Protesting Mark Zuckerberg Comments About Fact-Checking, Fake News About Mark Zuckerberg Goes Viral (vice.com) 172
"I don't think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth," CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Thursday.
Since then, Vice reports, "Fake news about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is being shared widely on the internet, including on his own social network..." Zuckerberg's quote is particularly confusing because Facebook does fact-check some news posts, and uses a byzantine, third-party system to do so. Nonetheless, Donald Trump later quoted Zuckerberg's favorable response in a tweet. Now, two satirical articles by websites with Australian domain names are going viral on Facebook, spreading misinformation about Zuckerberg and calling attention to his stance against fact checking by social media companies.
The first article, posted on Thursday by a site called The Chaser, is titled "'Social media should not fact check posts,' says child molester Mark Zuckerberg," which also baselessly alleges that the CEO likes black jellybeans. It has more than 200,000 interactions on Facebook, according to the Facebook-owned analytics platform Crowdtangle. This article has also gone viral on Twitter, where The Chaser's tweet has amassed more than 4,000 retweets.
Another article, also posted on Thursday from a site called The Shovel, is titled "Mark Zuckerberg — Dead at 36 — Says Social Media Should Not Fact Check Posts." This post has nearly 50,000 interactions on Facebook and is also viral on Twitter.
Since then, Vice reports, "Fake news about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is being shared widely on the internet, including on his own social network..." Zuckerberg's quote is particularly confusing because Facebook does fact-check some news posts, and uses a byzantine, third-party system to do so. Nonetheless, Donald Trump later quoted Zuckerberg's favorable response in a tweet. Now, two satirical articles by websites with Australian domain names are going viral on Facebook, spreading misinformation about Zuckerberg and calling attention to his stance against fact checking by social media companies.
The first article, posted on Thursday by a site called The Chaser, is titled "'Social media should not fact check posts,' says child molester Mark Zuckerberg," which also baselessly alleges that the CEO likes black jellybeans. It has more than 200,000 interactions on Facebook, according to the Facebook-owned analytics platform Crowdtangle. This article has also gone viral on Twitter, where The Chaser's tweet has amassed more than 4,000 retweets.
Another article, also posted on Thursday from a site called The Shovel, is titled "Mark Zuckerberg — Dead at 36 — Says Social Media Should Not Fact Check Posts." This post has nearly 50,000 interactions on Facebook and is also viral on Twitter.
Chase Website (Score:4, Informative)
Failure to post last link... (Score:3)
The Shovel [theshovel.com.au] labels itself as satire. It has the mentioned story on the front page at the moment...
This story is a joke. Next slashdot item please.
Re:Failure to post last link... (Score:5, Informative)
People who try to use this as an example as to why Facebook should include fact checking are clearly missing the point. Also anyone who trusts Facebook to do their fact checking for them is an intellectually lazy git. It's dangerous to let someone else do your thinking for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a journalism foul to 1. Mention that site without saying it's funny/joking/satire, and 2. Not give a link to the article quoted so the site can get its ad view.
Re: (Score:3)
not necssarily intellectually lazy (Score:2)
The problem is NOT that people are intellectually lazy. It is that they are never really taught to do proper research, or do intellectual skepticism. They become downright surprised when you show them how to dig up facts and showing them they were scammed/lied
Re: (Score:2)
I think another problem is that most people are probably generally rather trusting. I've certainly caught myself before, because who would go on the internet and tell lies, right? So I can follow a story or argument and find myself agreeing with (parts) of it, until I do run into something that finally triggers the BS detector and I go WAIT A MINUTE, they've been just making shit up this whole time.
What I found helps is that a tweet or a comment calls out the inaccuracy. Specific example: yesterday there wa
Re: (Score:3)
The Shovel labels itself as satire. It has the mentioned story on the front page at the moment...
It is also mentioned in the article and the summary that it and The Chaser are satirical websites, so what's your point? In fact, it is in the very first paragraph of the quote in the summary. I am surprised that you didn't point out the revelation that Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook.
