what do you think the point of that treatment is? Do you think it is making the country safer? (and after all, as a US citizen who has not been charged of any crime, he is eventually let back into the country each time. So... what is the point of this?)
>Should something that "trips the red flags" result in someone being treated that way?
There's a lot to unpack in their post, the situation sucks for them and I'm not defending the treatment they received, I am pointing out that they aren't a normal citizen if they go to high risk areas and fight with foreign militias.
>I would think at this point the security police would already know the "story behind" it
Cross enough times and a citizen with a boring enough life will probably receive some scrutiny over why they cross so much. I dated a foreigner for many years and at some point her country started to get suspicious of me wanting to overstay. The Americans just wanted to know if I was a smuggler moving drugs or cash back, that's it. The country I was going to was not an active warzone, though when I first crossed as I was younger to 'meet friends I met online' this triggered some extra scrutiny.
> Do you think it is making the country safer?
Vetting citizens returning from fighting with foreign combatants probably does fit the exact scenario of making the country safer. There is no way possible for US government to know (nor should they know) what a citizen is doing every second of their life. Having to go through a secondary and receive questioning about what they've been up to in a high-risk area is not unreasonable.
There's a lot to unpack in their post, the situation sucks for them and I'm not defending the treatment they received, I am pointing out that they aren't a normal citizen if they go to high risk areas and fight with foreign militias.
>I would think at this point the security police would already know the "story behind" it
Cross enough times and a citizen with a boring enough life will probably receive some scrutiny over why they cross so much. I dated a foreigner for many years and at some point her country started to get suspicious of me wanting to overstay. The Americans just wanted to know if I was a smuggler moving drugs or cash back, that's it. The country I was going to was not an active warzone, though when I first crossed as I was younger to 'meet friends I met online' this triggered some extra scrutiny.
> Do you think it is making the country safer?
Vetting citizens returning from fighting with foreign combatants probably does fit the exact scenario of making the country safer. There is no way possible for US government to know (nor should they know) what a citizen is doing every second of their life. Having to go through a secondary and receive questioning about what they've been up to in a high-risk area is not unreasonable.
I think you have some reasonable views on this. I hope someday DHS/CBP is taken over by a person such as yourself, because they basically have free reign at the border as a "constitution free zone" and most citizens who never travel don't care to petition their representatives to make any changes.
If you have some time I encourage you to read the experience of Ms. Cervantes, a woman "legally" finger raped by border patrol / physicians.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
If you have some time I encourage you to read the experience of Ms. Cervantes, a woman "legally" finger raped by border patrol / physicians.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
If all they did was "try to find out" and then letting me go when they are either satisfied or I stop talking and they have no probable cause a crime has occurred, I would have never made this post.
It's clear to me these lists are as much about extra-judicial punishment as "finding out." I do not think a place exists in our society for these lists that impose against the freedom of citizens to travel without some sort of due process to petition a court for removal and/or some way to "drop off" the list after X years of living as a free peaceful citizen in harmony with others. Law enforcement officers should be tasked with enforcing the law, not with harassing people about things that are non-criminal, like fighting against ISIS (believe it or not there is no law that prevents you from fighting in a foreign militia, and in fact I do not believe any American has ever been charged for fighting with YPG.)
It's clear to me these lists are as much about extra-judicial punishment as "finding out." I do not think a place exists in our society for these lists that impose against the freedom of citizens to travel without some sort of due process to petition a court for removal and/or some way to "drop off" the list after X years of living as a free peaceful citizen in harmony with others. Law enforcement officers should be tasked with enforcing the law, not with harassing people about things that are non-criminal, like fighting against ISIS (believe it or not there is no law that prevents you from fighting in a foreign militia, and in fact I do not believe any American has ever been charged for fighting with YPG.)
> the sort of activity customs is going to want to know
not customs, border patrol. I mean, I'm sure what he's carrying would be scrutinized, but that's not the source of this list
not customs, border patrol. I mean, I'm sure what he's carrying would be scrutinized, but that's not the source of this list
> not customs, border patrol
Have you ever crossed a US border by land or sea or flown into the US? Customs agents handle ports of entry, border patrol handles the border between ports. Both are under CBP under homeland security but wear different uniforms, different job activities. They mentioned crossings and most citizens not wanting a headache use the legal crossings.
Have you ever crossed a US border by land or sea or flown into the US? Customs agents handle ports of entry, border patrol handles the border between ports. Both are under CBP under homeland security but wear different uniforms, different job activities. They mentioned crossings and most citizens not wanting a headache use the legal crossings.
before you get to customs (inside the US) you get your passport stamped (at the border). The person who stamps your passport is not a customs agent.
It all gets blurred if you're a US citizen. We don't get our passports stamped at all. Quite often they aren't even checked on the way out. CBP has combined task of border patrol and customs enforcement. As someone who's interacted with CBP many a time I get the impression the same officer often takes on both tasks.
It's not a normal case but it's on the spectrum. Missing a flight because your on a list is still really annoying and sometimes it can be terrifying.
Jesus Christ,
I’m so sorry for your experience. I hope this is solved for you in the future.
This story makes my blood boil.
This story makes my blood boil.
Having been fighting at a war zone on a voluntary basis with no official role is exactly the sort of thing they should be asking questions about, but these forced anal cavity searches are essentially rape and used as torture device which is despicable.
Always be talking to an expensive camera and they will give you royal treatment.
Sadly the border is the one exception where filming/recording an official in execution of their duties is illegal (constitution "doesn't apply" at the border). Same to cell phone operation. There's no way to record it. And I get strip-searched when I cross the border by officers who have found themselves quite desperate to find something, anything, to charge me with.
I would say the banning of recording at the border is something DHS/CBP counts on in order to enable their pattern of abuse. And when they lie in their warrant, it helps them greatly as it's purely your word against theirs.
I would say the banning of recording at the border is something DHS/CBP counts on in order to enable their pattern of abuse. And when they lie in their warrant, it helps them greatly as it's purely your word against theirs.
And doesn't "the border" get defined as something like 100 miles from every "port of entry", which not only includes land borders and the coasts but also internal international airports?
In seriousness, many in the Jan 6 mob, and in the supporting supremicist militia are terrorists and no doubt also US citizens. At least 10s, possibly hundreds of thousands. Not the colloquial mental model but fit the definition nonetheless.
> Not the colloquial mental model but fit the definition nonetheless.
I’m not sure dictionary definitions provide the right moral compass when it comes to suspending rights.
We should discuss what such an expansive interpretation aims to achieve, and then discuss whether adopting that interpretation achieves those goals.
I’m not sure dictionary definitions provide the right moral compass when it comes to suspending rights.
We should discuss what such an expansive interpretation aims to achieve, and then discuss whether adopting that interpretation achieves those goals.
Not only were there thousands in that mob, there are literally millions of Americans who think their actions were justified.
Overall, I'd roughly guess that 25-50% of the American public should be suspected of terroristic tendencies.
Overall, I'd roughly guess that 25-50% of the American public should be suspected of terroristic tendencies.
People who believe those actions were justified are not "evil" in the sense they want to do evil things for the sake of it. I think, as a complete outsider to US politics, they're just genuinely thinking they're the good guys fighting against the truly evil ones, the ones who are not respecting democracy (I think they believe the election was stolen, right?)... a good person may feel it's their duty to fight by all means necessary for democracy or whatever system they believe religiously to be the "right" one. And that doing things that appear evil to defend the good fight is justified... every single war in human history was fought on these terms: by people believing so strongly to be in the right that they are willing to kill their enemy. If you think a crowd starts a riot or a country starts a war because they're simply evil and want to do evil things, you're probably watching too many movies and not understanding human behaviour, including your own.
If you're saying those people who stormed the US Capitol building had "terroristic tendencies", well, I think nearly every person does. We all argue, fight, and probably even kill given the right (wrong) circumstances.
If you're saying those people who stormed the US Capitol building had "terroristic tendencies", well, I think nearly every person does. We all argue, fight, and probably even kill given the right (wrong) circumstances.
Completely agree that "good" vs "evil" are terms relative to a particular institutional/political bias, and while it is impossible for any person to be outside ALL institutional/political frames, it is vitally important from the "inside" to be refreshed with outsider perspectives from time to time.
What strikes me- as an American who thinks Trump is a sociopath as well as a grifter and who suggested the "terrorist" framing earlier in this thread- what strikes me as an opportunity in the public conversation with and about Jan 6 and Trump that has not been explored in any way is the fact that the vast majority of those who came to the Capital, even those with violent intent, spoke about and believed they were acting with a patriotic duty- exactly the same duty that those of us who looked upon those actions with horror and disgust feel and experience.
I think there is an opportunity for a political actor to speak to the Trump audience and start from that place of patriotism, that place of dury- that is what all "Americans" have in common. It should be possible to tell a story that stays on the path of what is common to all patriots, and in doing so start to repair the broken views of those currently in the Big Lie faithful.
However, no political actor has actually done so. Maybe the time is not right. Maybe the visionary who can craft that story isn't yet with us.
In their absence- there IS good and evil because here there ARE sides. The world that those with violent intent came to the capital to enshrine are evil, and terrorists, from my perspective- the above notwithstanding!
Sometimes politics fails. And you have to take sides.
Best wishes to you.
What strikes me- as an American who thinks Trump is a sociopath as well as a grifter and who suggested the "terrorist" framing earlier in this thread- what strikes me as an opportunity in the public conversation with and about Jan 6 and Trump that has not been explored in any way is the fact that the vast majority of those who came to the Capital, even those with violent intent, spoke about and believed they were acting with a patriotic duty- exactly the same duty that those of us who looked upon those actions with horror and disgust feel and experience.
I think there is an opportunity for a political actor to speak to the Trump audience and start from that place of patriotism, that place of dury- that is what all "Americans" have in common. It should be possible to tell a story that stays on the path of what is common to all patriots, and in doing so start to repair the broken views of those currently in the Big Lie faithful.
However, no political actor has actually done so. Maybe the time is not right. Maybe the visionary who can craft that story isn't yet with us.
In their absence- there IS good and evil because here there ARE sides. The world that those with violent intent came to the capital to enshrine are evil, and terrorists, from my perspective- the above notwithstanding!
