Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF launches Site To Track Censored Content On Social Media (eff.org)

Posted by samzenpus on from the lost-and-found dept.

Mark Wilson writes: There are many problems with the censoring of online content, not least that it can limit free speech. But there is also the question of transparency. By the very nature of censorship, unless you have been kept in the loop you would simply not know that anything had been censored. This is something the Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to change, and today the digital rights organization launches Onlinecensorship.org to blow the lid off online censorship. The site, run by EFF and Visualizing Impact, aims to reveal the content that is censored on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr, and YouTube — not just the 'what' but the 'why'. If you find yourself the subject of censorship, the site also explains how to lodge an appeal.

39 comments

  1. Do you know what else they censored? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I totally agree that censorship is bad, but how would we determine who really got censored and who didn't? (Anyone can fake a screenshot)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Do you know what else they censored? by Esteanil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From a quick glance at their page, the focus seems to be on widely shared content that has subsequently been censored.

      So you'd need a fairly big conspiracy to make a fake censorship story here (or at least a pretty long, hard slog making tons of fake screenshots).
      On the other hand, this method will only work on things that arn't censored immidiately.

      Although, if it's algorithmically censored on posting (see Tsu), it should be fairly easy to replicate.

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    2. Re: Do you know what else they censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they were compelled by the government to delete posts, it isn't censorship.
      FB, G+, twitter whatever... Those sites are private property and they can delete whatever the hell they want on their site. It is not censorship to delete trolls either.

    3. Re: Do you know what else they censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure. Government censorship is the only kind of censorship in existence. Those people employed as censors by TV networks? Figments of mass imagination. There's no such thing as non-government censorship at all. Moron.

    4. Re: Do you know what else they censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to familiarize yourself with the definition of the word before you try your hand at pedantry. You can get a start from Merriam-Webster, where you'll find the following definition:

      Censorship noun censorship \sen(t)-sr-ship\: the institution, system, or practice of censoring.

      Censor transitive verb \sen(t)-sr\: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.

      As Josh Billings famously quipped, "It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so."

    5. Re: Do you know what else they censored? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      It is true that those companies are private entities and are not prevented by the First Amendment (US Constitution) from censoring. However, they can engage in censorship and it can be very harmful to society.

      Let's examine what would happen if the leadership of Facebook and Google were conservatives and those companies actively prevented anti-gun, pro-abortion and anti-gay marriage posts from being widely seen (or seen at all). Could that shape the debate within the US?

      So, if it would be wrong for them to do that, why is it okay for them to lean the other way and censor pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. content?

      Hint: If you think it is wrong when done to you, you should also think it is wrong when done to somebody else.

    6. Re: Do you know what else they censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like newspapers and tv media framing the message and the arguments to their political leanings, such as Fox or MSNBC ? Organizations and media already do what you suggest and hide content they find objectionable right or wrong. Organizations and companies fire people whom communicate view points they do not agree with.

      See Brenden Eich head of firefox fired for having an opinion outside of work that differed from his colleges at work even though his actions at work did not by any attribution discriminate or harm his coworkers.

  2. Freedoms by bws111 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there some reason they think freedom of the press is somehow of lesser importance than freedom of speech? It is not, they are equals. A newspaper is not 'censoring' you if they decline to print your letter to the editor. And they don't need to be 'transparent' about it, it is their right to print or not print whatever they want. And they don't owe you any explanation either, because that itself would be a restriction on their freedom.

    1. Re:Freedoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millennial here. What's a newspaper again?

      The problem is you're conflating organised media presenting the idea of "one story" with the disorganisation of Social Media where there is no overriding purpose or narrative. Everyone's views get "published" because noone's story is more important than another, and noone's voice is louder than anyone else.

      So what about the companies themselves? Facebook, Google, Twitter etc are just the paperboys, not the editors. They deliver the content that is cooked up and posted by their users. They aren't (or shouldn't be) cutting out slices of the content they're presenting to fit their world-view.

    2. Re:Freedoms by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You do understand that even paperboys (and news stands, etc) can choose what papers they carry, right?

    3. Re: Freedoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paperboy doesn't own and operate the newspaper so I think your analogy is a bit off. They own the service, they dictate the policies. Free speech is only protection from the government, not a license to be a jerk with no repercussions in public.

    4. Re: Freedoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, I think that dealing in absolutes is over-simplifying things. Saying that one freedom is more/less/same important as another cannot hold for every case.
      But more importantly: Consider not what publishers decide to publish or not, but rather what they are _forced_ to withold from the public by various government entities.

    5. Re:Freedoms by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I am troubled by the emergence of a media elite which can and does control what we are allowed to see. The powerful have tools to enforce their will - we, the people, do not. I really don't see how you can be on the bad guys' side against us, but I suppose if you agree with their political views, they can be forgiven for much. After all, they're only trying to ensure a "positive outcome".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re: Freedoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be grateful there is a Ruling Elite in charge of important things. If it were for the laypeople, we wouldn't even have electrical power. Democracy is a sham and better consigned to the trash heap of history.

    7. Re:Freedoms by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      You do understand that even paperboys (and news stands, etc) can choose what papers they carry, right?

      But they shouldn't fail to bring you the newspaper after they have committed to do it, and you always have an option to hire a different paperboy. The latter is not always an option with social networks, because of the network effect.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    8. Re:Freedoms by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The only 'committment' Facebook, et al make is through their terms of service, which state that they don't have to carry everything. So no committment has been broken.

      An awful lot of people seem to confuse freedoms (rights) with abilities and opportunities. They are not at all the same. Your rights are guaranteed, abilities and opportunities are not.