These satirical stories, and more importantly the fact that they have gone viral, highlights how easy it is for fake news to be disseminated on social media platforms. If you don't think that this is important, then why
Fake fact checks (Score:2, Troll)
Facebook fact checks are often fake. They are playing the role of editor whether they want to admit it or not. Their review board is extremely liberal biased (you can easily look up their backgrounds - their are websites that have already researched them). The preselected the bias and therefore they have pre-rigged the court only to try to tell the public that they are independent. Nobody who isn't a very partisan liberal or progressive is buying it.
They boil down to liberal political viewpoint checks. I've
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of examples like that. I've seen raw footage or photos that weren't photoshopped fact checked as false too many times to count. The selective bias means they are editors and that means they are publishers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There was hard video footage of Biden gaffing and saying 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump' and they FACTCHECKED that as false.
You mean the video where it ended half-way through a sentence? The video ends with Biden saying "We can only re-elect Donald Trump [t.co]" when the entire quote was "We can only re-elect Donald Trump if, in fact, we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It's got to be a positive campaign, so join us. [cnn.com]"
You can see in the first link above that Twitter labeled it as "manipulated media". What else would you call it if you purposefully stop the video half-way through a sentence to change the meaning of what he
Good. (Score:2)
The truth has had a bad run as of late so if they won't be part of the solution then they are going to become enmeshed in the problem.
The source matters (Score:2)
I've heard from someone that some statement was true because they read it on Kim Kardashian's instagram
EVERY SINGLE NEWS SERVICE EVER DID THIS (Score:2)
It is called Fact Checking.
Newspapers did it, Radio did it, TV did. The Internet has to do it also.
Facebook may desire to be exclusively social media company, in which case the answer is simple - block ANY 'news'. If they make a factual claim, block it with a notice that Facebook does not distribute anything beyond the personal opinions of others unsupported by facts.
You want to let your 'product' (because people are the product in Facebook's model) spread news? Then you should be required to fact che
Giving factual context is not arbitrating what.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If factual context makes an otherwise false statement more obvious about its lack of veracity, that isn't because the person or company who might have provided that context has decided to arbitrate on what is true or not.
Cynical Sucker Bait? (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine a scenario in which Trump began to migrate off Twitter and on to Facebook - think about what that would do to FB's ad revenue.
Or maybe it's because Zuck has longer-term political ambitions and is simply keen on ensuring that when he does run for office, the law won't prevent him from using his own platform to promote his own agenda.
Either way Trump and Zuck have at least one thing in common: it's all about them.
Fact-Check It All (Score:2)
It's Twitter, for crying out loud. Every post on there should come with a fact-check label. End of problem.
Illiterate or ignorant? (Score:2)
It used to be that 90% of a population couldn't read and were governed by rich people who could, now everyone can read, but 90% of what you read online is rubbish and we're "ruled" by rich corporations that ensure that no one interferes with their ability to make money.
This argument about fact checking is not the most important point to me: what is disturbing is that state actors have the resources to manipulate the opinion of large segments of any society (both within and without their own borders) via soc
Re: (Score:2)
The most protected speech is speech about the composition and policies of government. This is what's in the first amendment.
Do you really want corporations censoring-by-proxy? Especially at the hands of politicians threatening changes to laws if they do not?
Oh it feels good, I suppose, because "your side" is doing it. But some day it won't be. Nobody behind the gun telling others what to do ever feels they're doing wrong.
And so (Score:2)
This is a "straw man" argument. His statement is perfectly fine in the context of politicians blabbering and not wanting to give the appearance of bias.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
on both sides. I'm out.
Sorry, but there is no moral equivalency here. Zuckerberg is right. Social media companies should not be in the business of deciding what is "true" even if that means that you will see obvious falsehoods. The onus is on you to make your own decisions. If you disagree with what is said, you should have the freedom to respond. If you are offended, grow thicker skin.
The people protesting are posting satirical material that they feel should "obviously" be suppressed. Yet they are dead wrong. Satire has
Re: Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
Since Donald made that tweet threatening Twitter there's been lots of talk about common carrier vs. publisher status, what qualifies a platform for either status and the legal ramifications. I think we need to be careful what we mean by 'editing', we need to be more descriptive.
