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."

Comments

Re:Censorship by any other name

[ShanghaiBill]

"Censorship" is not what it is when a TOS is enforced on a private website.

It is when it is compelled by the government, which is what the EU is doing.

Censorship in China works the same way. It is not done directly by the government. They outsource it to tech companies, who do what they are told so they can stay in business.

So what's the difference?

Modern examples

[Okian Warrior]

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".

...however, when the recent government shutdown ended they managed to get the scoop on *everyone*, so many people read in the news that the government shutdown had ended, and Microsoft readers were told that it was fake news!!!

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.

Re:Modern examples

[mentil]

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. It's commonplace that a white house press release will happen and all the publishers across the spectrum will report on it, even if it's blatant disinformation. Reporting "person X says Y" is technically factual, even if the reporter knows the content is bullshit. I expect newswires to do that, but any news outlet that editorializes should be more skeptical, and I'd only factor in the ones that are.

How about if, say, The Atlantic, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Christian Science Monitor all agree on something?

Re:Censorship by any other name

[BlueStrat]

Battle disinformation = conduct censorship. No difference.

Exactly.

Much like the long list of other parallels that exist between the EU and the former USSR.

The EU is well on the path to becoming a "kinder, gentler" USSR-style super-State. No surprise the EU is resorting to similar authoritarian measures against "wrong-think" and for suppressing dissenting voices.

Strat

Re:Disinformation

[gbjbaanb]

Can you. I thought he was criticising Bush there. You kids know nothing!

A good reason to use Iraq's WMD as an example is because it was many years ago, so long ago that nobody will come up with the tired tropes they do today to deflect from their favourite president. So today, you say "Trump did bad" others will jump up and reply "but Obama did badder", and vice-versa.

with WMD it is now "history" and thus a little past the tribal politics, we can use it to highlight the problem with fake news quite well as it not only stands up as a prime example, but is self-contained and not nearly as mixed up in current politicking.