Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Exec Admits 'No Real Understanding' for the Scope of Fake News (mercurynews.com)
Three executives from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube appeared at Stanford to discuss free speech in the social media age, with one law professor raising concerns about how the online giants are curating their services.
All three tech executives talked about increasing transparency and authenticity. But all acknowledge that nothing is foolproof and political speech in particular is most difficult to regulate, if it should be at all. "That puts a lot of control in the hands of the companies sitting here in term of what kind of speech is allowed to have the global reach," said Juniper Downs, YouTube's global head of public policy and government relations. "That is a responsibility we take very seriously and something we owe to the public and a civil society...."
Facebook is making information available on its platform to researchers to help understand the effect of Facebook usage on elections. Still, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy Elliot Schrage urged caution. "There is no agreement whatsoever on the prevalence of false news and fake propaganda on our platform," he said. "We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is." He suggested that despite these chaotic times, "I do think we should be pretty modest and circumspect in the approaches we take." Social media companies need to find creative ways to improve the spread of information, Schrage said. But it won't be easy. "No one company," he said, "is going to solve this problem."
Facebook is making information available on its platform to researchers to help understand the effect of Facebook usage on elections. Still, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy Elliot Schrage urged caution. "There is no agreement whatsoever on the prevalence of false news and fake propaganda on our platform," he said. "We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is." He suggested that despite these chaotic times, "I do think we should be pretty modest and circumspect in the approaches we take." Social media companies need to find creative ways to improve the spread of information, Schrage said. But it won't be easy. "No one company," he said, "is going to solve this problem."
I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...
Ban it if you want... it just won't matter. If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.
True, our overall homicide figures are fairly high but they also correlate very strongly with inner city drug and gang violence which is unlikely to become less deadly because you ban legal guns. Keep in mind, the street gangs frequently use blackmarket guns already, the drug was has made very clear that hte government can't stop heroin much less guns, and the Cartels which are increasingly dominating this market are going to be heavily armed regardless... and even if they only had knives, they'd just cut people into pieces slowly.
And again... you can approximate a bump stock with a belt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm sure this is all on deaf ears... they're banning knives in London now... because this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds"
Because a shotgun does exactly jack shit against a re-feralized 600 pound pig with massive fucking tusks charging your ass or harassing your animals or crops. You need PENETRATING POWER and you quite often need more than one bullet to stop it, AND you need to stop it rapidly, so sticking around fucking with a bolt-action is liable to get your ass gored by aforementioned tusks in a close-range shooting situation, thus the need for semi-automatic capability.
"Condoleezza Rice talked about black people in Birmingham needing to defend themselves from the KKK because the police would not protect them. I'm not sure that exact reason is valid today because times have changed and that situation is unlikely to occur in the present."
Well, the USSC ruled in this century that the police have no constitutional duty to protect you, period, barring a special pre-existing relationship. Guess what that means? Your ass is, by court ruling, on your own for defense.
"So, can you tell me why civilians in the present day need weapons like the AR-15?"
Come live here near the Mexican border. Or be forced to live in any gang-ridden area in any semi-major metro area. You get to see the reasons for yourself instead of reading about it.
And in the case of invasion of country, at least civilians with AR-15 experience can pick up the M-16 or M-4 of a fallen homeland soldier and continue the fight with minimal instruction, since they're familiar with the majority of the weapon design and functionality off the bat.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The "perfect being the enemy of the good" fallacy writ large. You admit that you can only approximate the effects of a bump stock with a belt, yet you imply that because we could not ban belts that it won't matter that we ban bump stocks.
Bullshit. The purpose-built device performs better and is easier to use than the jerry-rigged, belt-based alternative. Making it more difficult to rig a bump-stock-like device is a net win - especially since there is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense.
Could be lower. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.
Sorry, rhetoric does not substitute for evidence, especially when your video shows someone firing a five round burst from the hip in a random direction -- it's epitome of the one-handed 'gangsta style' pistol grip transposed to an AR-15. "Approximate" does not equal "buy off-the-shelf add-on that allows Joe Bloe to essentially create a "shoulder-fired machine gun." We all see it, a majority of us tired of it, and the final rule banning these devices is coming.
Lifelong gun owner, never an NRA member, and yes, "deaf" to this sort of bullshit.
> Let me ask you a question: why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds? This isn't a rhetorical question.
You are deeply confused and highly ignorant about guns.
The AR-15 doesn't fire a particularly high powered round. It's a varmint rifle. It's not even powerful enough to be considered legal for hunting in some places because of this.
Lay off the media narrative.
The AR-15 has the advantage of being less random and destructive than a shotgun and much easier to handle than some pea shooter like a 38 special. A 9mm round actually has more penetrating power when it comes to human bodies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Were you demanding actual EVIDENCE of any wrong doing from Hillary Clinton before declaring her corrupt and criminal ?
Didn't need too. She promised a direct military confrontation with Russia during the debates. I understood this was what she was promising because I read the military press. I don't limit my sources to CNN.
The MSM gets basic verifiable facts wrong. That's not even getting into their political agenda or editorial narrative.
The thing that really intrigues me is how liberals can still screech about giving the government a monopoly on their future cancer treatment when the government is currently in the control of a hated enemy. You basically want Bernie and Trump to put your life in the hands of Trump and Ryan. That's utterly deranged.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.