1. If a platform (like Twitter or the others) removes or adds anything to a post in such a way that the reader may or may not realise anything has been changed, of course that is editing.
2. If a platform allows certain messages to persist unaltered but deletes others (in their entirety) based on their content, is that editing? I'd say 'curating' is a better word.
3. If a platform merely tags each post with [fact-checked & true / fact-checked & false / could not fact-check] in such a way that it is obvious the fact-check tag has been added by the platform and not by the poster, I don't think that should count as editing.
IMHO (and IANAL) I think a platform such as Twitter should be able to do no. 3 without being held liable for the content of the posts on their platform (providing they are NOT doing no1 or 2 under any circumstances). They would only be liable for their fact-check tag itself being correct. I.e. if the platform tagged something as true that was actually false or vice versa and someone could show damages due to the error, the platform should be liable for their mistake. Even if this means a majority of posts get tagged with 'could not fact-check' to avoid liability then we're in no worse a position than we are now with no fact checking at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Morons (Score:4, Informative)
Twitter is the only way you can contact your public officials anymore.
When there was a shooting rampage in Nova Scotia last month, the RCMP did not alert people via the emergency text system.
They used Twitter only.
Seems Twitter is an essential government service essential for life and liberty, even more essential than the billion dollar amber alert system.
The problem is that twitter has this completely artificial importance.
I would much rather see Trump rule that government employees may not use twitter as a part of their official office.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that twitter has this completely artificial importance.
I would much rather see Trump rule that government employees may not use twitter as a part of their official office.
No argument from me.
When I started seeing government bureaucracies and elected officers posting regularly on Twitter and getting baited into flamewars and throwing up memes, I immediately lost respect for the institution of government.
Re: Morons (Score:3)
I would much rather see Trump rule that government employees may not use twitter as a part of their official office.
I agree with this 100%, but even if that suddenly were made policy it wouldn't change the fundamental problem with what twitter is doing. The whole idea of the law in question was to give them roughly the same level of protection as, say, phone networks, or delivery services. If you call people on the phone and say defamatory shit, the phone network isn't responsible. If you use FedEx to send out illegal materials, FedEx isn't responsible. In return the phone company doesn't monitor and fact check your
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to give up my mod points for this post to debate one point of your post: That Twitter should be able to be held liable for the fact-check tag being accurate. If this were the case it would mean platforms would have common carrier protection for their users' posts but not their own. After all these tags are simply asserting the opinion of the platform.
An example: I build a website where users can post something. I review each post and flag whether I believe each post is bullshit. Then when posts ar
Re: Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
True things are true regardless of your decisions.
Maybe so, but don't confuse truth with consensus. Especially on any topic with political ramifications. We've see "fact checkers" act as political propaganda mouthpieces for many years now. Not to mention we've been just plain wrong about lots of stuff throughout history. Is a 7 onth old fetus a human, or "just a clump of cells": people on both sides of the abortion debate would love to "fact check" that to suppress dissent.
Yes, there are some things easily checked. But the easier it is to check a claim, the less we need the Ministry of Truth to check it for us.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
"people on both sides of the abortion debate would love to "fact check" that to suppress dissent."
Fact checking come with the analysis that back whatever determination was made. There isn't any other kind.
If your problem is with action being taken with no analysis or rationale provided, your problem is not "fact checking". You should stop attacking it, it's not a good look.
Re: (Score:3)
"people on both sides of the abortion debate would love to "fact check" that to suppress dissent."
Fact checking come with the analysis that back whatever determination was made. There isn't any other kind.
Both side have lengthy analyses that support their views. Both sides have experts to parade around. Both sides are sure of their "facts".
If your problem is with action being taken with no analysis or rationale provided, your problem is not "fact checking". You should stop attacking it, it's not a good look.
My problem is what has always happened with "fact checkers" in oppressive regimes: they are tools of the regime, used to surpress dissent. All surviving fact checkers agree that whatever fiction the government has in mind is absolutely a fact, and can provide lengthy technical analyses supporting that, and no contradictory information exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are some things easily checked. But the easier it is to check a claim, the less we need the Ministry of Truth to check it for us.