      Your rights do not place any responsibilities on anyone else, which is good because if they did then their rights would place responibility on you. And in both case that is a loss of freedom.

    9. Re:Freedoms by bws111 · · Score: 1

      So is it stockholders, officers, or employees that are not part of 'we the people'? At what point does one stop being 'people', and thus become eligble to lose their rights? As soon as they are successful?

      I never said one word about whether or not I agree with the actions of Facebook, et al. I simply said that if we are free, the NOBODY has to do ANYTHING just because someone else wants them to. You apparently don't agree with that position, and think it is just fine to force someone to do something against their will.

    10. Re: Freedoms by Falos · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for the laypeople, only Our Betters would've had electrical power.

    11. Re:Freedoms by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      They don't. They just think that transparency is helpful in the situation you are citing.

      For instance, if every newspaper (or social media site) leaned far right and then people cited the the lack of any left-leaning voices in those forums as evidence of a lack of left-leaning people at all, wouldn't left-leaning people really like at least one group to call foul and point out that maybe some censoring is happening and that there really are left-leaning folks around? How about the reverse situation?

      What the EFF is saying is, you can censor and we'll let people know that you are censoring. Are you really claiming that people have no right to know if these large organizations are engaged in censorship?

  3. all the easier to track you, my dear by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    said the Wolf.

  4. Re:Alternatives to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, modded down. They didn't need to pull this one. Good old groupthink did the job.

  5. laughable by r-diddly · · Score: 2

    Look at people acting as if social media is All Important and Significant and Stuff. So cute.

    1. Re:laughable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone sure seems to be trying really hard to make it that way these days though, when every fucking tv show has characters using facebook and twitter and tinder and whatever the fuck else like theres no tomorrow!

    2. Re:laughable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the wonderful world of product placement. In Q1 2015 Facebook spent over 600 million on marketing and sales. That will buy a whole lot of product placement ads to make sure your favorite TV character uses Facebook. You can bet that if a social media company is specifically mentioned or a logo is seen then that company paid money for it. News channel references included.

    3. Re:laughable by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Look at people acting as if social media is All Important and Significant and Stuff. So cute.

      Well let's look at some of the recent stuff that's happened in the last oh..month. We've got IGN turning around and filing a false DMCA claim against a video because it called out one of the people for spreading misinformation. Then we've got HTC trying to bribe the moderators of the /r/vive sub so they can control and censor information. To me, those both scream companies trying to censor things because they don't like it. So...maybe you're right, it's not important. Or maybe it is important.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:laughable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship is done by governments. Companies can't censor you.

  6. Re:What free speech? by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What free speech is being limited?

    You don't like the censorship?

    Your questions are at odds with one another. You deny free speech is being limited, but then admit to it with the second question.

  7. Re:What free speech? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    What free speech is being limited? You agreed to the terms and conditions of whatever social media site you signed up for, and are bound by those terms.
    You don't like the censorship?

    Your questions are at odds with one another. You deny free speech is being limited, but then admit to it with the second question.

    You conveniently left off the bolded part. Say you set up a reservation with a fancy restaurant and they told you suit & tie are required. Can you really complain when they refuse to seat you if you're not wearing a suit & tie?

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  8. Re:What free speech? by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 0

    The entire argument is that the terms and conditions are improper, and their enforcement is something which should be documented. Hence, the site.

    Can you really complain when they refuse to seat you if you're not wearing a suit & tie?

    Yes. Yes I can.

  9. Re:What free speech? by bws111 · · Score: 2

    No, they are not at all at odds with one another. Freedom of speech means that you will not be prevented from speaking, nor will your life and liberty be put at risk by making a speech. Free speech most definitely does not mean, and has never meant, that anyone else has to provide you with a forum or outlet to make your speech. Why does it not mean that? Because any such requirement would detract from THEIR rights.

    Facebook, Twitter, et al can not stop you from speaking, therefore they are not restricting your speech. Whether or not you can be heard is an entirely different matter, but you have no right to be heard.

  10. Re:What free speech? by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 0

    They are absolutely at odds with eachother, and your entire comment is entirely off base. Read the questions again:

    What free speech is being limited?

    You don't like the censorship?

    Here's a hint for your dumb ass: "censorship" and "free speech being limited" are identical.

  11. Re: What free speech? by revaleis · · Score: 2

    Censorship by government and censorship by some website online are two different things. Free speech is only protected by the government. Facebook has no obligation to protect your free speech. Now they could if they wanted to but they don't have to. There is nothing wrong with their terms because they are their terms and they set them. They can really do anything they like with their own site.

  12. Re: What free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you feel the terms are improper you're more than welcome to not sign them and not use the service (or patronize that restaurant) . I like your idea of free speech meaning every private entity must guarantee that you can speak. It's very idealistic but here in the real world that's not what it means.

  13. needs java multicore ai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it can better trak

  14. Really impractical by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    That sounds really impractical, at least if you're including practical censorship. Facebook already chooses which posts to hide from normal views on each others' walls, for example. Or here on slashdot, modding comments someone or an entity disagrees with down to zero. There must be billions of instances of censorship and effective censorship, a lot of it (but not all of it) aimed at shutting up trolls.

  15. My network, my rules by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    Just throwing this out there: The Internet isn't a monolithic thing. It's a collection of small networks. Must I carry all traffic? Does that include spam? Obviously, also one man's trash is another man's treasure and nowhere is that more true than in speech. You have the right to speak. You do NOT have the right to be heard.