Will Parler Spread Misinformation - or Just Segregate It Onto a Single App? (thehill.com) 308
"The rising popularity of alternative social media app Parler is raising concerns over the spread of misinformation and potential for radicalizing users on a platform that's taken a hands-off approach to regulating content," reports The Hill's reporter on technology policy:
The app has been boosted by conservatives, surging since Election Day, as Republicans amp up allegations of anti-conservative bias from social media giants like Twitter and Facebook that have clamped down on pro-Trump election misinformation. Experts warn that a total lack of content moderation could prove harmful beyond creating political echo chambers and further spreading conspiracy theories. "Anytime you take a laissez faire approach to moderation — you say, 'anything goes' right up until actual threats of real world violence — that creates a huge space for some really problematic things to happen," said Bret Schafer, a fellow focusing on disinformation at the Alliance for Securing Democracy....
For those who have abandoned Twitter and Facebook in favor of Parler, it could create a new dynamic on the mainstream social media platforms. "The idea that these people are leaving those platforms and no longer trying to red pill individuals to see their conspiracy theories on large platforms like Facebook and Twitter, I think that's a good thing," said Jason Blazakis, director of the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute. He added that the shift to Parler could mean fewer people on Facebook and Twitter are "exposed to these ideas," and "migrating to more obscure platforms" may ultimately result in a smaller audience for misinformation....
Unchecked content also risks exploitation of misinformation by foreign actors, much like it did on U.S. social media platforms in 2016, said Saif Shahin, an assistant professor at American University's School of Communications. But he said Parler's success underscores that misinformation in the U.S. is now fundamentally a domestic problem.
"We have people in this country divided so sharply along partisan lines that they actively are seeking what we consider to be disinformation, but what they consider just one type of information," Shahin said. "It is a domestic problem, a social problem, within American society."
Long-time Slashdot reader shilly also shared a thread on Twitter from entrepreneur/activist Dave Troy (currently a TedX organizer) raising questions about Parler's funding. [UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has now reported that Parler's backers include Robert Mercer and his daughter, "who have not disclosed their involvement," and who previously funded Cambridge Analytica.]
Troy also asserted that "a preliminary analysis of the first several thousand accounts on Parler shows that it is the usual Russia-aligned operatives that we in this space have tracked for years. This is a large-scale op aligned with Russian interests."
Within hours Russia's state-controlled media outlet "Russia Today" had published an article calling Troy an "unhinged conspiracy theorist."
For those who have abandoned Twitter and Facebook in favor of Parler, it could create a new dynamic on the mainstream social media platforms. "The idea that these people are leaving those platforms and no longer trying to red pill individuals to see their conspiracy theories on large platforms like Facebook and Twitter, I think that's a good thing," said Jason Blazakis, director of the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute. He added that the shift to Parler could mean fewer people on Facebook and Twitter are "exposed to these ideas," and "migrating to more obscure platforms" may ultimately result in a smaller audience for misinformation....
Unchecked content also risks exploitation of misinformation by foreign actors, much like it did on U.S. social media platforms in 2016, said Saif Shahin, an assistant professor at American University's School of Communications. But he said Parler's success underscores that misinformation in the U.S. is now fundamentally a domestic problem.
"We have people in this country divided so sharply along partisan lines that they actively are seeking what we consider to be disinformation, but what they consider just one type of information," Shahin said. "It is a domestic problem, a social problem, within American society."
Long-time Slashdot reader shilly also shared a thread on Twitter from entrepreneur/activist Dave Troy (currently a TedX organizer) raising questions about Parler's funding. [UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has now reported that Parler's backers include Robert Mercer and his daughter, "who have not disclosed their involvement," and who previously funded Cambridge Analytica.]
Troy also asserted that "a preliminary analysis of the first several thousand accounts on Parler shows that it is the usual Russia-aligned operatives that we in this space have tracked for years. This is a large-scale op aligned with Russian interests."
Within hours Russia's state-controlled media outlet "Russia Today" had published an article calling Troy an "unhinged conspiracy theorist."
Good Thing Twitter Has Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be "collusion", it has to, by definition, be secret.
Re: Good Thing Twitter Has Standards (Score:2)
Looked up the word. Not necessarily secret.