The problem, however, is that it isn't a matter of how easy it is to fact check something. A lot of people aren't going to fact check, regardless of difficulty, unless they disagree with what is being said. If they don't know, or agree with it, they're much more likely to assume it's right because it came from someone important.
Re: (Score:2)
lot of people aren't going to fact check, regardless of difficulty, unless they disagree with what is being said. If they don't know, or agree with it, they're much more likely to assume it's right because it came from someone important.
Most people don't care about things that don't matter to them. Intellectual curiosity is simply not useful in most walks of life, beyond the entertainment value. People are amazingly sharp when it comes to things that directly affect their self-interest, though. Yes, democracy has many flaws, and remains the worst possible system except for anything else that's ever been tried.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
The fact that something can be done wrong does not mean that it shouldn't be done at all. Social media companies occupy a strange space in our society, especially with the waning resources of newspapers. Newspapers were themselves once partisan warriors, sensationalists, and fact checkers, and now Social Media provides a forum for partisan warriors and sensationalists, so I think as a matter of civic duty they should make some attempt at the last--be
Re: (Score:2)
Why should social media companies have any less right than anyone else to decide what is on their platform? And why should we judge them by a different standard than any other company who makes money spreading lies?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Why should social media companies have any less right than anyone else to decide what is on their platform?
You are missing the point. They are a private companies and can do whatever they want, including suppressing lies or even spreading lies.
But what they shouldn't be allowed to do is suppress some lies and then refuse to accept responsibility for other lies because, hey, "We are just a platform."
Facebook is making the choice to be an open platform. That's fine.
Twitter is making the choice to be a curated platform. That's fine too.
The difference is that when a libelous statement is posted, you should be abl
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Facebook is making the choice to be an open platform.
That's just a lie. Facebook is better than twitter but only marginally so. I deleted my Facebook account exactly because they decided that it was their place to interfere in largely private discussions, and in an incredibly ignorant/haphazard way to boot.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Wow, you figured that out all on your own? Good job! You're such a bright boy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to adhere to regulations and laws that apply to companies but not real humans.
Laws concerning free speech apply equally to companies and people.
Millions of companies are sole proprietorships. The company is legally indistinguishable from the owner.
There are some special restrictions on commercial speech, but those apply equally to companies and individual people.
Repeat after me, companies are not people, companies do not have natural rights.
Repeat after me, companies and people have the same legal rights.
Some laws treat corporations differently, but many (most?) companies are not corporations.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
We can easily remedy the ridiculous concept of rights for corporations. But people will always have rights.
Good luck with that. Every argument for why you think corporations shouldn't have rights would equally apply to churches, sports clubs, PTA organizations, the NRA, green peace, Black Lives Matter, unions, soup kitchens, and the local chapter of the boy scouts.
People have rights. People don't give up their rights just because they decided to work together as a group.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural persons are what you call people or 'real humans', they're individuals. Legal persons are public or private organizations of natural persons. Legally such an entity is seen as a person because it shares many of the legal qualities in the forms of duties and rights. For example they can enter contracts, file law suits, be sued, own property, have bank accounts, take out
Re:Morons (Score:4, Interesting)
The "fake news" here is Zuckerberg essentially trying to deny that Facebook "censors" users' posts, when in fact Facebook currently makes content moderation decisions countless times per day, according to an ever-shifting set of rules that are 100% within his ability to control.
As an aside, the fact that he also uses his ethereal high-horse to potty-mouth Twitter's attempts at moderation shows what an opportunistic little bitch he is.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose I could have modded this up, but I want to expand on it, because it's one of the reasons I goddamn HATE Facebook as a platform.
The "fake news" here is Zuckerberg essentially trying to deny that Facebook "censors" users' posts, when in fact Facebook currently makes content moderation decisions countless times per day, according to an ever-shifting set of rules that are 100% within his ability to control.
It's this. Facebook constantly makes decisions on what it shows people, it's just that it doesn't base its decision on things like "is it true or false," it bases them on whether or not it thinks you're likely to "engage" with it and stay on the Facebook site longer.