Sometimes politics fails. And you have to take sides.
Best wishes to you.
support for terroristic tendencies perhaps
-- seems like it's well in excess of that --
https://cis.org/Bensman/US-Government-Now-Publishing-Terrori...
https://cis.org/Bensman/US-Government-Now-Publishing-Terrori...
About 5k US citizens on the list.
I dunno man I hang out in libertarian circles and know plenty of men and women going “camping with their friends” on the weekend. They’re spending their time doing target practice and prepping for if shit hits the fan here in the US.
I’d guess every one of those people is on a domestic terrorism watchlist as “potential terrorists”. They’re all good guys and haven’t done anything illegal, but the feds don’t know that.
I’d guess every one of those people is on a domestic terrorism watchlist as “potential terrorists”. They’re all good guys and haven’t done anything illegal, but the feds don’t know that.
Do you really imagine anyone with a gun who goes out target shooting with friends is a terrorist? How about that armed fellow who shot last month's mall shooter dead? Most people think he's a hero. He saved a lot of lives.
“Owns a gun” immediately puts you in an elevated threat category in my mind. That’s not the same as believing something specific like they are a “terrorist” but i’d be surprised if I was rare in thinking that way.
What a sadly ignorant, bigoted and unrealistic world view. This statement reminds me of the era when all gay men were treated as suspected pedophiles.
There are more guns in America than people. 99.99999% of guns will never be used in a crime. An American who buys a car is far more likely to hurt someone with their car than someone who buys a gun is to hurt someone with that gun.
Most gun owners use them to target shoot as a hobby, or hunt deer. Some people also consider them a supplement to locks on their doors as home protection.
There are more guns in America than people. 99.99999% of guns will never be used in a crime. An American who buys a car is far more likely to hurt someone with their car than someone who buys a gun is to hurt someone with that gun.
Most gun owners use them to target shoot as a hobby, or hunt deer. Some people also consider them a supplement to locks on their doors as home protection.
There are more guns in america than people, but only 32% of americans own guns.
I am way more likely to be hurt by a car - you’re right. The presence of cars in an environment puts me at an elevated threat level. When I’m standing waiting for a light I often try to make sure there is a pole between me and traffic.
But with very few exceptions, it’s hard for someone to bring a car into environments where I am not expecting them. Guns, not so much.
If you own a lockpicking set, i believe you when you say it’s for fun and learning - but to pretend owning it does nothing to the risk that you might unlock my front door is just denial.
I am way more likely to be hurt by a car - you’re right. The presence of cars in an environment puts me at an elevated threat level. When I’m standing waiting for a light I often try to make sure there is a pole between me and traffic.
But with very few exceptions, it’s hard for someone to bring a car into environments where I am not expecting them. Guns, not so much.
If you own a lockpicking set, i believe you when you say it’s for fun and learning - but to pretend owning it does nothing to the risk that you might unlock my front door is just denial.
The purpose of owning a gun is to be a threat. That's why the government has them, to threaten you with.
When DHS flagged my passport gun ownership was one of the first things they asked me about. I don't think ownership is enough to flag you but your answer or lack thereof undoubtable is placed in the database for whatever sort of assessment they use.
You got a bit trigger happy to score points for Team Gun and missed that this person is actually on your side.
> I hang out in libertarian circles
> They’re all good guys and haven’t done anything illegal
That said - raising the one single isolated case of a person with a gun helping to stop a mass shooting, while conveniently forgetting the hundreds of such attacks that have occurred in past couple of years is IMO pretty disgusting. If I were making the argument that gun ownership was not a cause for suspicion I'd be giving mass shootings an extremely wide berth.
> I hang out in libertarian circles
> They’re all good guys and haven’t done anything illegal
That said - raising the one single isolated case of a person with a gun helping to stop a mass shooting, while conveniently forgetting the hundreds of such attacks that have occurred in past couple of years is IMO pretty disgusting. If I were making the argument that gun ownership was not a cause for suspicion I'd be giving mass shootings an extremely wide berth.
I have no idea what they think they are preparing for, but it sounds like the kind of people who want a new civil war. And those people tend to be bad.
And apparently you don't know anything about history either.
or perhaps they are just fed up with bowing to a government that doesn't work for them? The USA was founded by terrorists too, from the POV of Britain...
"No, they are terrorists who want a civil war" is not the comeback you think it is. The people who think like that should be on watchlists and the registries that prevent them from buying guns.
The last civil war in the united states happened something like two life-times ago. Being prepared for the possibility of an unwanted civil war is not the same thing as wanting to start one. Given that war within the border of the US in a lifetime is historically well within "one unlucky 6-sided dice roll" it doesn't seem that weird of a thing for people to worry about, or possibly even somehow "prepare" for.
Which has nothing to do with the person I was responding to who talked about "bowing to the government" and how revolutionaries are always perceived as terrorists.
You're right. My reply would have been more appropriately placed at your parent post.
In that case, I would point out that trying to extrapolate a rate of civil wars from black swan events seems almost impossible. It's happened one time in US history (two if you want to count the American Revolution).
And how do these people's preparations help in the event of a civil war?
And how do these people's preparations help in the event of a civil war?
>> target practice and prepping for if shit hits the fan here in the US.
>And how do these people's preparations help in the event of a civil war?
(scratching my head how they would not)
>And how do these people's preparations help in the event of a civil war?
(scratching my head how they would not)
Pure speculation.
Based off inconclusive evidence, I speculate that your name is Walter.
Speculation is a valid form of discourse and has a non-negligible chance of being accurate. What is the value in your attempted invalidation of such discourse?
A million names? Can you point me to evidence that this terrorist watch list is this large?
Second hit on google: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/06/fbi-terrorist-watch-list-gu...
"The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database is the U.S. government’s primary watch list, and what people usually mean when they refer to the terrorist watch list. It contains about 1 million records. About 5,000 of those records — 0.5 percent — are about Americans."
"The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database is the U.S. government’s primary watch list, and what people usually mean when they refer to the terrorist watch list. It contains about 1 million records. About 5,000 of those records — 0.5 percent — are about Americans."
"As of 2017, there were about 1.16 million people on the TSDB; the great majority are foreigners, but the list also includes approximately 4,600 U.S. persons." [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database
[deleted]
Always choose 1 innocent person imprisoned? I guess you meant the "former" not the "latter" :-)
Interesting with the hashes. Seems impossible to detect such "poisoning of the hashes" i wonder if anyone with access could ... Submit a hash of a profile photo of someone, to cause him/hey troubles?
Interesting with the hashes. Seems impossible to detect such "poisoning of the hashes" i wonder if anyone with access could ... Submit a hash of a profile photo of someone, to cause him/hey troubles?
The governance process is that content producers (ie you and me and our circles) need to stop donating free content to centralized automated censorship platforms run by billionaires, because they fail-deadly for our society once they become the planet default.
This sounds exactly like the CSAM detection lists, you can go back to the threads when Apple introduced device-side CSAM scanning for arguments about that.
I believe its managed by the GIFCT: https://gifct.org/
Oh lovely, you have to pay to get a copy of the list. Gotta make sure only the entrenched big tech companies can effectively filter out extremist content, huh?
This is exactly what it is. Last I heard, a small team within FB was responsible for actually running the service itself but it could have gotten spun out since then.
> If the scenario was the following: letting 10 criminals go free, or having 1 innocent person imprisoned, I would always choose the latter.
Really? It seems like you meant the former.
Really? It seems like you meant the former.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For anyone interested, this seems to be the lawsuit in questions and it has all the details people are asking for but the journalists don't include: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The plaintiff's law firm looks to be plenty high-powered:
https://milberg.com/about-us/
https://milberg.com/about-us/
It seems like for all the effort we've put into stopping terrorism it's primarily being used against our own citizens rather than to stop any actual terrorism.
It's such a shame that nobody predicted exactly that
Russ Feingold will always have major points for this in my book. Only senator to vote against the 'Patriot Act'.
I was just curious because I'd never heard or thought about who voted for the Patriot Act. I don't even know who Feingold is but he gets points in my book now too.
If anyone else is interested, here is the actual vote: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
If anyone else is interested, here is the actual vote: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
Along the same lines, folks interested in this will also like learning about Rep. Barbara Lee, the only person in Congress to vote against the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force after 9/11.
> She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target'". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee#AUMF_opposition
The Radiolab podcast episode is IMO the best way to hear the telling. The link is to their re-release, which has a bit extra at the end IIRC. https://radiolab.org/episodes/60-words-20-years
> She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target'". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee#AUMF_opposition
The Radiolab podcast episode is IMO the best way to hear the telling. The link is to their re-release, which has a bit extra at the end IIRC. https://radiolab.org/episodes/60-words-20-years
Americans across the political spectrum are generally very okay with invasions of privacy, excessive force, rights violations, etc. as long as they’re targeted at the “right” people (criminals that deserve it). They’re incredibly difficult issues to advocate for because most people either a) think the victim deserved it for being a criminal, or b) would eventually think the same given a wide enough selection of victims.
We're okay with it when we see exceptional results.
When, instead, you see a school shooter's search history includes "I'm going to shoot up X school" and the FBI claims that they couldn't have foreseen it happening, then it starts to seem as if the results aren't as exceptional as they claim.
When, instead, you see a school shooter's search history includes "I'm going to shoot up X school" and the FBI claims that they couldn't have foreseen it happening, then it starts to seem as if the results aren't as exceptional as they claim.
It's the just world fallacy writ large.
I think I agree with you sentiment, but let me ask this:
If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it? Said differently, maybe it is working. If it was, what would be the way that you would know that it is working?
If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it? Said differently, maybe it is working. If it was, what would be the way that you would know that it is working?
The number of successful prosecutions, with guilty verdicts and jail time, on offences under whichever anti-terror statutes you're measuring for effectiveness.
If individual acts of terror are being prevented, but none of the people planning them are put in prison, and are free to walk the streets and try another plot, would you say those laws are effective? I wouldn't.
If individual acts of terror are being prevented, but none of the people planning them are put in prison, and are free to walk the streets and try another plot, would you say those laws are effective? I wouldn't.
Putting people in prison is a means to an end, not a goal itself. If anything, preventing violence without locking anyone up is even better than preventing it by keeping potential perpetrators under armed guard.
