Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Twitter, and Google Still Aren't Doing Enough About Disinformation, EU Says (theverge.com)
Facebook, Twitter, and Google still aren't doing enough to battle disinformation on their platforms, European Union officials said in a statement released this week. "As part of a plan to fight disinformation on social media, the companies signed on to a voluntary proposal to crack down on the problem last year, which included making plans to increase transparency and fight fake accounts," reports The Verge. "The European Commission is now publicizing monthly progress reports on the topic, and has released the first, covering January." From the report: In the statement, the officials criticized the companies' responses, saying "we need to see more progress." "Platforms have not provided enough details showing that new policies and tools are being deployed in a timely manner and with sufficient resources across all EU Member States," the statement said. "The reports provide too little information on the actual results of the measures already taken."
Facebook, Twitter, and Google were each singled out for not providing enough information in their reports to officials, who said in today's statement that they remain "concerned by the situation." The statement pressed the platforms to move faster ahead of European Parliament elections in May. In an accompanying op-ed in The Guardian this week, EU commissioners said, "if we do not see sufficient long-term progress, we reserve the right to reconsider our policy options -- including possible regulation."
Facebook, Twitter, and Google were each singled out for not providing enough information in their reports to officials, who said in today's statement that they remain "concerned by the situation." The statement pressed the platforms to move faster ahead of European Parliament elections in May. In an accompanying op-ed in The Guardian this week, EU commissioners said, "if we do not see sufficient long-term progress, we reserve the right to reconsider our policy options -- including possible regulation."
Battle disinformation = conduct censorship. No difference.
Let's stop using them.
Stop using EUssr.
Using automated content filtering is how you get cases like Marvin the paranoid android. Please, think of the androids!
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Disinformation is that which displeases the strongest and most violent.
They are just looking for reasons to fine these companies lots of money.
All of these companies just need to say "Fuck you" and move all of their operations out of EU,
I am all in favor of suppressing disinformation, but who should decide an information is truth or not?
We all remember Irak's Weapons of Mass Destruction, a government backed information followed up my many medias, which turned to be a huge fake news. It was so fake that US invaders did not even manage to plant fake evidence to support it after they "won" the war.
The social media won't be successful until ALL fake news are banned!
Facebook, Twitter, and Google are disinformation.
What do European Union officials want to ban now?
Who is saying what disinformation is?
The user has the ability to publish and link to any information they want. Its their comment.
Why should an NGO, think tank, mil, any nation, European Union official say thats not approved speech?
Spain on a comment about Catalonia?
Germany on history?
Germany on its open migration policy?
China on Taiwan?
Big agriculture wants some Ag-gag laws?
France wants to ban funny comments about politicians and all news about protests?
No comments on DRM?
No comments on political movies not selling well?
No right to talk about repairing brand name products with imported parts?
Weak junk crypto is a banned topic?
No linking to published whistleblower news about the mil and security services?
No funny memes about NATO?
No comments on EU nation arms exports to really bad nations?
No funny memes about EU nation censorship attempts?
A computer company on what needs to be curated and what speech is a sin?
Social media on what politics it will allow?
Will the EU has a blasphemy test for questions of faith? Can any faith, cult, theocracy tell the EU what they think disinformation is?
Can a Communist party demand the removal of information on democracy, faith, history, freedom by nations in the EU?
No saying Taiwan is the real China?
Do European Union officials have books, movies, plays, publications that want to ban due to "disinformation"?
Why stop with reporting and removing content online?
Go full German BfV on all EU publishers and online comments?
The US freedom to publish and the to stay free after publication is looking great after the views of EU nations.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's a pretty fine line between "preventing disinformation" and quashing free speech and dissent.
Is UKIP saying "Britain will be better off after Brexit" disinformation? Is Trump saying "some illegal immigrants commit heinous crimes in the USA" disinformation? Are directed wikileaks exposures disinformation? Is truth a defense?
-Styopa
Anonymous Dipshits just LOVE sucking giant corporate dick. It's okay, the law says they can censor all they want so no problem! Buy our razors!
I am all in favor of suppressing disinformation, but who should decide an information is truth or not?
We all remember Irak's Weapons of Mass Destruction
In modern times, we get the following:
a) Buzzfeed reports that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, which Mueller's office contradicts the next day.
a) Buzzfeed reports on the Covington students, they were lambasted in the media for about a week, then better video evidence was available
b) Jussie Smollett gets attacked in NY by two white, MAGA-hat wearing Trump supporters who put a noose around his neck and splash him with some liquid. And later charged with obstruction for making the whole bit up.
I find it particularly entertaining because Microsoft NewsGuard counts "Drudge Report" as fake news. "Drudge Report" is mostly a story aggregator (as Slashdot is for tech news) and doesn't have many news stories on its own, so it can hardly be considered "fake".