That picture of your nephew that you wanted to see? Facebook's algorithm has determined that it is uninteresting to most people, and has decided not to show it. A fake news article on how bleach and ammonia can be used together to cure COVID-19? Facebook's algorithm sees a ton of people commenting on that! So much engagement! Push it to everyone! Recommend it if it isn't shared directly! Also run ads for chlorine and gas stations because most comments contain those words!
If Facebook was actually a neutral publisher and just showed you what you followed and what your friends posted, that would be one thing. But they do not. Their "out" is that they algorithmicly decide what you see, it isn't done through any sort of editorial board. But they very much do decide what you're allowed to see, and they very actively "censor" information that they consider to be of low value.
It's just that their "low value" isn't "outright false," it's "isn't going to convince people to look at ads."
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Facebook constantly makes decisions on what it shows people, it's just that it doesn't base its decision on things like "is it true or false," it bases them on whether or not it thinks you're likely to "engage" with it and stay on the Facebook site longer.
They do more than that; they also delete posts and ban users on a regular basis. They use their "community standards" as an excuse, just like twitter does ... and exactly like twitter, they enforce the standards in a largely arbitrary manner that hinges primarily on whether or not anyone noticed and complained.
Re: (Score:3)
Social media companies should not be in the business of deciding what is "true" even if that means that you will see obvious falsehoods. The onus is on you to make your own decisions.
On the other hand... Our politicians are public servants who are suppose uphold the Constitution and represent their constituents. They work for us, they get paid by us. As President, Trump is suppose to represent *all* of us in the US, not just those he likes or flatter him most. And while some spin reflecting political leanings is expected and probably appropriate, shouldn't these public servants be held to some, perhaps higher, standard and shouldn't we expect them to be honest and truthful about thing
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Does Trump make shit up all the time and say outrageous things pretty much every day? Yes. Is the Bezos Post's list of lies complete crap? Also yes.
Why do you push some billionaire's agenda? Bezos isn't even paying you (I hope).
Re: (Score:2)
The Bezos Post's 18000 lies thing is completely laughable bullshit. Read the actual list. It's just dumb. Does Trump make shit up all the time and say outrageous things pretty much every day? Yes. Is the Bezos Post's list of lies complete crap? Also yes. Why do you push some billionaire's agenda? Bezos isn't even paying you (I hope).
There are other sources with such lists of Trump's lies and the number are pretty much the same.
Talking about Jeff Bezos using the Washington Post for an "agenda" is almost as retarded as Trump raging against the Post Office because they deliver packages for Amazon -- by law, and contrary to what Trump say, at a profit (look it up). Bezos is almost a *trillionaire* (with a T) and Trump is simply inconsequential to Bezos -- The Donald is jealous, especially since he probably isn't even, actually, a billi
Re: (Score:2)
It's hopeless if you can't see the difference between the USPS taking a loss with every package they deliver vs. the Bezos Post being the mouth piece for a billionaire's agenda. You're just fucking hopeless.
What's hopeless is you being unable to do basic research. The Post Office does *not* lose money delivering packages for Amazon or others. From Fact Check: Is The Post Office Losing Money By Delivering Packages For Amazon? [npr.org] (and other sources, like No, the Postal Service isn't losing a fortune on Amazon [politifact.com]):
Plunkett says no one really knows what kind of deal Amazon made with the Postal Service because the details are sealed. But he says contrary to what the president tweeted - that they lose a fortune - the Postal Service does not lose money delivering Amazon's or anyone else's packages.
PLUNKETT: The Postal Regulatory Commission does review the Postal Service's contracts, and they've concluded the opposite - that the Postal Service does make money from its shipping contracts.
NAYLOR: In fact, package deliveries have been the bright spot in the Postal Service's financial picture the last several years. It reported more than $19 billion of revenue from package deliveries last year - an increase of 11 percent.
The Post Office is losing money because they're required to pre-fund retiree benefits 75 years out -- something that no other commercial, governmental or quasi-governmental organization is required to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Except we're not talking about suppressing or even altering content, merely tagging it with additional metadata that can help the reader more swiftly make a more informed decision on the accuracy of the material. Between family, friends and acquaintances, this type of service would have saved me dozens of hours over the past decade looking up and forwarding Snopes' research on deceptive content. FWIW, in every case the recipient of that info appreciated the clarification.