Maybe on a longer time horizon it won't work as well, but it's already been 20 years since 9/11.
Maybe on a longer time horizon it won't work as well, but it's already been 20 years since 9/11.
> If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it?
Yes, because the feds brag about it nonstop on the rare occasions they actually nab somebody.
Yes, because the feds brag about it nonstop on the rare occasions they actually nab somebody.
Exactly. Somehow we know how they use these systems for parallel construction yet we don't hear a peep about actual terrorists being stopped.
Even when they were the ones that Planned, and started the process only to "swoop" in to save the day like an arsonist firefighter
No, so the fact that we see those over and over again is evidence that they have nothing to brag about.
To me it is evidence we need massive reform in the FBI and several other Agencies, and a rebalance of entrapment laws to favor the citizenry not the government
"FBI Foils FBI terror plot!" Happened in Michigan, too.
> If terrorism was being stopped, would you even know it? Said differently, maybe it is working. If it was, what would be the way that you would know that it is working?
The government would never pass up an opportunity for good PR. They openly cheer when they assassinate foreign enemies don't forget, even when they're government officials.
The government would never pass up an opportunity for good PR. They openly cheer when they assassinate foreign enemies don't forget, even when they're government officials.
At least in America, the relevant organization would be shouting their successes from the rooftops to get more budget, get more goodwill, and make careers on the back of that casework.
Our failures are known. Our successes are secret. --old intelligence agency saying
Shouting successful secret missions just doesn't seem like something they would be doing as it could lead to the "enemy" learning ways and methods and what not. The only people they have to convince are the Gang of Eight.
Shouting successful secret missions just doesn't seem like something they would be doing as it could lead to the "enemy" learning ways and methods and what not. The only people they have to convince are the Gang of Eight.
Uh huh, keep drinking the coolaid. They had no issues publicizing Osama Bin Ladens assassination, and the most recent ones. Or the various drone assassinations.
Plenty of ways to take credit without revealing sensitive info.
Plenty of ways to take credit without revealing sensitive info.
> what would be the way that you would know that it is working?
Probably a decrease in successful terrorism attempts or an increase in thwarted terrorism attempts (with neither being attributed to something else instead). I don't think there's any value to this question though, since it can be used to justify literally anything. If a policy needs to prove its own value, then it should be constructed in a way that allows its value to be tracked.
Probably a decrease in successful terrorism attempts or an increase in thwarted terrorism attempts (with neither being attributed to something else instead). I don't think there's any value to this question though, since it can be used to justify literally anything. If a policy needs to prove its own value, then it should be constructed in a way that allows its value to be tracked.
Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
The Heritage Foundation tracks this: https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/report/40-terror-plots-fo...
As of 2011, the number was 40.
As of 2011, the number was 40.
The one in Albany, NY was a joke. The “informant” was a questionable character whose long string of misdeeds, enabled by mysterious good fortune, culminated in the deaths of 20 people.
Read this and contemplate using the Heritage Foundation as a source of truth in the future. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/limo-crash-ny-fbi-in...
Read this and contemplate using the Heritage Foundation as a source of truth in the future. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/limo-crash-ny-fbi-in...
Wow FBI is almost as terrible for Americans as CIA is for everyone else.
I'm not a big fan of the Heritage Foundation, but nobody else tracks this statistic. On top that, it's better than they put this information in the clear, if journalists choose to track this in the future they at least have a list someone has been auditing. Lastly, instead of trying to find another source you chose to lecture me on mine, not knowing that there are no other sources. Maybe pack your high and mighty attitude up and put on your thinking cap next time.
You can find that stuff in the DOJ pressroom.
There’s no way the security authorities are going to reveal sources and methods for actual plots.
My beef with the Heritage foundation is they present this as clear cut factual evidence while any thinking person, including federal judges overseeing the cases, is almost compelled to call out the nonsensical nature of the cases.
You’re not going to get any type of accounting for this stuff for 20-30 years when the decision makers are dead or retired and actual information gets declassified.
There’s no way the security authorities are going to reveal sources and methods for actual plots.
My beef with the Heritage foundation is they present this as clear cut factual evidence while any thinking person, including federal judges overseeing the cases, is almost compelled to call out the nonsensical nature of the cases.
You’re not going to get any type of accounting for this stuff for 20-30 years when the decision makers are dead or retired and actual information gets declassified.
> As of 2011, the number was 40.
Is that high? Low? How many is that versus successful terrorist attacks?
Is that high? Low? How many is that versus successful terrorist attacks?
4 per year seems relatively high to me.
They aren't minor plans either - they include carbombings, bombing buildings, targeted assassinations.
There is one where someone was sending money to al-Qaeda in Kashmir. That seems the least serious (as in it wasn't a planned attack on US soil).
They aren't minor plans either - they include carbombings, bombing buildings, targeted assassinations.
There is one where someone was sending money to al-Qaeda in Kashmir. That seems the least serious (as in it wasn't a planned attack on US soil).
[deleted]
> As of 2011
From 2001 until 2011. Where is the number now? Also those are all public...where are the ones the CIA knows about?
From 2001 until 2011. Where is the number now? Also those are all public...where are the ones the CIA knows about?
This is an important concept for people to understand.
All aspects of security (policing, counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, etc) are all fundamentally impossible to prove how effective measures taken are. Usually the best we can do is use a proxy measure or test pre/post.
All aspects of security (policing, counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, etc) are all fundamentally impossible to prove how effective measures taken are. Usually the best we can do is use a proxy measure or test pre/post.
There would be media reports and court cases to point to if any of these measures were effective. As a reminder, virtually every school shooter was monitored or on a watchlist.
[deleted]
The majority of the time the terrorists are our own citizens.
This story is obviously an abuse of the system, but if this stopped natural born citizens who were planning to lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire it would be doing its job.
But even the system is only partially to blame here. It's really the corrupt employee and lack of oversight that is to blame. The system did allow the corruption to spread to other companies, but even if it was confined to Meta that would still be a lot of damage.
This story is obviously an abuse of the system, but if this stopped natural born citizens who were planning to lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire it would be doing its job.
But even the system is only partially to blame here. It's really the corrupt employee and lack of oversight that is to blame. The system did allow the corruption to spread to other companies, but even if it was confined to Meta that would still be a lot of damage.
> lock the doors of a busy nightclub and set it on fire
Has it ever? Is there a terrorist watchlist at the doors of nightclubs now? It would also be great if it cured cancer or replaced crumbling infrastructure, but why talk about nonsense?
Has it ever? Is there a terrorist watchlist at the doors of nightclubs now? It would also be great if it cured cancer or replaced crumbling infrastructure, but why talk about nonsense?
Stopping radicalization is entirely about situations like this. The people who commit crimes like this don't appear out of nowhere. They were talking about it for months or years ahead of time, usually with like minded people and sometimes with people who are actively trying to destabilize the US.
So the issue here is that anybody can contribute without oversight. Sounds a lot like the issue with that Tay bot, whose contributions led to it being anti-Semitic and all that. I'd argue that its lack of oversight to prevent that sort of abuse is a fundamental problem with the system and not a partial point of fault.
This wasn't a case of "anybody contributing", they literally bought off a Meta employee to do this. Well, I guess anybody can commit a crime, but that's not a fundamental weakness of the law.
Good point, but I think my overall point stands, since the "system" is still inclusive of the processes on top of the submission or in this case, the lack of process. Lots of red flags going on here when thousands of people can be added without notification within gov and really speaks to the capabilities of a company's "extra judicial" tooling.
Bullcrap. The majority of the time, the terrorists are those who legitimately dissent.
Your statement is vague.
Are you saying that legitimate dissenters are being illegitimately accused of terrorism? Or that terrorists are legitimate dissenters (despite the fact that terrorism is by definition using violence and not working within the legal framework? Or did you mean to say something else?
Are you saying that legitimate dissenters are being illegitimately accused of terrorism? Or that terrorists are legitimate dissenters (despite the fact that terrorism is by definition using violence and not working within the legal framework? Or did you mean to say something else?
Yes. For but one example, parents raising disputes to school policies during School Board Meetings are being labeled and investigated as terrorists. I could see it if there were threats of violence; the only threats being made is to displace board members at the next election, aka standard democratic process in a free society.
> the only threats being made is to displace board members
Really? Have you seen every single threat being made, either public or private? I don’t believe it.
When I worked at a large social media website, users would scream bloody murder about unfair moderation. But when I asked customer support, they always had good evidence that the user had terrible behavior in private but pretend to be virtuous in public to gather sympathy.
This is an asymmetric information space. The DOJ/FBI won’t release the actual evidence they have which triggered the opening of an investigation. The people who show up at board meetings are humans and had lives before they showed up. They posted on social media. They met with other people. They have political affiliations. I am fairly certain we will find out that these people made legit threats outside of the public forum that earned further investigation.
Really? Have you seen every single threat being made, either public or private? I don’t believe it.
When I worked at a large social media website, users would scream bloody murder about unfair moderation. But when I asked customer support, they always had good evidence that the user had terrible behavior in private but pretend to be virtuous in public to gather sympathy.
This is an asymmetric information space. The DOJ/FBI won’t release the actual evidence they have which triggered the opening of an investigation. The people who show up at board meetings are humans and had lives before they showed up. They posted on social media. They met with other people. They have political affiliations. I am fairly certain we will find out that these people made legit threats outside of the public forum that earned further investigation.
There is no incentive to stop terrorists beyond doing the bare minimum to cover one's ass. It's not like anything bad happens for the government. They just get more power every time.
The most extreme examples of this are countries like Pakistan, which derive a great deal of foreign aid from their ongoing 'conflicts' with terror-related groups in outlying territory. Pakistan has very little incentive to ever 'win'.
If this story spreads, they'll be using "children" ("protect the", "-porn",...) to act against normal people for some time, then back to terrorism.
Then women: “It is important to be able to bypass all courts of law and be able to pronounce judgements at a whim, because a mother died after due process took too long.”
However, I wonder whether this is organized or organic. Is it an emergent property of population density, or is it determined by culture?
- 1 inhabitant/km2 = witch trials, tribe judgements, - 10 hab/km2 = beginnings of court justice, - 100 hab/km2 = politically-knee-jerk justice, - 1000 hab/km2 = Chinese or Japanese-style justice
Or perhaps it is related to the age of the current country?