Re: (Score:3)
When I look at people who consider themselves a Master Race, I laugh. If they're the pinnacle of humanity, then we're doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what the Chosen People were "chosen" for?
According to Jewish thought, the Jews were chosen to have to live by stricter rules than everyone else, and so serve as an example of righteous living. That's not quite the same thing as thinking of yourself as master race.
Re:Good Thing Twitter Has Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
The Mueller Report said quite clearly that there was some collusion. An in any case the main point that Russia did a lot to interfere with the election in support of Trump the main issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good Thing Twitter Has Standards (Score:2)
Precisely.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good Thing Twitter Has Standards (Score:5, Informative)
Prison? for what?
Rape for one [nytimes.com]. Tax and insurance fraud [thehill.com] for two. Money laundering [forbes.com] for three. And this doesn't include the possible investigation by Scotland [bipartisanreport.com] on how the con artist was able to provide money to finance his failing golf courses at a time when he had just declared bankruptcy on his three casinos in Atlantic City and had (and still does) oodles of debt.
Did we mention the millions in drug money [newsweek.com] the con artist laundered in addition to his other money laundering?
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the various campaign violations from 2016 that Mueller said he should be charged with were he not a president. Including coordinating with Russians.
Re:May God Bless President Trump! (Score:5, Informative)
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”
"Mueller made clear that his team never considered indicting Trump because the Justice Department prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president."
“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said
"Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was “not an option” because of federal rules, but he used his first public remarks on the Russia investigation to emphasize that he did not exonerate the president."
https://apnews.com/article/943... [apnews.com]
So, there is evidence that trump did commit a crime. The only reason Mueller didn't indict trump were due to Justice Department rules - rules made by people protecting trump. "did not exonerate the president" means that trump can not be considered innocent.
I know it's not what you want to hear, and you'll probably try to hand-waive it away, but if Mueller could have prosecuted trump, he would have and that is clear from what he said - his hands were tied by the DOJ so that he could not prosecute and that in no way means that trump is innocent.
You've been living in denial, in a false reality of trumpism. Maybe you'll wake up to that someday, maybe you won't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure what scenario you are envisioning in which Mueller spends two years investigating a sitting President, says there is no evidence of the primary allegation, and then doesn't qualify it somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he explicitly stated so - there wasn't evidence to charge with a crime. Ever say anything bad against the President? That's evidence of treason - but not enough to be charged with a crime.
I see you're still alive and well and still unable to refute my other arguments in another thread related to this. But keep playing the same tune, maybe if you repeat the lie often enough it'll become true, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well when your associates are criminals there's a good chance you might be one too.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Re:Good Thing Twitter Has Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh don't worry, he won't go to actual prison, not having been President, too much of a national security risk. I'm sure they have some special prison for someone like him. But indicted and convicted, I'm sure.
Then there's the civil suits against him from women he's sexually assaulted. No prison for those obviously, but it'll ruin him financially -- as if he has much actual liquid assets to begin with. Guess he'll have to sell off his country clubs, LOL. xD
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you spent the past four years not being over Trump winning?
Where's your proof of tax evasion and fraud? Taking advantage of every tax loophole is not evasion or fraud. It's using the law the way it is written. It's the job of expensive accountants to find and use every single one. Trump was actually a proponent of simplifying tax law to remove loopholes and lower rates to make the system more straight forward, predictable and fair. All the loopholes are what allow rates to be higher without being as burdensome as those rates could be. It's why the oft quoted 90% tax rates of decades past weren't so onerous and why it's a farce when Progressives compare prior rates to today's rates on the wealthy. When Reagan drastically lowered rates, he also removed swaths of loopholes and deductions.
Well you do realize that Trump had to shut down his charity for fraud, right? And that he did so while President of the United States, right? You know, while he was considered to be out of reach for prosecution. Not to mention Trump University, which had to shutdown just before the charity did. He's got a long reputation as a grifter and we all know that nobody wants to admit to being duped by a con artist...
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, you nutters are always good for a laugh.
You're so vastly outnumbered by normal people that if push ever came to shove, we'd clean you fuckers up in short order and be home in time for an early lunch.
Thanks for the confirmation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Within hours Russia's state-controlled media outlet "Russia Today" had published an article calling Troy an "unhinged conspiracy theorist."
That's how we know for sure it's Russia.
