Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Twitter Execs Admit Failures, Warn of 'Overwhelming' Threat To Elections (gizmodo.com)
Openly recognizing their companies' past failures in rare displays of modesty, Facebook and Twitter executives touted new efforts to combat state-sponsored propaganda across their platforms before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, acknowledging that the task is often "overwhelming" and proving a massive drain on their resources. Gizmodo: In opening remarks on Wednesday, Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, acknowledged that Facebook had been "too slow to act" in 2016 against the Kremlin-backed campaign that was designed to sow discord among American voters. "That's on us," she said, describing Moscow's meddling as "completely unacceptable" and a violation of Facebook's values "and of the country we love." "We're investing for the long term because security is never a finished job," Sandberg added, noting that Facebook has increased its security and communications staff to 20,000 people, doubling it over the past year. "Our adversaries are determined, creative, and well-funded," she said. "But we are even more determined -- and we will continue to fight back."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, portrayed the matter as not just a threat to democracy, but as a threat to the overall health and security of his business, saying that above all else, Twitter's goal is to serve a "global public conversation." Dorsey also acknowledged a range of threats faced by his company, including widespread abuse, manipulation by foreign powers, and "malicious automation" (i.e., bots). "Any attempts to undermine the integrity of our service is antithetical to our fundamental rights," he said, calling freedom of expression a "core tenant" upon which the Twitter is based. Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, portrayed the matter as not just a threat to democracy, but as a threat to the overall health and security of his business, saying that above all else, Twitter's goal is to serve a "global public conversation." Dorsey also acknowledged a range of threats faced by his company, including widespread abuse, manipulation by foreign powers, and "malicious automation" (i.e., bots). "Any attempts to undermine the integrity of our service is antithetical to our fundamental rights," he said, calling freedom of expression a "core tenant" upon which the Twitter is based. Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
Agreed. This is puzzling.
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy.
If true, shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely?
Should the US block them until they can operate a safe business?
The US has a long history of meddling in foreign elections. The US also has a long history of broadcasting radio into the East Bloc. And under the First Amendment, Americans have a right to hear the views and speech of foreigners.
How about worrying about the activities of the US government vis-a-vis US citizens? This is what Edward Bernays, the founder of US public relations had to say, about US government propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country
And the CIA appears to have been manipulating news media in the US since the 1950s as part of Operation Mockingbird:
According to writer Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and oversaw the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed after a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In the 1970s, Congressional investigations and reports also revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. None of these reports, however, mentions an Operation Mockingbird coordinating or supporting these activities.
The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.
Either they support free speech or they do not.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.
Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Probably when you tell us what lies about police shootings, what attacks on the President, what whitewashing of "the criminals", other bs that you're ranting about.
Sometimes racism is just that... racism. Removing hate speech doesn't have to be about Conservatives vs Liberals.
I'm an centrist independent and I'm fully for Twitter and Facebook removing racist posts (not that I use Facebook or Twitter myself). The fact that a small percentage of Republicans (and it is a small percentage-not all Republicans are racist douche-bags; the party existed before Trump and used to be fairly intolerant of racism like the rest of us) feel it is necessary for racism to be allowed to express their political views is quite telling about what really drives those individuals.
I fully support freedom of speech, but media companies are not required to post and keep every single thing you write on their platforms- nor should the be.
There are pro-white supremacy websites out there. If you're offended that racism isn't allowed on your media site of choice- go use one of those which do allow it and leave everyone else alone.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
https://xkcd.com/1357
Try to pull your head out of your ass and learn something before engaging your bullshit.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
That's BS. If that was true they wouldn't ban so many thousands of users each day. My last Twitter account was created less than two weeks ago, and it's already been banned. I never even posted anything. I just clicked follow on a few friends.
One interpretation is that this is posterior covering: a first, subtle step toward moving this issue onto the government's shoulders, and thus off of theirs. As in many such cases, it could be another case of "be careful what you ask for; you might get it". Meaning politics and the government moving more directly into their business. They might have been better off actually doing something about their admitted failures and demonstrating progress rather than lip service.
People don't think you're a fucking idiot because you post stupid fucking idiotic things like this....they think you're a fucking idiot because it's so incredibly obvious you are.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Facebook is committed to answer to the US government as it is an American company and conducts business under its regulatory control.
But what about in countries where almost the entire citizenry relies on Facebook as its primary source of information? One of these is the Philippines, where once tabloids and tv dominated, today Facebook is THE biggest medium to disseminate information, thanks to the mobile phone and subsidized access to Facebook courtesy of the telco duopoly.
Duterte's campaign team used it to propel a known murderer into the presidency, whereby he immediately implemented his War on Drugs which has since claimed over 12,000 lives. His first two years in office has also seen the economy plummet to new lows, with inflation at its highest in close to a decade and currently the highest in asia.
And now that Duterte's social media propaganda is state-sponsored, you can then understand why his approval ratings are the highest in history. This is even if his sound bites make Trump sound like Anne Frank in comparison (even more so in the vernacular).
I am unsure if Facebook will be able to fix itself because if it doesn't, you can very well imagine what the consequences are for Filipinos.