However, I wonder whether this is organized or organic. Is it an emergent property of population density, or is it determined by culture?
- 1 inhabitant/km2 = witch trials, tribe judgements, - 10 hab/km2 = beginnings of court justice, - 100 hab/km2 = politically-knee-jerk justice, - 1000 hab/km2 = Chinese or Japanese-style justice
Or perhaps it is related to the age of the current country?
A feature, not a bug.
Actually, most of that effort has been put towards invading other countries. The effort put towards dealing with domestic terrorists (real or imagined) is comparatively small.
[deleted]
That is working as intended. Terrorism and "think of the children" fearmongering were never intended to do anything about terrorism or child abuse. They simply aren't designed for that.
[deleted]
This wasn't a government watchlist. It's an independent nonprofit shared by social media companies.
It only happens every single time.
Do you have a source to back up that claim?
And used against Trump, and similar. There's a reason people were very upset he was kicked off of Twitter - not because they care in the slightest about Trump, but because it's starting us down a path with a very bad ending.
He broke the TOS repeatedly, and since the beginning. Twitter was in the wrong because he should have been kicked out way sooner.
Trump was not kicked off of Twitter for any reasons remotely related to terrorism.
I believe he was kicked off for inciting violence?
It wasn't the first time he was breaking the rules though. He was kicked not because of that particular event but because the virtue-signalling potential of kicking him outweighed the benefits of keeping him around once he lost the election. The Capitol attack was just a convenient excuse for kicking a troublemaker that according to their own rules should've been gone long ago.
If Twitter truly cared about their rules and acted with integrity they would've kicked him way sooner, but they didn't because he generated them tons of "growth & engagement" while he was President.
If Twitter truly cared about their rules and acted with integrity they would've kicked him way sooner, but they didn't because he generated them tons of "growth & engagement" while he was President.
Yeah, he was. Violence isn't some terrorism related construct invented in 2001.
idontpost(4)
"Hate speech", "misinformation", "defending democracy" are other meaningless umbrella terms just as much as "terrorism", weaponised for the same ends.
That doesn't make them related.
Trump has made many concrete incitements to violence. Telling his supporters to "rough someone up", "someone should punch that person, I'll pay your legal bills", "maybe some of you second amendment folk can do something about Hillary".
This is from February, when the BBC reported it [1]. This recent article from The NY Post doesn't seem to add much more, other than that the judge set the trial for September.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60029508
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60029508
> the judge set the trial for September.
This is incorrect. September is a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss.
Not especially relevant, but of mild interest: this case is with Judge Alsup (of Oracle v Google).
This is incorrect. September is a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss.
Not especially relevant, but of mild interest: this case is with Judge Alsup (of Oracle v Google).
The BBC reporting only mentions a lawsuit targeting OnlyFans, with subpoenas for Meta, and quotes hinting at more to come.
According to OP, Meta is now also a defendant.
According to OP, Meta is now also a defendant.
There was a story that came out of a podcast with a couple adult entertainers in the LA/SF area that I think made the rounds here as well that connects nicely to this.
She alleged that her account kept getting shadow banned and she couldn't get it resolved so she started stalking Facebook/Insta mods and sleeping with them to get unbanned.
Good stuff... monopolies are bad.
She alleged that her account kept getting shadow banned and she couldn't get it resolved so she started stalking Facebook/Insta mods and sleeping with them to get unbanned.
Good stuff... monopolies are bad.
I suppose this is the dual to the OnlyFans creator who slept with Meta employees to get unbanned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31447396
I think the takeaway from both of these stories is that Meta employees are easily bribed and perhaps some more internal controls are needed to prevent abuse of these platform features.
I think the takeaway from both of these stories is that Meta employees are easily bribed and perhaps some more internal controls are needed to prevent abuse of these platform features.
If a private individual can do this, imagine how easy it is for the U.S. government to suppress content that it doesn't like on social media.
Harder for the state, in the USA. The constitution has something to say about that (IANAL)
The Constitution doesn’t stop them from requesting or paying for a service, just ordering companies to do it. This is how they are allowed to buy all your location data, and how the cops usually get all your data from social media (no subpoena needed, they just ask), and how it is that crime perpetrators are zapped off social media almost instantly before regular people can look their posts up.
There’s a big, big loophole that people overlook here. FAANG etc have whole departments of people dedicated to voluntarily turning your data over to the state.
There’s a big, big loophole that people overlook here. FAANG etc have whole departments of people dedicated to voluntarily turning your data over to the state.
Are you implying that the TLAs follow the law?
Because their track record says otherwise.
Because their track record says otherwise.
Harder does not mean impossible. There's more scrutiny and more recourse when the government does it, but you're right it doesn't always stop them.
On paper, sure. In practice government doesn't really have to worry about government trying to make an example out of them though and has access to the kind of violence and benefit of the doubt evil corporations could only dream of.
Frankly I think it's a bit naive to imply that big government organizations aren't just as evil and terrible and self serving as big corporate ones. Their error bars of evil overlap a lot.
Frankly I think it's a bit naive to imply that big government organizations aren't just as evil and terrible and self serving as big corporate ones. Their error bars of evil overlap a lot.
There is also very little consequence for the gov and very little recourse for the citizen in practice. In the event that someone has the resources to challenge the government, any victory is blunted by the award coming from their (and all of our) tax dollars.
[deleted]
* on centralized censorship-based social media
It is important to self-publish and not be a sharecropper for billionaires by donating your content for free to their walled gardens.
It is important to self-publish and not be a sharecropper for billionaires by donating your content for free to their walled gardens.
This seems like a surprisingly specific allegation:
>> They claim the bribes were routed from OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International, through a secret Hong Kong subsidiary into offshore Philippines bank accounts set up by the crooked Meta employees, potentially including at least one unnamed senior executive.
If that's true, how would they know? And if not, why would they think they know it?
>> They claim the bribes were routed from OnlyFans’ parent company, Fenix International, through a secret Hong Kong subsidiary into offshore Philippines bank accounts set up by the crooked Meta employees, potentially including at least one unnamed senior executive.
If that's true, how would they know? And if not, why would they think they know it?
They don't. Read claims 75-85:
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
Note that "on information and belief" is lawyeresse for "we don't know this is true, we only have suspicion". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 (as well as a lot of the complaint) are so hedged. The claims they're not hedging are more limited: basically "Meta employees were paid to update a database of dangerous individuals and organizations, and Meta shared this database with others (75)" and "OnlyFans' parent company Fenix has a presence in Hong Kong and other countries (78-81)". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 must be true... because the alternative would be devastating to their case /s.
There is very little of substance in the complaint. In all seriousness, I think plaintiffs have read public sentiment against tech companies, and I imagine their strategy here is to throw as much mud as they can, bamboozle some credulous journalists, and hope Meta et al settle to avoid bad PR.
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
Note that "on information and belief" is lawyeresse for "we don't know this is true, we only have suspicion". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 (as well as a lot of the complaint) are so hedged. The claims they're not hedging are more limited: basically "Meta employees were paid to update a database of dangerous individuals and organizations, and Meta shared this database with others (75)" and "OnlyFans' parent company Fenix has a presence in Hong Kong and other countries (78-81)". Claims 76, 77, 82, and 85 must be true... because the alternative would be devastating to their case /s.
There is very little of substance in the complaint. In all seriousness, I think plaintiffs have read public sentiment against tech companies, and I imagine their strategy here is to throw as much mud as they can, bamboozle some credulous journalists, and hope Meta et al settle to avoid bad PR.
a secret Hong Kong subsidiary would have a non-secret name, do any of the court filings name it? if so, why not the journalist?
kickbacks to big tech employees isn't new or novel, just curious about why the omission of details
kickbacks to big tech employees isn't new or novel, just curious about why the omission of details
> If that's true, how would they know?
Someone ratted them out?
Someone ratted them out?
[deleted]
Little by little , social media companies are replacing the functions of the state. When will the beatings begin
Because people insist that Something Must Be Done and the state's not doing it. Even EU regulators don't want to do things, they want to push big tech firms to do it.
Beatings are unlikely though. It's not something you can do with a datacenter.
Beatings are unlikely though. It's not something you can do with a datacenter.
Show HN: My Gaoler as a Service (GaaS) company scaled to $1MM revenue overnight.
Uber Beats
Meanwhile, in Meta's robotics division…
???
Something Must Be Done.
How are people so utterly naive as to think Facebook would not be awash in terrorism, calls for death etc. if it were not censored?
People are rightly upset Facebook is being used to forment ethnic wars in other countries, if you think things are 'bad' now, imagine what FB would be like unfettered?
'Here I am cutting off the heads of XYZ group, please send money!'
All systems will be abused, and the systems to censor them will be abused ... so we have to do our best with all of that.
It's a bit ridiculous all of this is happening, that OnlyFans guy should probably be in jail.
Something Must Be Done.
How are people so utterly naive as to think Facebook would not be awash in terrorism, calls for death etc. if it were not censored?
People are rightly upset Facebook is being used to forment ethnic wars in other countries, if you think things are 'bad' now, imagine what FB would be like unfettered?
'Here I am cutting off the heads of XYZ group, please send money!'
All systems will be abused, and the systems to censor them will be abused ... so we have to do our best with all of that.
It's a bit ridiculous all of this is happening, that OnlyFans guy should probably be in jail.
Yes, I agree that moderation is important and I think Big Tech companies are trying to do this job under difficult conditions. But someone said that they didn’t like private companies taking state responsibilities, and I’m wondering what the statist alternative would actually look like? Maybe that governments run their own social networks, similar to how they maintain public parks where people can gather? Not sure how it would work. People complaining about private companies doing the moderation don’t seem to be proposing alternatives to it.
Yes, there should be public social networks. Even if it is slow and you have to clean your spam every day, it is now as essential as roads and electricity. Governments around the world guarantee the right to free speech and association but in practice this isn't happening. I wonder which country will be the first one to launch a public utility messaging/social feed app.
This isn't a position that social media companies wanted to be in. Blame the people who demand that the social media companies act as censors. This all started when people stirred outrage at a Coca Cola ad appeared before an ISIS video on Youtube and demanded that companies boycott Youtube ads.
