Any paid influencers promoting the product also must disclose “any relationships between you and entities that create labeling for, advertise, market, and/or promote the products, on your behalf, or at your direction.”
It's a pity that social networks don't require this as part of their TOS. There are a number of high profile accounts on Twitter, for example, that seem to leverage their follower counts and blue checkmarks to promote propaganda for the highest bidder (and they have multiple admins on supposed verified individual accounts, churning out said propaganda 24x7).
There are creative ways to hide the payments, such as using books authored by the influencers, but that's another discussion.
USENET was the equivalent of a public square on the Internet. It was overwhelmed by spam.
These networks have been curated from the get-go, for no reason other than to control spam. Then, to keep people hooked, they emphasized virality and controversy. These aspects make them quite unlike a town square.
I’ve made this point before: the US government has killed at least one citizen in a drone strike because he was making terrorist propaganda. Free speech, even within the loose limits set in US law is not as clearly guaranteed as you may believe it to be.
I never bought into Obama’s hype machine, but the drone strike was carried out by the United States armed forces, who are required to not follow illegal orders; via a chain of command. There is a different party in power now: have there been any prosecutions?Presumably there was a lot of legal advice that sanctioned the hit on a US citizen exercising his ostensible free speech rights,[1] otherwise it would not have happened.
[1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise
America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberators are paramount to a moral society
I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States.
The American Constitution is the longest standing implemented constitutional document in the world. Clearly they have done something right. The American Constitution isn't optimized for perfect social harmony. Its designed to work and stand the test of time. The New Zealand constitution is only 33 years old - which is peanuts. If it doesn't stand the test of time then your opinion really doesn't hold water does it?
Brandenberg v Ohio dates back to 1969. That was only 50 years ago.
If you were to say, make a pro-ISIS video, or Tweet, would you expect to remain unmolested by the authorities in the United States? All societies set boundaries on what is acceptable speech.
that's a very American stance to take. I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that Americans value individual liberty above all else.
It's a modern American stance that dates back to the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The reason that this particular standard for free speech, formulated by the US Supreme Court has permeated segments of the English-speaking world is an example of the cultural dominance of the United States, and internet culture.
Besides bin Laden, another even more striking case is the cleric, a US citizen, who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen because of his advocacy of violence. And no sane person who values their freedom, in the English-speaking west, would dare advocate on behalf of ISIS today.
No society in human history has permitted absolute free speech, and the United States doesn't either.
Facebook moderation is badly broken. After pressure from governments,they seem to have been revising a significant number of reports that they previously closed as being non-infringing.
The admins know my IP address. If I was posting from Tor, I’d have been dead-flagged automatically. If I was making violent threats, I’d have my comment killed at best. None of those are inconsistent with free speech.
The current interpretation of the First Amendment dates back only to 1969. And even the US government had no qualms about ordering a drone strike on a US citizen who was engaging in violent and hateful incitement. There have been, and there are no, societies in the world with absolute free speech.
Far more dangerous than the idea it’s trying to silence.
I don't know about that. In the real world, there are homicidal maniacs, deranged ideologues trying to incite violence, paid propaganda outfits, state actors who masquerade as legitimate voices. If allowing them free rein is the price for "freedom", I'd rather have a little less freedom, because that sort of freedom is unsustainable and will, inevitably, destroy itself.
Free speech absolutists love talking about unfettered free speech as being a universal good, without ever providing evidence. Has there ever been a society without any limits on speech anywhere in human history? How do we prevent people with limited cognitive and critical thinking skills, including those who are young and immature, from being influenced by malicious actors?
It's telling that even in the "land of the free" members of certain groups are proscribed from expressing their vilest and most murderous ideas without heavy-handed state intervention (to the point that some have been killed by drones for doing so), while other groups openly flaunt similar ideas, and hide behind "free speech" when anyone dares to criticize them.
It's a pity that social networks don't require this as part of their TOS. There are a number of high profile accounts on Twitter, for example, that seem to leverage their follower counts and blue checkmarks to promote propaganda for the highest bidder (and they have multiple admins on supposed verified individual accounts, churning out said propaganda 24x7).
There are creative ways to hide the payments, such as using books authored by the influencers, but that's another discussion.