Scott Adams made an interesting suggestion for a fake news filter: if it's on all 4 major networks (Breitbart(*), Fox, CNN, MSNBC) then it's probably not fake. This is an interesting take, because the left-leaning outlets tend to wait for the full story when it's potentially bad for them, and the right-leaning outlets do the same when it's bad for their side. Waiting until both sides agree that the information is available and solid would prevent problems of "instant speculation gets the story wrong" like the Covington students or Jussie Smollett.
If you have an eye for humor, the current MSM is right risible. Some 80% of the population (84%, by a recent poll) now doesn't trust the mainstream media for just about anything spectacular.
By going after conservative outlets as "fake news", the public now labels the MSM as untrustworthy.
That's hilarious!
(*) Yes, Breitbart. Get over it. Breitbart has more readers than the next two networks (Fox and MSNBC) *combined*. CNN is in 4th place.
Essentially, the education system has told a generation (or two now) that evidence doesnâ(TM)t matter. You donâ(TM)t have to be correct, rigorous or diligent in working out what the hell is going on; you just have to express yourself, be confident in your conviction and never let anyone tell you youâ(TM)re wrong. And in this pursuit of self affirmation, itâ(TM)s the worldâ(TM)s responsibility to keep you safe, no matter what you choose to do.
So, now we arrive at a position where pseudoscience is running rampant, people arenâ(TM)t equipped with the critical thinking skills to delve deep and discern fact from fiction and relevance from irrelevance, and thereâ(TM)s an overwhelming attitude of opinion being the gold standard, and if thatâ(TM)s dangerously flawed itâ(TM)s someone elseâ(TM)s job to protect them from any consequences so they donâ(TM)t need to change their opinion.
And now, again, itâ(TM)s âoeoutsourcing critical thinkingâ, conditioning people to believe even more that what they read must be true because an app hasnâ(TM)t flagged it as false.
Critical thinking though be core in education, and everyone should be taught to debate. How to build logical progressions (and just as important, how to build false ones, so you can better spot the tricks others use when trying to manipulate you). How to win and lose gracefully. And how to exercise that marvellous tool we have called a brain, rather than switching it off and just using the mouth.
The EU the new China, yet many give them special treatment and let them off for doing the same things.
How does one know it's a fake account? Rather like 'Info wars', they are presenting a 'sky is falling' narrative, lacking official recognition or witnesses, as verified fact.
On the one hand, Facebook, Twitter and others want their subscribers to create content that can easily peddle advertising. On the other, they have to disincentive-ize criminal activity and fake news. They made some fact-checking efforts for their news wall but the scale of fraud means it is ineffective. The violence, porn and nudity censors are overworked and traumatized by the recycled depravity they face daily. In both cases, when identified, the propagandists can resume activities under a new name, in minutes.
This is made all the easier by a lack of a moderation/reputation scheme: Such a scheme will, twitter-storm excepted (which should cause a drop in their reputation) allow gullible people to see the level of disbelief caused by fake news.
Automatically believing something that the left-wing AND right-wing biased outlets report on is still unwise, as it just means that outlets that lack critical reporting and are willing to publish regardless of truth merely have to agree to prioritize profits.[...]
How about if, say, The Atlantic, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Christian Science Monitor all agree on something?
That's a very good point.
It would seem that Scott's idea is testable. Perhaps instead of using the top 4 networks, the idea should be studied over the course of a few months using all the major networks, and see if a combination - *any* combination - works as a fake news filter.
It shouldn't be too hard to find, in retrospect, blatant mistakes like the Covington students, and then see which outlets got it right.
Problem solved.
So-called 'social media' is CANCEROUS to our society. Get it out of your lives and profit thereby.
It isn't always clear what articles are fake and what articles are real, regardless of what site the content is hosted on.
I want an internet where all sides can be heard. If users want to comment that they think the article is fake, then go for it, but these sites are not and can-not be considered "fact checkers." Even Snopes sucks at it.
https://www.steroidybk.com
USsr matches better.
The web is a haven for disinformation, I think that its up to every user of the web to decipher the facts. Maybe if mainstream media did a better job of journalism in the first place the crackpot's would be less legitimate. This is why the flat Earther's still exist, and the Alex Jones's and the anti Vaccine people. Bad Apple's exist because there is nobody who can find any good ones.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-26
You are watching freedom and reason being destroyed through the white world. The end game, in the distant future, is the enslavement of white people for the use of barbarians.
Hi friend, there are bo faggots on Breitbart since Milo was forced to resign by smear campaign. This is your final warning.
it's only called disinfo when it's the other side trying to use their free speech. are people really so stupid they can't see what's being built here? slavebook/twatter + mac/windows users...yeah, we're fucked.
Ooh look, the fat incel virgin APK is off his meds and having delusions of adequacy again.
The Bush Administration made very specific claims about Iraq that could be falsified, eventually. With Russiagate, it's a bunch of Gish Gallop bullshit that sees it's True Believers hop back and forth between debunked talking points, like climate changers. Put the high priests of Russiagate on the spot and they quickly lose their shit when pressed. Adam Schitt loses his shit when asked to look into the camera and say, on the record, that Russia was behind the phishing of the Podesta emails.