I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act? That's why I don't get the whining on 'cancel culture'. Half the baby boomers generation (the middle/upper class part) keep telling their kids and others to 'vote but don't protest' and then, when told their generation controlled every vote target, 'vote with your wallets.
Unless you've never used this phrase or equivalent, you don't get to complain about cancel culture. My generation (well, the one following mine rather) is just applying the advice.
I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's, They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM(and because they need to live and nobody's donating to them anymore, except me and a couple people who remember where they came from), and they don't have representative who look like them and actually did the same job. And always, the patronizing 'haha, they can vote with their wallets'.
Well, now they do, do you want to prevent that too?
Unless you've never used this phrase or equivalent, you don't get to complain about cancel culture. My generation (well, the one following mine rather) is just applying the advice.
I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them? They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's, They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM(and because they need to live and nobody's donating to them anymore, except me and a couple people who remember where they came from), and they don't have representative who look like them and actually did the same job. And always, the patronizing 'haha, they can vote with their wallets'.
Well, now they do, do you want to prevent that too?
> I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act?
Like the resilient adults they should be.
> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them?
I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views.
I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
> They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's
Why do you treat “protest” and “riot” as synonyms? They’re not.
> They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM
So what? You’re not owed agreement from anyone.
If they want their strikes to be supported by others, they first need to convince others that they should be supported.
Like the resilient adults they should be.
> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them?
I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views.
I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
> They can't protest, because of violences against statues and McDonald's
Why do you treat “protest” and “riot” as synonyms? They’re not.
> They can't strike without getting teared down by most MSM
So what? You’re not owed agreement from anyone.
If they want their strikes to be supported by others, they first need to convince others that they should be supported.
>> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them?
> I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views.
> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. Here's the deal though, the free market is also about the spender getting to choose what they spend money and time on. If you don't like it, too bad - no one owes you agreement nor money just because.
> I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views.
> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence? Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money. Here's the deal though, the free market is also about the spender getting to choose what they spend money and time on. If you don't like it, too bad - no one owes you agreement nor money just because.
>> I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
> Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence?
No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement.
> Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.
> Are you really equating "not choosing to buy stuff" and "not choosing to watch/attend stuff" with violence?
No, and I’m genuinely confused as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my statement.
> Listen, I get it - you think you're entitled to a revenue stream, that whatever nonsense you build deserves money.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It has no relation whatsoever to what I wrote.
How did I arrive at it?
Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say.
The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution:
boycotts = violence = not spending money
People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them.
(becomes)
People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them.
(can simplify as)
People are generally entitled a revenue stream.
Well you quoted a bit about boycotts that included a question about alternatives. This type of quoting is often a technique to declare "the text after this before the next quote is a response". So when you then responded with a point about wanting them to make arguments instead, and emphasized it with "not ... violence", you sure seem to have equivocated them. If that wasn't your intent, my bad and I have no idea what you were intending to say.
The second conclusion assumes you made the violence point of course and is basically substitution:
boycotts = violence = not spending money
People are generally entitled to not have violence directed at them.
(becomes)
People are generally entitled to not have not spending money directed at them.
(can simplify as)
People are generally entitled a revenue stream.
So you think the yellow jacket movement were riots. Fine.
By the way, they did convince other they should be supported. Most strikes in my country start with 40 to 60% support (because we actually have political education), and after a day of CNN-like 24h hours news, by billionnaire-owned medias, you see a 10% drop in support. Easy to convince for some more than for others, right?
But anyway.
----------------
>> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them?
>I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views.
>I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
Yes, so convincing 1 to 5 percent of the population on social media and ask them to boycott a product or a brand is fine then? Exactly my point. Or do you think this is bullying (that would be rich tbh).
Like i said, if you actually said once "vote with your wallet", you don't get to whine about boycotts. I know hundreds of people who boycotted Total (or shell, i was a kid and doens't remember) after one supertanker shipwreck that polluted hundred of miles of coast, were you against this boycott too? Once everybody, including children spend hours cleaning beaches and trying to save birds, once the protests didn't even make national news anymore, and blocking the refinery was met with police force, what do you think they could have done? burn everything? Or boycott one of the dozen companies who who do the same thing anyway, no matter how inefficient that is? What were their options as "resilient adults"?
You see, i know most people complaining about cancel culture agree with boycotting when this doesn't really affect them or their political views. I have uncles who are so hypocritical about it, it mades me laugh to ask them "what should you do" because i love to make them sweat a little.
By the way, they did convince other they should be supported. Most strikes in my country start with 40 to 60% support (because we actually have political education), and after a day of CNN-like 24h hours news, by billionnaire-owned medias, you see a 10% drop in support. Easy to convince for some more than for others, right?
But anyway.
----------------
>> I grind my teeth everytime I hear middle/upper class people complaining at boycotts and 'cancel '. What do you want from them?
>I want them to present their views, and attempt to convince others of the merits of those views.
>I don’t want them to use bullying, intimidation, authoritarianism, or violence to force others to adopt (or pretend to adopt) their viewpoint.
Yes, so convincing 1 to 5 percent of the population on social media and ask them to boycott a product or a brand is fine then? Exactly my point. Or do you think this is bullying (that would be rich tbh).
Like i said, if you actually said once "vote with your wallet", you don't get to whine about boycotts. I know hundreds of people who boycotted Total (or shell, i was a kid and doens't remember) after one supertanker shipwreck that polluted hundred of miles of coast, were you against this boycott too? Once everybody, including children spend hours cleaning beaches and trying to save birds, once the protests didn't even make national news anymore, and blocking the refinery was met with police force, what do you think they could have done? burn everything? Or boycott one of the dozen companies who who do the same thing anyway, no matter how inefficient that is? What were their options as "resilient adults"?
You see, i know most people complaining about cancel culture agree with boycotting when this doesn't really affect them or their political views. I have uncles who are so hypocritical about it, it mades me laugh to ask them "what should you do" because i love to make them sweat a little.
> I'm really sorry about that, but how do you want people to act?
I want people to think more critically about cause and effect rather than spend all their effort on "raising awareness", which encompasses several behaviors, but the worst of which is spreading exaggerated anger.
> told their generation controlled every vote target,
Boomers control the vote because they're the ones that bother to show up, especially for elections that don't appear on people's social media feed. Seniors are 15x more likely to vote for mayors than those between 18-35 [1]. Fewer than 20% of people know the names of their state legislatures [2]. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of outrage on social media on issues that state legislatures vote for like gerrymandering and now abortion. Rather than research which state representatives are pro-choice, activists would rather yell loudly at the Supreme Court to resign and whine about being disenfranchised when that doesn't work.
> vote with your wallets
Voting with your wallet in this context would be to stop watching Youtube videos. However, they don't want to do that, and instead would rather making exaggerated claims of Youtube supporting ISIS. So social media companies reacted with their half-assed solutions that lead to situations like what is described in the article. Now, you're seeing people making exaggerated claims about Facebook wanting to be censors. I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations, which is the case with most of the comments here. However, none of this actually contributes to our collective intelligence of how to actually regulate tech or enact anti-trusts. At best, this anger may cause Facebook to do a little more due diligence about adding people to their terrorist watchlist, but the real problem people care about isn't solved.
[1] http://whovotesformayor.org/ [2] https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-sta...
I want people to think more critically about cause and effect rather than spend all their effort on "raising awareness", which encompasses several behaviors, but the worst of which is spreading exaggerated anger.
> told their generation controlled every vote target,
Boomers control the vote because they're the ones that bother to show up, especially for elections that don't appear on people's social media feed. Seniors are 15x more likely to vote for mayors than those between 18-35 [1]. Fewer than 20% of people know the names of their state legislatures [2]. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of outrage on social media on issues that state legislatures vote for like gerrymandering and now abortion. Rather than research which state representatives are pro-choice, activists would rather yell loudly at the Supreme Court to resign and whine about being disenfranchised when that doesn't work.
> vote with your wallets
Voting with your wallet in this context would be to stop watching Youtube videos. However, they don't want to do that, and instead would rather making exaggerated claims of Youtube supporting ISIS. So social media companies reacted with their half-assed solutions that lead to situations like what is described in the article. Now, you're seeing people making exaggerated claims about Facebook wanting to be censors. I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations, which is the case with most of the comments here. However, none of this actually contributes to our collective intelligence of how to actually regulate tech or enact anti-trusts. At best, this anger may cause Facebook to do a little more due diligence about adding people to their terrorist watchlist, but the real problem people care about isn't solved.
[1] http://whovotesformayor.org/ [2] https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/12/14/americans-dont-understand-sta...
> I seriously doubt that people actually give a damn about ISIS videos with a few dozen views or the well-being of pornstars. Rather, they really just trying to raise awareness about evil corporations,
Lizard brain just knows that it likes it when the number in the top right goes up. Lizard brain knows that vapid comments and over the top calls to action make it go up faster.
You get what you incentivize.
Lizard brain just knows that it likes it when the number in the top right goes up. Lizard brain knows that vapid comments and over the top calls to action make it go up faster.
You get what you incentivize.
But which generation/social class are the mayor candidates from? Why vote for a representative who doesn't represent you? That was never explained to me. Now, i still vote, but i'm also steadily middle-class and richer than 50% of the people of my country (by wealth, in my 30s).
And voting with your wallet is boycotting. If you boycott, you have to explain to the company why. I'm boycotting Lactalys and Nestle dairy products since 20 years, are you against that too? Or is only the demonstrative boycotts with social media reach you're agaisnt? And in this case, isn't it disingenuous? "I'm pro boycott only if the company doesn't know why you're boycotting them".
There is no justification imho. Like i said, if you ever use the phrase "you should vote with your wallet" or similar, you don't get to whine about boycotts and cacnel culture, this state is your own doing.
And voting with your wallet is boycotting. If you boycott, you have to explain to the company why. I'm boycotting Lactalys and Nestle dairy products since 20 years, are you against that too? Or is only the demonstrative boycotts with social media reach you're agaisnt? And in this case, isn't it disingenuous? "I'm pro boycott only if the company doesn't know why you're boycotting them".