Let's take a look at the issues Facebook is facing.
1. Fake news
2. Political ads by foreign powers
3. Censorship because of political views
4. Egregious selling of personal data to advertisers
The first two are difficult to detect because they are fake stories/ads posing as real ones. You have to think that with all the engineers Facebook has that they would have at least tried to solve this problem. But Facebook has really taken the position in the past that they really don't care. That is until their stock got slammed last month. Now they care.
The last two are within Facebook's control but chooses to ignore the problem because of political bias or outright greed. Greed is good, right?
Google had the motto of "don't be evil". Facebook's motto is "we just don't care".
Pro-White-Supremacy isn't "white people are great". Pro-White-Supremacy is "white people are functionally greater than not-whites."
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write.
Fuck off with this tired old propaganda piece. They're corporations, they are only entities by virtue of the power granted by the government, the government does not have the right to quell free speech so neither does any corporation, period. They know damn well censorship is on shaky grounds and people are getting fed up with it, which is exactly why they're bitching about how much of a menace they themselves are. It's a tactic to try to get people to scream "please of please censor us, for you are clearly our wise superiors." Fuck them and fuck their sociopathic attempts to control the masses through censorship, and fuck you too for being dumb enough to be their halfwit shill.
Newspapers can chose not to publish letters to the editor and have for all time. TV stations aren't required to broadcast your home movies if you send them in. If you send an addendum to a Steven King novel... guess what... the publisher isn't required to include it as part of the novel. Heck- if you record a song in your mother's basement and send it to Nickelback- they aren't even required to include it in their next album. If you give Webster a new definition for their dictionary stating that the word donkey now means dog, they will probably ignore you. A buy sell newspaper could even choose not to list your ad.
This isn't about censorship- there is certainly nothing new about this; it's happened longer than the internet age has existed. It's just about private corporations choosing what they publish on their own platforms- that THEY OWN... and they absolutely have the right to not publish your racist drivel if they don't want to.
You don't like it? There are websites that would love to hear how much you hate minorities and women- go post on one of their websites if that is more your crowd. You can go to 4chan if you think facebook and twitter are too tame for your liking. You have options and places to go to spout bile if you really want to.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
What is puzzling about it?
The people running Facebook and Twitter are progressives who believe that more government regulation is a good thing (and for them, it is). They are "admitting" this in order to gin up calls for regulations on their industry. Regulations on social media sites would lock new competitors out.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I especially like the hover text on that XKCD:
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
I believer you are forgetting something very important. Facebook and Twitter are indeed private corporations. An as therefor they do have the right to dictate what appears on their site, until.
Until their sites get so big, as twitter and facebook have done, that the options of one person or a small group of people using the cover of corporate policy can shape the destiny of elections. They do this by removing posts that disagree with this corporate policy, as both Twitter and facebook have done.
There is precedence for this happening and actions to counter this in the past. When a newspaper or a news station would give a political option, they where required by law to give equal time to a opposing option. This is no longer the case but used to be.
It is also foolish to continue to think that Congress doesn't have the power to legislate policies of a private company. Congress makes the laws, and if they don't have the power to do so, they sure as hell can give themselves the power.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Here is a study for you: https://www.documentcloud.org/...
TLDR - the race was very close and I believe its not possible to argue successfully that Russian meddling didn't carry the day.
Personally, I don't think we give the Russians nearly enough credit. Vladimir Putin is truly an evil genius. If you don't agree, read House of Trump House of Putin. I have to say it blew my mind. And if you're tempted to cry Fake Book, be sure to review the bibliography. Its hard to argue with facts backed up by proof.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Many countries have media blackouts
I happen to like the First Amendment. We're not like other countries. I don't want to be like other countries where you can go to jail or be fined for expressing yourself.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually, congress doesn't have to pass any laws to regulate google, facebook, or twitter. The commerce clause of the Constitution gives congress vast, some say to vast, and undefined powers over inner state commerce. Congress in the past has used this power to regulate what companies can and can't do.
Besides these companies exist only at the whelm of the US government. If for some reason the government decides that twitter, google, and facebook no longer exist, then they no longer exist. If you need an example of this look at Standard Oil in the early 20th century and AT&T in the latter. In both case congress decided that these companies effectively no longer existed in their current form; breaking them up was in the best interest of the public.
In the case of Standard Oil at the time it was ever bit as rich and as powerful as twitter, google, and facebook. But that wasn't enough to save it from being broken up. I'm sure that there would be legal challenges to them being broken up but the Constitution is clear where the power to regulate instate commerce lays. It would be very doubtful that any court would try to challenge this.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
conservatives that act badly have consequences including trump. That is the only take away here. Don't be an ass.
polonium.
Let's start off by getting Facebook, Twitter, et al to admit that they're engaging in rampant and heavy-handed censorship. Guns? Censored! Criticism of left-wing? Censored! Praise of neutral to right-wing? Censored!
How is that statement anti-free speech? The whole point is that they're free to say things, even if they can't support their statements with ethos, pathos or logos.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?