EFF launches Site To Track Censored Content On Social Media (eff.org) 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 Onlinecensorship.org 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.
Do you know what else they censored? (Score:2)
Re:Do you know what else they censored? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [boingboing.net]), it should be fairly easy to replicate.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. Government censorship is the only kind of censorship in existence. Those people employed as censors by TV networks? Figments of mass imagination. There's no such thing as non-government censorship at all. Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that those companies are private entities and are not prevented by the First Amendment (US Constitution) from censoring. However, they can engage in censorship and it can be very harmful to society.
Let's examine what would happen if the leadership of Facebook and Google were conservatives and those companies actively prevented anti-gun, pro-abortion and anti-gay marriage posts from being widely seen (or seen at all). Could that shape the debate within the US?
So, if it would be wrong for them to d
Freedoms (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that even paperboys (and news stands, etc) can choose what papers they carry, right?
Re: (Score:2)
But they shouldn't fail to bring you the newspaper after they have committed to do it, and you always have an option to hire a different paperboy. The latter is not always an option with social networks, because of the network effect.
Re: (Score:2)
The only 'committment' Facebook, et al make is through their terms of service, which state that they don't have to carry everything. So no committment has been broken.
An awful lot of people seem to confuse freedoms (rights) with abilities and opportunities. They are not at all the same. Your rights are guaranteed, abilities and opportunities are not.
Your rights do not place any responsibilities on anyone else, which is good because if they did then their rights would place responibility on you. And in
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
all the easier to track you, my dear (Score:3)
laughable (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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 [reddit.com] 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 [reddit.com] 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.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
What free speech is being limited?
You don't like the censorship?
Your questions are at odds with one another. You deny free speech is being limited, but then admit to it with the second question.
Re: (Score:2)
What free speech is being limited? You agreed to the terms and conditions of whatever social media site you signed up for, and are bound by those terms.
You don't like the censorship?
Your questions are at odds with one another. You deny free speech is being limited, but then admit to it with the second question.
You conveniently left off the bolded part. Say you set up a reservation with a fancy restaurant and they told you suit & tie are required. Can you really complain when they refuse to seat you if you're not wearing a suit & tie?
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are not at all at odds with one another. Freedom of speech means that you will not be prevented from speaking, nor will your life and liberty be put at risk by making a speech. Free speech most definitely does not mean, and has never meant, that anyone else has to provide you with a forum or outlet to make your speech. Why does it not mean that? Because any such requirement would detract from THEIR rights.
Facebook, Twitter, et al can not stop you from speaking, therefore they are not restrictin
Re: (Score:2)
Really impractical (Score:1)
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.
My network, my rules (Score:2)