There is no justification imho. Like i said, if you ever use the phrase "you should vote with your wallet" or similar, you don't get to whine about boycotts and cacnel culture, this state is your own doing.
> Meanwhile, there is no shortage of outrage on social media on issues that state legislatures vote for like gerrymandering
As there should be - it’s one of the most abhorrent things that legislatures of all stripes have attempted, and those responsible should be held accountable. They have removed any ability to do so via electoral means, and should probably be reasonably happy that people complain on social media instead of something more physical.
As there should be - it’s one of the most abhorrent things that legislatures of all stripes have attempted, and those responsible should be held accountable. They have removed any ability to do so via electoral means, and should probably be reasonably happy that people complain on social media instead of something more physical.
[deleted]
Of course they wanted to , they could have denied such requests and let matters go to courts of law, where such matters should be resolved anyway. But it would put a slight dent on quarterly profits so , in the words of Sheryl Sandberg , "I am fine with this"[1]
1. https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...
1. https://www.propublica.org/article/sheryl-sandberg-and-top-f...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me. Your article is another example of Facebook not caring about censoring except to make more profits.
You said they didn't want to be in this position. Parent says they're happy to be in this position. Those propositions disagree.
I'd hardly call complying with Turkish law being "happy to be in this position".
In this, you disagree with parent. QED.
I vote with my wallet, and my time.
If Facebook is shoving things in my face that I do not like, then I stop using Facebook. I haven't logged-in for over two years because of that.
If a company I buy products from is spending that money on things I vehemently disapprove of, then I am well within my rights to stop being their customer.
This isn't "cancel culture", this is me choosing how I spend my time and money. What I find onerous are all the people telling me that I'm a bad person for exercising these liberties.
If Facebook is shoving things in my face that I do not like, then I stop using Facebook. I haven't logged-in for over two years because of that.
If a company I buy products from is spending that money on things I vehemently disapprove of, then I am well within my rights to stop being their customer.
This isn't "cancel culture", this is me choosing how I spend my time and money. What I find onerous are all the people telling me that I'm a bad person for exercising these liberties.
Can you point to where I told you you're a bad person for not using Facebook?
So what I'm hearing is that billionaires who are no longer simply satiated by consumption, are not actively trying to undermine social order to gain power?
1892, if not before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
Well that wiki page was a wild ride. I don't completely see how it relates, but it was worth reading. I will think about this next time I see complaining on slack about perks being removed :)
"In the years after the failure of the Homestead strike, O'Donnell found himself --blackballed-- from returning to work in the steel industry. Needing to adopt a new career, he moved to Philadelphia and took a job as a newspaper reporter.[12]
In about 1903, O'Donnell accepted a position in government employment as a deputy to the Pennsylvania state factory inspector.[13] This job placed O'Donnell in crowded Pennsylvania tenements and poorly ventilated factories on a regular basis, and he subsequently contracted tuberculosis as a result.[14] Stricken seriously ill by the disease, in November 1905 O'Donnell left the Northeast for the warmer and drier climate of the Southwest, accompanied by relatives, in an effort to regain his health.[14] Newspaper accounts from December of that year place O'Donnell in the city of El Paso, Texas.[15]"
[--emph added--]
In about 1903, O'Donnell accepted a position in government employment as a deputy to the Pennsylvania state factory inspector.[13] This job placed O'Donnell in crowded Pennsylvania tenements and poorly ventilated factories on a regular basis, and he subsequently contracted tuberculosis as a result.[14] Stricken seriously ill by the disease, in November 1905 O'Donnell left the Northeast for the warmer and drier climate of the Southwest, accompanied by relatives, in an effort to regain his health.[14] Newspaper accounts from December of that year place O'Donnell in the city of El Paso, Texas.[15]"
[--emph added--]
Important to note this is a "terror watchlist" run by a private entity, not a government. It's largely just used by social media to flag groups and account sharing copies of images flagged by them. If the allegations are true, still not a good thing, but "terror watchlist" makes it sound a lot worse than it is.
"watchlist" seems to be an altogether incorrect term for this in the first place.
I guess they probably didn't want to use the term "blacklist" but I'm not sure what the correct term should now be.
Watchlist evokes the meaning "this person is being watched by [authorities]"
Edit: The BBC article (linked here in comments) did in fact use the term "blacklist". GIFCT calls it a "hash-sharing database". The use of "terror watchlist" by NY Post seems to be more clickbait rather than accuracy driven. (Not that this issue isn't pretty terrible).
I guess they probably didn't want to use the term "blacklist" but I'm not sure what the correct term should now be.
Watchlist evokes the meaning "this person is being watched by [authorities]"
Edit: The BBC article (linked here in comments) did in fact use the term "blacklist". GIFCT calls it a "hash-sharing database". The use of "terror watchlist" by NY Post seems to be more clickbait rather than accuracy driven. (Not that this issue isn't pretty terrible).
[deleted]
Your argument is akin to telling someone who was falsely reported to the bank, a private entity, which is then required to share it to authorities. All these apologists suddenly coming out of the woodwork from inactive accounts is just a series of pattern I'm noticing more and more not only on HN but in all public discourse platforms.
It's highly likely that corporations and high networth individuals have realized the power of astroturfing to skew public opinions, especially when most of those audiences do not read past the sensationalized titles.
It's highly likely that corporations and high networth individuals have realized the power of astroturfing to skew public opinions, especially when most of those audiences do not read past the sensationalized titles.
It's a list that enables an industry to cooperate with each other in order to better comply with a government demand. A government demand that they have been threatened with regulation if they don't sufficiently comply with it themselves.
The only way to avoid having censorship lists be abused is to stop having censorship lists.
Unless you're a fan of spam/scams/etc running rampant on every platform we're going to need "censorship lists". So inject some nuance and talk about what types are ok and what types aren't.
The only way to stop having society-wide censorship lists is to stop using centralized media and centralized social networks.
So long as there is only one chokepoint for widespread automated censorship, the state will illegally censor things it doesn't like.
So long as there is only one chokepoint for widespread automated censorship, the state will illegally censor things it doesn't like.
Yes having ISIS propaganda decentralized for sure makes for a better world. /s
There are bad people who do bad things, and to say let’s just ignore this because things I don’t want to happen are is ignoring the realities and difficulties of the world. It’s not black and white, and bad things will be done in the name of action.
There are bad people who do bad things, and to say let’s just ignore this because things I don’t want to happen are is ignoring the realities and difficulties of the world. It’s not black and white, and bad things will be done in the name of action.
There's no such thing as bad publishing. If people don't like or want it, they won't consume it. Let people make their own choices about what to read or watch.
If ISIS propaganda can be decentralized and widely available, that means western propaganda (as well as western hard facts and reporting) are decentralized and widely available as well.
Unless you think that all ideologies are equally desirable to end users, this results in a net win for "your side".
If ISIS propaganda can be decentralized and widely available, that means western propaganda (as well as western hard facts and reporting) are decentralized and widely available as well.
Unless you think that all ideologies are equally desirable to end users, this results in a net win for "your side".
That didn’t seem to work very well for Covid.
People will find what suits them in the moment and go with that. We know that ISIS used the internet incredibly well to recruit with their propaganda, and it was exactly through things like YouTube that they build a large and international audience. So it’s not theory, it’s already happened. You can rely on just drowning out ideas, because the internet allows amplification for bad ideas to get more exposure than they naturally would otherwise.
People will find what suits them in the moment and go with that. We know that ISIS used the internet incredibly well to recruit with their propaganda, and it was exactly through things like YouTube that they build a large and international audience. So it’s not theory, it’s already happened. You can rely on just drowning out ideas, because the internet allows amplification for bad ideas to get more exposure than they naturally would otherwise.
Are you proposing that we start monitoring phone calls and the mails like we do the internet, and cut off calls and burn mail that involve disapproved talk?
Seems like as uncharitable an interpretation as possible.
There’s a difference between broadcasting and 1-1 communication. Phone calls and mail can already be monitored, btw.
There’s a difference between broadcasting and 1-1 communication. Phone calls and mail can already be monitored, btw.
no
>and to say let’s just ignore this because things I don’t want to happen are is ignoring the realities and difficulties of the world.
Right. Better then to make it so we can't ever hear, record, or react to the realities of a difficult world. Terrorists stop being terrorists when they can't talk to each other on your platform.
SESTA and FOSTA writ large. I strongly disagree.
>and to say let’s just ignore this because things I don’t want to happen are is ignoring the realities and difficulties of the world.
Right. Better then to make it so we can't ever hear, record, or react to the realities of a difficult world. Terrorists stop being terrorists when they can't talk to each other on your platform.
SESTA and FOSTA writ large. I strongly disagree.
Right, throw the baby out with the bathwater. "The only to avoid having laws be abused is to stop having laws".
Listen, I don't like censorship as much as the next guy. But in the real world, lists and platforms without some sort of moderation become of cesspool of the worst that society has to offer.
Listen, I don't like censorship as much as the next guy. But in the real world, lists and platforms without some sort of moderation become of cesspool of the worst that society has to offer.
spam bots have first amendment rights too!
[deleted]
I'm curious how they know bribery happened. According to the lawsuit details another commenter linked, it outlines a suspicious chain of events but no evidence of actual bribery from what I skimmed through. Maybe that's just how it works and they hope to learn more in discovery though.
Presumably you don't bribe the sysadmins in the US making six-figure salaries. Instead you bribe the outsourced moderators in Kenya who get paid $2/hour to wade through beheading videos to just occasionally misclick.
And presumably you don't pay the bribes directly - you hire a 'reputation management consultant' who takes care of all the dirty work. Then if the news comes out, you can claim you thought they were improving your reputation by sponsoring orphanages or something.
And presumably you don't pay the bribes directly - you hire a 'reputation management consultant' who takes care of all the dirty work. Then if the news comes out, you can claim you thought they were improving your reputation by sponsoring orphanages or something.
Very peculiar accusations, and it makes no sense that these third parties, not directly involved in the alleged payment scheme, would have come upon all this information.
False accusations, possibly also made-up charges.
False accusations, possibly also made-up charges.
Of all the people who worked on this, nobody thought it was illegal or land them in trouble? Like, how does one come up with a plan like this, sell it to their colleagues and see it through to completion? The level of entitlement ("laws don't apply to me" or "at most there is going to be a small fine, no big deal" etc) is mind boggling.