To be fair, it's important that the
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point -- assuming this is not an intractable problem, we could say that, from a credibility standpoint we have a range with some gray-area in the middle. On one extreme is quantitative academic research published in an authoritative journal. On the other are qualitative opinion pieces. The heuristic here should assign a score that weights the former and discards the latter.
Partisanship could simply be based on a reputational score determined via periodic polling, sentiment analysis, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On one extreme is quantitative academic research published in an authoritative journal.
Academia is more politically skewed than any other institution in America. Self-declared liberals/progressives outnumber self-declared conservatives by more than ten-to-one.
Many academic papers are biased or wrong, even in prestigious journals.
Many topics where the "facts" skew toward the conservative point of view are ignored by academia. Try to find any recent research on the heritability of intelligence.
Partisanship could simply be based on a reputational score determined via periodic polling, sentiment analysis, etc.
Ah, I see. Not truth, but consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
The first metric was not partisanship, it was credibility -- either one believes there is such a thing as an objectively good decision, or not. If so, then one believes it's possible to acquire information that is reliable enough to establish probabilistic outcomes that can then be used as a basis for risk management. If no, then, well it's just the wild west and somebody's gut feeling is the only rational basis for decision making. I'm not ready to give up on objectivity just yet simply because I may not l
Re: (Score:2)
"Social media companies should not be in the business of deciding what is "true" even if that means that you will see obvious falsehoods."
Many people seem to have a problem distinguishing facts from opinion. Sites should be able to distinguish many of these that are misleading.
It's a fact that there are 50 US states.
It's an opinion that capitalism is the best way to govern.
It's a fact that Nixon was President before Obama.
It's opinion that Hoover was a better leader than Trump.
It's an opinion that Pluto sho
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I molest children by forcing them to code in Ruby.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Morons (Score:5, Funny)
At least you don't force Perl necklaces on them!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but you're doing a moral rejection of something UNIVERSAL called TRUTH.
I don't think he is. All Bill has said it that it shouldn't be Facebook's job to try to figure out what is or isn't true on their platform. It's your own obligation to attempt to make a good faith effort to determine whether or not you should believe something that's posted on the internet.
You can't allow LYING about OBJECTIVE DATA without taking measures
Measures already exist, which are allowing other people to respond and point out the lies, misunderstandings, or other things that have resulted in something being wrong. It's what I'm doing right, or at least what I beli
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he is. All Bill has said it that it shouldn't be Facebook's job to try to figure out what is or isn't true on their platform.
What about accounts impersonating others?
Re: Morons (Score:2)
So there is a policy but they don't enforce it which is a different problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone with a brain knows that you intentionally lied"
What was that thing about a pizza place basement and Hillary? There are countless examples of where something 'stupid' is believed (and acted upon). And some places seem to have a higher percentage of the population that falls for this.
Sadly perhaps a nanny state is needed when so many actually require a nanny.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
There are countless examples of where something 'stupid' is believed (and acted upon).
Of course. The really stupid shit like the example you gave is believed by idiots with mental health issues, mainly. What do you think banning it does? Do you think that a nutjob with a room temperature is going to think "oh, well now that this is banned, I guess it must not be true"? If so, you don't know the first thing about human nature. Banning crazy beliefs just makes them seem more legitimate to the crazy.
And some places seem to have a higher percentage of the population that falls for this.
Sure. You should see the insane shit they believe in Africa/India/the Middle East. And th
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when reasonable people are in short supply? Or when unreasonable people become the ones in charge?
Thunderdome?
And what happens when it becomes impossible to determine truth from fiction?
That's why I always write down in a little book whenever I make up something, otherwise it can be terribly embarrassing. Now where did I put that darn thing...
Re: Morons (Score:2)
What happens when reasonable people are in short supply?
It becomes really hard to find good fact checkers.
Or when unreasonable people become the ones in charge?
This is exactly why we don't want the people in charge dictating to us what the truth it.
Congrats, you've just torpedoed your own position.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the guy who's always charging "FAKE NEWS!"?
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens? It's a pretty core part of the First Amendment that people can argue with "officials", I don't think there's even a requirement that they're citizens. Hence, "more speech".