Welcome to the future (Score:4, Insightful)
That was created when journalists decided to become partisan and burn the bridge with half of the population, and even worse, use twitter as a font instead of doing actual investigations.
This is exactly what ethics in journalism were supposed to prevent, a scenario where no one have any sort of credibility so all news are equally valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists must become partisan in order to succeed. Being truly balanced winds up making enemies on both sides, and one's career then goes right out the window.
It seems like, for most people, one's political position quickly achieves religious-like devotion in their lives. They see the world through that lens and do not want it challenged. They aren't interested in learning new facts that might change their position, or recognizing that some specific issues may be better handled by an approach that lea
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no such thing as being fully balanced. Everyone comes from some level of bias, often bias they aren't really aware of. That doesn't make them bad. What is needed is not "balance", what is needed is honesty.
Honesty means stating clearly the facts that you know without missing out any that might be important. Honesty means being clear about what you know about your own biases. Honesty means that, when the other "side" of an issue states something you disagree with, you try to present their argument at least as well as they presented it.
Compare most American media such as Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, which are just biased and illiterate, with a serious conservative publication such as the Economist [economist.com]. Most of what you read in the Economist comes from a conservative point of view (though they do invite in outside viewpoints), however they argue clearly and they show alternative viewpoints. You will learn more from one copy of the Economist than from a years reading of the WSJ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>Being truly balanced winds up making enemies on both sides, and one's career then goes right out the window.
This is a very important point that I think Greenwald had a really good comment on (I could be wrong on attribution here, going from memory). That in the gold days of investigative journalism, journalists came from working class background. They hated the elite and wanted to bring them down on principle. That made them a lot of enemies among the elite, and that made them excellent at their jobs. I
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:5, Interesting)
Look into how Hearst fomented the Spanish-American war. Also search the history of "yellow journalism". (There are others, but that one's well documented.)
"The power of the press belongs to the man who owns one." --paraphrase of A.J. Liebling https://www.goodreads.com/quot... [goodreads.com]
Re:Welcome to the future (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There have always been right wing and left wing news outlets, and there have always been those that strive to be neutral. Of course perfect neutrality is impossible but they generally do a pretty good job overall.
Just because you disagree with the neutral point of view doesn't make them bad. Just because your idea of neutral is actually firmly on the right of politics doesn't mean they are supporting the left.
Re: Welcome to the future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Never ever in the history of journalism have journalists been non-partisan and unbiased. The entire point of journalism is to influence public opinion. That's why the American Revolution started with the journalistic efforts of people like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics are so 20th century.
It's all about activism now.
Russian trolls? (Score:2, Insightful)
So Russian trolls are flocking to a social media platform that barely anyone is on and the ones that are on it agree with them?
This does not make sense. The point of propaganda is to sway people to your side. It seems more likely that these people are not trolls but rather people who actually believe what they are saying.
Mixture (Score:2)
At this point it's well-proven that you have a mixture of both out there in the wild, across every platform, so I see no reason why it would be different here. Although since it is a new platform, you would see the proportions of the mixture in flux until they reach an equilibrium.
Seeding a site with less-than-legitimate accounts is a proven way to get people to sign up. You frequently see it with dating sites, but it works just the same here. People can't feel social without seeing activity on the platform
Re:Russian trolls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the spreading is done by Americans. The Russian trolls just need to create a few memes or plant a few conspiracy theory seeds and let them do the rest.
It used to be private Facebook groups and the like, now it's moving to Parler. Anywhere there is a mass of Americans and little is done about misinformation and Russian IPs they will go.
Re: (Score:2)
Well unless your goal is to radicalize the people who are on Parler.
The post Usenet and BBS world (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently Bret has never heard of Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoting TFS
--
Experts warn that a total lack of content moderation could prove harmful beyond creating political echo chambers and further spreading conspiracy theories. "Anytime you take a laissez faire approach to moderation â" you say, 'anything goes' right up until actual threats of real world violence â" that creates a huge space for some really problematic things to happen," said Bret Schafer
--
Hmm. "Anytime you take a laissez faire approach to moderation".
Apparently the "expert" on social media has never heard of probably the first major social media site, a site called Slashdot. A site on which the owners don't control what anyone says. A site in which some idiot keeps posting swastikas, and the rest of the users see "hey there's the swastika idiot again".