We can't expect our corporate overlords to behave ethically, now even expecting them to behave legally is too much to ask, I guess
We can't expect our corporate overlords to behave ethically, now even expecting them to behave legally is too much to ask, I guess
How is this a civil matter and not criminal?
For it to be criminal you've got to convince a prosecutor with relevant authority to take up the case.
Is that the same database Apple uses to scan image hashes on iPhones without user consent?
Apple isn't listed as a member.
https://gifct.org/membership/
https://gifct.org/membership/
I suggest OF is the bigger bad actor here, this is not really a META story.
If they can be bribed once they can be bought twice. And it's a reminder to everyone that if you aren't getting the engagement your content deserves then it's a possibility that you are being deliberately sabotaged.
META was not bribed. Individuals were bribed, that's a monster difference.
Also, if you're not getting 'engagement' it's 99.999% chance that something other than 'bribery' is happening.
Shenanigans are common, but this specific kind is not very common. I'm doubtful people at META are going in on some schemes like this.
Also, if you're not getting 'engagement' it's 99.999% chance that something other than 'bribery' is happening.
Shenanigans are common, but this specific kind is not very common. I'm doubtful people at META are going in on some schemes like this.
If Meta employees can flag anybody they want without (effective) internal checks and balances, then I'd say Meta is guilty by omission.
That's fair. Flagging someone should require some kind of legitimate attribution.
Shenanigans are common, but this specific kind is not very common.
How could anyone know that? No government cares to investigate this sort of thing, and those individuals who could become aware would mostly be subject to NDA.
How could anyone know that? No government cares to investigate this sort of thing, and those individuals who could become aware would mostly be subject to NDA.
Because it's not hard to figure out 'something' is going on, and, the level of 'bribery' in general for these kinds of things at above board corporations is rare.
"Not hard" for whom? The individual private porn producers? ITT you specifically disbelieve those exact people!
Only those who work in the right positions within Meta or one of these other horrible companies would have a good view into this, and they have no incentive to set things right.
Only those who work in the right positions within Meta or one of these other horrible companies would have a good view into this, and they have no incentive to set things right.
I've read (most of) the lawsuit[1] and unless I'm missing something, the allegations seem to be entirely guesswork, and the sex worker bans across multiple websites can be entirely explained by the SESTA/FOSTA law of 2018. The lawsuit notes that in 2018, many adult entertainers were banned from various platforms, such as Instagram, and gives some examples. It then alleges (without evidence) that OnlyFans (and MyFreeCams) models didn't experience such bans. From this, they guess (without evidence) a conspiracy: that the people behind OnlyFans and MyFreeCams conspired with Meta employees to automatically filter out their competitors, and they speculate (without evidence) that there might have been payments routed through an offshore company.
2018 was the year of the SESTA/FOSTA law, which was ruinous to many sex workers. The sudden increase in adult entertainers being banned by Instagram and others is correct, but can entirely be explained by SESTA/FOSTA. You can read about it on Hacker News – here's a link to a Hacker News search about it[2]. The top result has 715 points, linking to an Electronic Freedom Frontier column about it, which begins: "The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users."
The lawsuit doesn't mention SESTA/FOSTA. It includes no evidence that OnlyFans or MyFreeCams users weren't affected by the SESTA/FOSTA crackdown, and I'm pretty sure they were. A friend of mine is successful on OnlyFans, and if I recall correctly her Instagram was banned and restated at least once. It's a standard occupational hazard for online adult entertainers.
The lawsuit only speculates that terrorist watchlists were used, just noting that they'd have been "ideal" for this: "One or more [Dangerous Individual and Organization] lists, combined with the GIFCT Shared Hash Database and URL sharing program, would have served as the ideal training data for a classifier/filtering tool to create this blacklisting effect, particularly in 2018 and 2019."
The talk of bribery is entirely speculative. After noting that OnlyFans has a Hong Kong office, and "The law of Hong Kong makes it very difficult to obtain discovery for a proceeding in a foreign court", they speculate "Radvinsky could have used either Smart Team International Business Limited Hong Kong or Fenix International Hong Kong to make the scheme-facilitating payments."
I don't read a lot of lawsuits so I don't know what's normal, but this all seems really off to me. Maybe the lawsuit only exists to cause bad press, so journalists can write pageview-harvesting lines like "OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror watchlist" and "OnlyFans squashed competitors in the online porn industry with the help of a bizarre scheme that bribed Meta employees to throw thousands of porn stars onto a terrorist watchlist", and then append "lawsuits" or "according to a group of explosive lawsuits".
[1] https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
2018 was the year of the SESTA/FOSTA law, which was ruinous to many sex workers. The sudden increase in adult entertainers being banned by Instagram and others is correct, but can entirely be explained by SESTA/FOSTA. You can read about it on Hacker News – here's a link to a Hacker News search about it[2]. The top result has 715 points, linking to an Electronic Freedom Frontier column about it, which begins: "The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users."
The lawsuit doesn't mention SESTA/FOSTA. It includes no evidence that OnlyFans or MyFreeCams users weren't affected by the SESTA/FOSTA crackdown, and I'm pretty sure they were. A friend of mine is successful on OnlyFans, and if I recall correctly her Instagram was banned and restated at least once. It's a standard occupational hazard for online adult entertainers.
The lawsuit only speculates that terrorist watchlists were used, just noting that they'd have been "ideal" for this: "One or more [Dangerous Individual and Organization] lists, combined with the GIFCT Shared Hash Database and URL sharing program, would have served as the ideal training data for a classifier/filtering tool to create this blacklisting effect, particularly in 2018 and 2019."
The talk of bribery is entirely speculative. After noting that OnlyFans has a Hong Kong office, and "The law of Hong Kong makes it very difficult to obtain discovery for a proceeding in a foreign court", they speculate "Radvinsky could have used either Smart Team International Business Limited Hong Kong or Fenix International Hong Kong to make the scheme-facilitating payments."
I don't read a lot of lawsuits so I don't know what's normal, but this all seems really off to me. Maybe the lawsuit only exists to cause bad press, so journalists can write pageview-harvesting lines like "OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror watchlist" and "OnlyFans squashed competitors in the online porn industry with the help of a bizarre scheme that bribed Meta employees to throw thousands of porn stars onto a terrorist watchlist", and then append "lawsuits" or "according to a group of explosive lawsuits".
[1] https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Today in Not The Onion …
Seems like the right response to these blacklists, if they can't be curtailed, is to put literally everyone on them. After, the lists can't be used for anything.
This is some next level of evil
Nah, it is just regular greed combined with lack of scrupules and slightly larger than average budget.
This kind of implies you do not find greed and a lack of scruples to be evil.
No, it does not. I just don't find it to be "next level" of evil.
Getting people put on terror watch lists is not introductory level evil. We are talking about destroying lives, not ruining someone's day.
So we have Facebook destroying lives on a massive scale by knowingly wasting people away glued to the screen. They also knowingly exploit base emotions of literally billions of people to antagonise them just to keep them "engaged" and sell some ad space.
I call this "next level" evil.
Regular evil is, where I live, a small developer (housing) went bankrupt and wasted life savings of hundreds of people. They did a lot of absolutely mind boggling stupid stuff and they knew they are running out of cash and still accepted payments from more people. Given history of these cases here, they are unlikely to ever spend even a day in jail and the most it ever gets is couple of mentions in local news.
I call this "next level" evil.
Regular evil is, where I live, a small developer (housing) went bankrupt and wasted life savings of hundreds of people. They did a lot of absolutely mind boggling stupid stuff and they knew they are running out of cash and still accepted payments from more people. Given history of these cases here, they are unlikely to ever spend even a day in jail and the most it ever gets is couple of mentions in local news.
I feel like I am taking crazy pills having this conversation. Regular evil is letting the air out of someone's tires or lying to your spouse, not wasting away the life savings of hundreds of people.
> So we have Facebook destroying lives on a massive scale by knowingly wasting people away glued to the screen
If you want a proper "Facebook is evil" point, there's always the Rohingya genocide[1] -- "Facebook has admitted that it played a role in inciting violence during the genocidal campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar"
[1] https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/r...
If you want a proper "Facebook is evil" point, there's always the Rohingya genocide[1] -- "Facebook has admitted that it played a role in inciting violence during the genocidal campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar"
[1] https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/r...
Whoa what? Wasting away life savings of hundreds of people is way worse than regular evil. Why is that on a different level than Facebook or any major corp who are worse because of more power and scope, but still??
[deleted]
> greed combined with lack of scrupules and slightly larger than average budget
Sounds like evil to me
Sounds like evil to me
Banality of evil and all that.
I can barely pay attention to these kinda stories anymore... Anyone could make this shit up just as easily as it could be true, but we rarely ever get any bit of proof. Unless we dedicate our own selves into finding something to give us an idea of which it is..
And this is in an essence why demoting content is difficult.
God, guns and smut made America free.
Then someone bribed Meta…
Then someone bribed Meta…
As always. What could go wrong with a such setup.
> The GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass shooting videos and other terrorist material online. When a member of the group flags a photo, video or post as terrorist-related, a digital fingerprint called a “hash” is shared across all its members
In effect, that means a bikini pic wrongly flagged as jihadist propaganda on Instagram can also be quickly censored on Twitter or YouTube, all without the poster or public knowing that it was placed on the list — much less how or why
> The GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass shooting videos and other terrorist material online. When a member of the group flags a photo, video or post as terrorist-related, a digital fingerprint called a “hash” is shared across all its members
In effect, that means a bikini pic wrongly flagged as jihadist propaganda on Instagram can also be quickly censored on Twitter or YouTube, all without the poster or public knowing that it was placed on the list — much less how or why
> GIFCT was formed by Meta, Microsoft, Twitter, and Google’s YouTube in 2017 in a joint effort to stop the spread of mass shooting videos and other terrorist material online
This information sharing should be investigated as a potential breach of competition law. For example, are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information [1]?
[1] https://gifct.org/membership/#
This information sharing should be investigated as a potential breach of competition law. For example, are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information [1]?
