Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Social Networks Censorship Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF launches Site To Track Censored Content On Social Media ( 39

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 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF launches Site To Track Censored Content On Social Media

Comments Filter:
  • 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)
    • by Esteanil ( 710082 ) on Thursday November 19, 2015 @09:39PM (#50966999) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • Freedoms (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bws111 ( 1216812 )

    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.

    • 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".
      • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        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 agai

    • 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

  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Thursday November 19, 2015 @08:50PM (#50966719)
    said the Wolf.
  • by r-diddly ( 4140775 ) on Thursday November 19, 2015 @09:07PM (#50966827)
    Look at people acting as if social media is All Important and Significant and Stuff. So cute.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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!

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.