According to this "expert", a site like Slashdot will surely blow up within a couple years. If you let idiots post swastikas and other stupid crap, everyone on the site will become Naz1s, he seems to think.
I suspect he's wrong. I suspect that after however many years of idiot swastika troll, there are precisely zero Naz1s on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Slashdot has never used laissez faire moderation. Moderators were always selected from those who had been on the site for a period of time and had a history of decent posts. I can't really say how that got started, as it had been going on for several years before I heard about it. Probably the initial version did let nearly anyone moderate...but it didn't stay that way long. Then there's the meta-moderation level. No, it's not laissez faire moderation. And it does tend to channel things into group
Censorship vs liking a post (Score:2)
Yeah Slashdot you can click the plus or minus button.
Which results in Slashdot showing - that people clicked plus or minus. Not unlike the Like button on Facebook or Twitter.
Which is a very different thing than having the owners of the site decide which views are allowed. Very different from when Twitter blocks a major newspaper when they run an article that made one candidate not look so good. That kind of censorship is very different from Slashdot showing a score -1 - 5 indicating if readers click plus
Re:Apparently Bret has never heard of Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot does have a moderation system though, which hides low scoring posts by default.
And the various site owners have tried to get rid of the Swastika spam. Just the other day Taco as talking about it on Twitter, about how he was in a constant battle with them and the GNAA and the people posting explicit gay fanfic about him. Some words are banned in posts, the lameness filter is a black box of censorship.
Slashdot is not "laissez faire".
Re:Apparently Bret has never heard of Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot's owners may not control what people say on the platform, but Slashdot has an integrated moderation system where everyone controls everyone else, which makes it very different from your average social network, right? It's a self-policing platform. I don't think the comparison holds.
I like the way moderation works here, it is very well-designed:
- if you want to moderate, you can't take part in the discussion. This limits the risk of flamewars or people overusing their power to promote their own point.
- a post can reach maximum exposition only if there is a consensus around it (all people will vote it up). If it is controversial with 50% people voting up, and 50% voting down, it will never reach the top.
- every discussion is public so there is no echo chamber effect and little possibility for private groups to share their own world views without being exposed to contradictors that have different viewpoints on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect he's wrong. I suspect that after however many years of idiot swastika troll, there are precisely zero Naz1s on Slashdot.
Yet, you couldn't type in the name of the party that Hitler founded due to some sort of moderation, likely implemented to stop people calling others names.
Slashdot is relatively lightly moderated, but some words are banned and various posts aren't seen unless browsing at -1. Users have been banned the odd time as well.
You have a low number (Score:3)
Parler! (Score:2, Troll)
The newest Parler ad:
"Parler- it's where racists congregate! Come join us to mentally masturbate to your nutty conspiracy theories with like-minded nutjobs! Nothing is too stupid for us to believe, so come join Parler and get your bigotry on!"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the stuff!
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Parler is a safe space (Score:4, Interesting)
Parler is a literal example of a safe space for all the whiny snowflakes who can't deal with the reality of Biden being president. Not long after its name popped up, Biden supporters flocked to Parler and started reminding the con artist supporters his days were numbered. Not long after that, Parler started kicking off those people [techdirt.com] because it's such a free and open place to exchange ideas, which it says on its front page:
Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views. Engage with real people, not bots. Parler is people and privacy-focused, and gives you the tools you need to curate your Parler experience.
Apparently you're free to express youself so long as it's only the right thing to say. Now where have I heard that before?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always an excuse, isn't there? I guarantee I could go on Parler right now and find dozens of people making death threats or doing illegal activity who will not be flagged
So what other excuse do you have?
Re: (Score:2)
The article says that everyone that was banned was because they were leftist, but who knows right. They seem to be pretty moderate people on Twitter.
That said - that Arkansas cop that threatened to shoot democrats still has his parler account, but not his job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parler is a literal example of a safe space for all the whiny snowflakes who can't deal with the reality of Biden being president.
Would you stop posting the kind of partisan garbage that you claim is the problem? All social media sites devolve into one or more echo chambers when one side gives up and leaves or shuts up. Twitter is dominated by liberals [pewresearch.org] which probably says more about the kind of people who feel the need to constantly share their opinions on everything than it does about "reality having a liberal bias" or whatever. It's social media. There is no fair, but it is not incorrect to point out that the sites are rarely run by
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is either a right-biased platform like you say, or a honeypot to collect all the wrongthinkers. I know parler has trotted out a message in support of "free speech", but if that's all they cared about, investing in gab would have been the better option.