[1] https://gifct.org/membership/#
>are Snap or TikTok disadvantaged because Facebook, Microsoft and Google are sharing information
While I think it's ridiculous entities like Meta have taken it up on themselves to have their own "watch lists", in this instant I'd say absolutely not. Indeed I would argue one of the significant reasons Tik Tok is continuing to explode in popularity is they aren't participating in the overt censorship going on in the rest of big tech.
While I think it's ridiculous entities like Meta have taken it up on themselves to have their own "watch lists", in this instant I'd say absolutely not. Indeed I would argue one of the significant reasons Tik Tok is continuing to explode in popularity is they aren't participating in the overt censorship going on in the rest of big tech.
TikTok has had some serious issues with censorship, and is way more directly political than some of the other companies you've named. Like, if you care about this stuff, please be careful of who you try to hold up as a good example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Political...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok#Political...
We didn't read enough dystopian novels yet to that describe the privatisation of law enforcement. We wanted the real thing.
Law enforcement started out privatized, and has basically always existed mainly for the benefit of the privileged private class.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread" -Anatole France
There's some nice beach city where people are not allowed to have a nice walk on the beach at night because they made some law to prevent homeless people sleeping there... if only Google was still a proper search engine I could post the link..
[deleted]
+1 insightful. Also, Ancient Egyptian Police Had Trained Monkeys https://www.ranker.com/list/police-in-ancient-societies/mike...
Having a trained monkey try to chase you down (presumably with a weapon) sounds terrifying, yet somehow I'm not convinced it would be all together worse than what we have now
Law and order:
Laws are made and signed by the ruling class (not saying all laws are bad, we need them), and they (hopefully) reflect which values the people wants their justice system to protect.
Order can be interpreted in two ways; keeping society stable, but also keeping the order (the status quo) of the social classes as they are.
Laws are made and signed by the ruling class (not saying all laws are bad, we need them), and they (hopefully) reflect which values the people wants their justice system to protect.
Order can be interpreted in two ways; keeping society stable, but also keeping the order (the status quo) of the social classes as they are.
I've always felt that "large" providers should not be able to ban someone except for something that is illegal in the real world.
Every time I post it people hate the idea "it's a private service you can't tell them what to do".
And the alternative is what exactly?
(And yes, I know there are some details to work out, what is "large", what about Spam, what about offtopic messages. But those are details, my post is about the main idea of banning someone. Hate speech and harassment are already illegal.)
Every time I post it people hate the idea "it's a private service you can't tell them what to do".
And the alternative is what exactly?
(And yes, I know there are some details to work out, what is "large", what about Spam, what about offtopic messages. But those are details, my post is about the main idea of banning someone. Hate speech and harassment are already illegal.)
Let's say I've got a website called Jay's Cool Community for Elementary School Kids and their Parents. Steve comes in and starts posting nazi symbology, and as soon as I delete his content he just posts more. Nazi symbols aren't illegal in the country where Steve and I reside, so under your regime I can't boot him from my website. Do I, as Jay, have no recourse now?
You should be able to ban him from your website. But not all other websites on the Internet.
Agree but the fact is "all other websites on the Internet" turned into just Google, Facebook, Amazon, Instagram and so on. The web is quite centralized nowadays, getting banned from one of these sites can significantly harm a person.
Can't they also say "Steve is a Nazi" and let other site owners ban him as well? That's the same thing happening here (albeit with extra steps).
It is like the difference between a private club and the telephone company.
Should your private club be able to expel neo-Nazis? Absolutely.
Should the telephone company be allowed to disconnect neo-Nazis? That's more iffy. What if they are a monopoly? What if there is an oligopoly, and all the oligopoly firms make the same decision? Neo-Nazis are terrible people, but if we set the precedent that one is allowed to deny them telephone services, will less obviously terrible groups be next?
Maybe we should also let the telephone company disconnect the Islamist violent jihad sympathisers, they are obviously terrible people too. But what happens when some Islamophobe starts stretching the definition of "Islamist violent jihad sympathiser" so that Muslims who have zero sympathy for that get labelled with it anyway? (Yes, the classic "slippery slope argument" – but some slopes really are slippery.)
Some websites, such as "Jay's Cool Community for Elementary School Kids and their Parents", are like a private club. But facebook.com, google.com, etc, they are like the telephone company, not like a private club. Different rules should apply to different kinds of websites.
Should your private club be able to expel neo-Nazis? Absolutely.
Should the telephone company be allowed to disconnect neo-Nazis? That's more iffy. What if they are a monopoly? What if there is an oligopoly, and all the oligopoly firms make the same decision? Neo-Nazis are terrible people, but if we set the precedent that one is allowed to deny them telephone services, will less obviously terrible groups be next?
Maybe we should also let the telephone company disconnect the Islamist violent jihad sympathisers, they are obviously terrible people too. But what happens when some Islamophobe starts stretching the definition of "Islamist violent jihad sympathiser" so that Muslims who have zero sympathy for that get labelled with it anyway? (Yes, the classic "slippery slope argument" – but some slopes really are slippery.)
Some websites, such as "Jay's Cool Community for Elementary School Kids and their Parents", are like a private club. But facebook.com, google.com, etc, they are like the telephone company, not like a private club. Different rules should apply to different kinds of websites.
> But facebook.com, google.com, etc, they are like the telephone company, not like a private club.
At what point did they become utilities? How do we define such?
At what point did they become utilities? How do we define such?
It is a matter of scale, of market share, of user counts.
Obviously, a website with a few hundred or few thousand regular users is more like a private club. A website with tens or hundreds of millions of users is more like the telephone company.
There is no clearcut boundary, but there doesn't need to be. Competition regulators frequently impose limits on market-dominant firms which they don't impose on small players – yet there is no clearcut boundary between a market-dominant firm and a small player. In practice, many individual cases will be obvious, and in the non-obvious cases, all we need is someone with the authority to make a decision–and if someone else thinks they've made the wrong call, there are the usual judicial and political processes to address that.
Obviously, a website with a few hundred or few thousand regular users is more like a private club. A website with tens or hundreds of millions of users is more like the telephone company.
There is no clearcut boundary, but there doesn't need to be. Competition regulators frequently impose limits on market-dominant firms which they don't impose on small players – yet there is no clearcut boundary between a market-dominant firm and a small player. In practice, many individual cases will be obvious, and in the non-obvious cases, all we need is someone with the authority to make a decision–and if someone else thinks they've made the wrong call, there are the usual judicial and political processes to address that.
Imagine a restaurant that followed your rules (customers are never kicked out unless they do something illegal). Would you eat there? How long do you think it would stay in business?
Hate speech isn't necessarily illegal nor do I know what you have in mind when you say "harassment" is illegal, there are 50 states in the U.S. with 50 sets of laws.
While some would argue that private companies have the right to censor users without exception - when private companies form a near-monopoly on artistic expression online, they should ethically inherit the government's ethical responsibility to protect freedom of expression.
In this case this isn't only a violation of the users' freedom of expression - it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.
In this case this isn't only a violation of the users' freedom of expression - it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.
What companies have a "near-monopoly on artistic expression online?" I can have a web site up and running in an hour publishing any art I have the right to publish, with just an IP from my ISP and optionally a domain name. I don't need to ask any company's permission.
That's akin to saying that booting someone from the US telephone system isn't censorship because they can always setup their own phone line from their living room to a phone installed on their front lawn - that anyone can come and talk to them on.
The reality of the world is that social media is a completely separate medium from social media. A monopoly on social media is not relevant to the ability to create your own URL.
The reality of the world is that social media is a completely separate medium from social media. A monopoly on social media is not relevant to the ability to create your own URL.
Except there is no feasible alternative to the phone system for making phone calls (although there are a multitude of video, voice and text chat apps), whereas there are many social media companies and also many blog hosts and VPS services and web server software and so on. You have so many choices. I'd argue that if you want to publish something on the Internet, there has been no better time to do it than today, and it keeps getting better!
If they didn't work together people would instead complain about there being more extremist content. None of these companies want the bad PR from "news" articles saying that they aren't stopping extremist content from their platform.
>it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.
It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask to join the group.
>it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.
It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask to join the group.
[deleted]
This must be one of the most awful sentences I've ever read. There is so much stink crammed into so few words, that I'm actually slightly in awe of how terrible it is. There are so many ways its bad that it feels like a rich knot of bad actions that you could unravel for a whole day and never be bored. At the same time, one of the biggest headlines today is about how Zuckerberg thinks WFH is wrong. I'll tell you something: this is is what's wrong. The people involved in whatever this was should be the ones to be fired most of all.
Ok, but please don't fulminate on HN. We're trying for something else here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rootsudo(2)
Well this sounds incredibly horrible in every conceivable way.
And there is no evidence to prove this as the article shows. The headline is clickbait.
[deleted]
Wow, just when you think you've heard the worst thing an internet company can do, something like this happens.
Human traffickers engage in shitty behavior. Shocking.
Meta obliged... that's more interesting.
> Human traffickers engage in shitty behavior. Shocking.
Exactly, it demonstrates once again that digital pimps are just like the regular pimps. But hey "it's just an app"...
Absolutely evil.
Exactly, it demonstrates once again that digital pimps are just like the regular pimps. But hey "it's just an app"...
Absolutely evil.
Selling sex content is also disallowed under Meta's platforms. This could possibly just be a manual error of the person banning the accounts and entering the wrong reason.
Reminder that the suit alleges, and does not prove that OnlyFans did this. Wait until the result of the suit to throw down criticism of the system.
Reminder that the suit alleges, and does not prove that OnlyFans did this. Wait until the result of the suit to throw down criticism of the system.
Manual error thousands of times?
Do you know how many they have to do? Thousands could be 0.0001%.
The blacklisting process was accomplished first internally at Instagram/Facebook by automated classifiers or filters, which were then submitted to a shared industry database of “hashes,” or unique digital fingerprints.
This database was and is intended to flag and remove content produced by terrorists and related “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” to curtail the spread of terrorism and violent extremism online.
Where can one learn more about this database? Who decides what goes into this database? Is there a governance process? How about incorrectly identified items?
We are headed back into the times of "guilty, until proven innocent" versus how it should be, "innocent until proven guilty". If the scenario was the following: letting 10 criminals go free, or having 1 innocent person imprisoned, I would always choose the latter.
[1] https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...