Besides, there was no public policy in that Twitter rant.
Trump can try and prove a libel case if he thinks there is one, that would be entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing in 230 that could be "enforced" here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you also mean "liable", but still, liable for what?
Re: (Score:2)
Is your problem that the Twitter staffer's voice is too loud? Twitter is definitely American and given the US has decided corporations have Free Speech....
BTW your straw man is bad; I don't give a shit who gets fact checked and think any "public official" using media should be subject to fact checking.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter has more than 800 certified H1Bs and applied for 350 H1B's in 2020 alone, the majority of those were filled by citizens of India and China.
This also doesn't count whatever contract labor they may use from companies that heavily rely upon H1Bs (like TaTa Consultancy Services Inc, which has over 40k current H1B visas)
This also doesn't count outsourced labor.
So no, being an "American Company" by no means indicates that any particular employee may be American.
*Sources:
https://www.myvisajobs.com/Vis... [myvisajobs.com]
ht [myvisajobs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah well, I can respect that as a position, though I disagree with it, and I'm not sure it's even internally consistent given politicians "earn" votes with money too.
Just don't use Twitter /is/ however an option for Trump, he has plenty of other platforms he can use to make his voice heard just as loudly.
Re: (Score:2)
"If Pelosi and Biden were fact checked against Britebart you'd be flipping out."
Pelosi and Biden ARE 'fact checked' by Breitbart all the fucking time. Go to Breitbart, see what they have to say about what Pelosi and Biden.
The only difference here is that Pelosi and Biden aren't using Breitbart itself as their platform to publish their thoughts. I'm sure Breitbart would be happy to host them though.
OTOH Trump is using Twitter. And he certainly doesn't have to. Prior presidents didn't. Most intelligent people
Re: Morons (Score:2)
You knew that when you posted that you were being intellectually dishonest. I just wanted you to know how easy it was to see through your sham reply.
Re: (Score:3)
I stopped reading the moment you changed the topic from a place that is the de facto public square to some obscure website read by almost no one which doesn't even have the ability for random people to gather followers and broadcast to hundreds of millions of people.
er... YOU raised the topic of Breitbart in the post I responded to, remember... your words:
"If Pelosi and Biden were fact checked against Britebart you'd be flipping out."
I only contrasted with Breitbart because YOU did.
"You knew that when you posted that you were being intellectually dishonest."
To precisely the same extent you knew you were being intellectually dishonest when you said others would flip out if Breitbart fact checked Pelosi and Biden.
But make no mistake: if Trump decided to issue his rantings as letters to the editor to be published on breitbart, it would become the defacto platform for presidential communications. And would be read directly by
Re: (Score:2)
How is that a problem? If public officials can make false statements (lies), why is it worse for a "nameless Twitter staffer" to say something, whether it's true or not?
Re: Morons (Score:2)
It isn't, but if theyre going to have their staffers doing bullshit like that, then they don't get to pretend that they're impartial, and they don't get to pretend that they're not a publisher. They can "fact check" whatever they like, and when they fail to fact check and remove a libelous tweet they'll get sued and held legally responsible for publishing it.
Re: (Score:3)
What Twitter did was "more speech"
Which makes them involved in the conversation. Which makes them legally responsible for what is said on their site.
Re: (Score:2)
For what /they/ say on their site.
If you think the whole "platform" vs "publisher" thing is real, I guess we're done here because I'm not gonna bother with that much crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, 230 is about safe harbor against shit "other people" say on your site. If you also post on your own site you aren't all of a sudden responsible for everything else on the site.
Why do you think Trump was trying to change the way it works with an EO? Because he likes signing things and holding them up to a camera?
If you need an example a child can understand: Newspapers have safe harbor under 230 for comments on their web site. They define publishing.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
If you also post on your own site you aren't all of a sudden responsible for everything else on the site.
They aren't just posting, dumbass.
The CEO of twitter can use his official account to say whatever the fuck he wants. Nobody is objecting to that. What is being objected to is them banning users, deleting tweets, and, in the case of the POTUS, modifying his tweets with their own perspective.
To use the earlier AT&T analogy, the CEO and staff of AT&T can use their own network to call and talk to whoever they want. What they don't get to do is block you from calling other people, tell you what you ca
Re: (Score:2)
I never made any AT&T analogies, and I think it's a poor one. There's a lot more regulation over telcos than websites built on top of them.
A better analogy would be if Trump wanted to make a press release for broadcast on TV and they chose to run a chyron underneath that suggested he was full of it. Pretty sure that's been done too.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
I never made any AT&T analogies, and I think it's a poor one.
The guy you were responding to did. Pay attention ffs
There's a lot more regulation over telcos than websites built on top of them.
In some ways sure, but that has no applicability to what we are discussing.
A better analogy would be if Trump wanted to make a press release for broadcast on TV and they chose to run a chyron underneath that suggested he was full of it. Pretty sure that's been done too.
That's a stupid analogy. Yes, news networks can absolutely do that. Which is why they don't enjoy the protection of 230.
Congrats, you've just destroyed your own point.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Grow up
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the guy that I was responding to was mostly doing mad ranting, and just because part of that was about AT&T doesn't mean I accept it as part of the argument I'm making or prepared to engage in... so whatever.
My point is that Section 230 is not "breached" by anything Twitter have done, all the rest of this thread is incoherent waffle that assumes it does because they magically become the "publisher" of everything on their site.
Hell, it literally allows them to remove Trumps posts entirely if th
Re: Morons (Score:2)
My point is that Section 230 is not "breached" by anything Twitter have done
The letter of it hasn't been, but the spirit certainly has; egregiously so. That's why do many people want section 230 either changed or removed entirely.
all the rest of this thread is incoherent waffle that assumes it does because they magically become the "publisher" of everything on their site.
They're acting like a publisher, and should be treated as such. Your stubborn refusal to understand/acknowledge this changes nothing.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Actually I take that back. The letter of it may not have been, though there are good arguments to be made that it has been. 240 uses the phrase "in good faith", and it's pretty difficult to believe that Twitters policies have been undertaken in good faith given the biased resilts. Either way their actions egregiously violate the spirit of 240.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Already answered 5 comments up. Do you ever do anything other than troll?
Re: Morons (Score:2)
Correction: answered in the comment you were responding to. Mobile interface sucks balls.
Re: (Score:2)
There's existing coverage for publishers, and they're not responsible for what people post in their comment section. They can still moderate it if they choose. Acting like a publisher, even if you want to accept that premise, changes nothing.
Re: Morons (Score:3)
I don't take your trolling personnaly; you do it to everyone.
Re: Morons (Score:2)
There's existing coverage for publishers, and they're not responsible for what people post in their comment section. They can still moderate it if they choose.
Cool, which statute does this coverage fall under?
Acting like a publisher, even if you want to accept that premise, changes nothing.
It changes everything. As a pretty clear example, when the left-wing dipshits jumped all over Nick Sandmann it was a pretty clear case of libel/slander. He was able to sue CNN over their coverage of it and would have won; CNN settled out of court because they knew they would lose. The shit said about him on twitter was as bad if not worse than what was reported on CNN, but he had no hope of winning against twitter due to 240. The reason for this is that
Re: (Score:2)
There's existing coverage for publishers, and they're not responsible for what people post in their comment section. They can still moderate it if they choose.
Cool, which statute does this coverage fall under?
Section 230, it's not even ambigious
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
Nobody, with regard to user posts, is the publisher of those posts.
There's nothing in there about "unless you're a newspaper" or "unless you're a publisher" it's just "If you have a website and you don't provide the information you're not treated as the publisher or speaker".
If you disagree, fine, but it's no longer any fun to argue about, so consider this my capitulation :)
Re: (Score:2)
It changes everything. As a pretty clear example, when the left-wing dipshits jumped all over Nick Sandmann it was a pretty clear case of libel/slander.
Oh, as to this, CNN wrote and posted it's own stories. If it was dumb enough to present opinion as fact then they would have had a problem. However, if a heap of people made libelous comments on their website, they wouldn't be CNN product and CNN would be shielded by 230 (the individual users would still be liable)