Of course, for all left signalling that it's hypocritical for the conservatives who are being constantly deplatformed to create their own safe space, all we seem to see is simple namecalling and nonsense as to why they shouldn't.
I do find it intere
Variety is Important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the bias in Google, Facebook, and Twitter is "What is good for our corporation?". It's a real bias, and they also make mistakes, but they aren't actually out to destroy society. Trusting them for much beyond that is foolish, of course, but it's better than trusting those who *are* out to destroy society.
Re: (Score:2)
What 180? The opposition to Trump for the most part always argued that the actual voting in the 2016 election was pretty uncompromised. The Russian interference was doing things like hacking into Democrat party servers and running propaganda campaigns, etc. Trump was the one who insisted that massive voter fraud had taken place in the election that he won. Now, he's insisting that massive voter fraud took place in the election that he lost and his opposition is, once again, saying that the actually voting s
Start your own social media they said.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So some enterprising person does. By some miracle it starts getting popular. Now MSM and the competition says: "Threat to democracy!" "Conspiracy theorists" "Racists!" "Misinformation" "RUSSIA!!!@!" Soon to be removed from app stores and de-platformed.
Tell me again how these are private businesses and if you don't like it you can make your own. Whoa, whoa! There is no censorship here, all they have to do is agree with us and our ideology and they will have "free speech". This is fine, everything is fine. YOU ARE TOTALLY NOT LIVING IN A DISTOPIA, BIGOT!
Re: (Score:3)
Life doesn't owe us happy choices, so it's quite possible for both of the following to be true: (i) people have a right to build and use these things and (ii) these things are a threat to democracy. Democracy by its very nature can't preclude some threats to itself.
The basis of the argument against compelled speech on the part of a news outlet or a platform like Twitter is that people are free to get that speech somewhere else. But what happens if those people choose to *exclusively* rely on propaganda ou
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know the "deep state" controlled all the debate for decades?
I started following following politics in the 1960s, and from them up until the economic collapse of the traditional media after 2000, the mainstream media was not monolithic in its positions. You had papers who were fore the Vietnam War, others against. You had papers that were for the Reagan military build-up, others against.
This seems like a pretty inefficient way to control public opinion, to give them a choice of positions to al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, Sean Hannity is promoting it pretty hard. On his Twitter account, even. But when you think about that, it becomes difficult to claim the position of oppressed underdog. "MSM" is typically a codeword for "an article of news I didn't like" and inexplicably tends to ignore the #1 rated cable news channel. (Guess which one that is?) There are some valid critiques of various media outlets, but none of them are being discussed in this thread. That's incompatible with the way the phrase is used, which is
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I actually support Parler's availability and don't think it will have a negative effect on society (beyond the existing social media). The endgame here looks something like "4chan for Grandma". The site's logo will serve as a content warning over the whole thing - I think that image sticks more clearly in people's minds than inconsistently and rarely-applied warnings that might pop up on the other sites.
Parallels (Score:2, Insightful)
For over a decade there have been internet forums dedicated to Jihadism. Basically people getting together, talking shit, trying to encourage each other on towards terrorism, in the name of a radical form of Islam. Parler is basically that for white nationalism. Except it's going to be a lot more effective, because you don't have to go to the work to set up and maintain your own forum.
I predict that the next white christian terrorist mass-shooting or fire-bombing will have been organized on Parler.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. I predict that, additionally, it will have been instigated by the FBI...who will have enough informers/agents that they'll have evidence on all participants.
Re: Parallels (Score:2)
Oh noez! Non-existent boogeymen are going to organize a peasant uprising - using THE INTERNET!! Oh noez, oh noez, oh noez!
Quick everybody, burn the Bill of Rights! Censor EVERYTHING!! Death to America! It's the only way to fight the bogeymen in my head!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly Bannon's lawyer thought it was a bit more than some rhetorical hyperbole. He pretty much dumped Bannon as a client as soon as it got out.
I doubt Bannon was serious, but his business now is bilking money from White Nationalists, and I'm not as sure about their intentions.
Re: People don't even know what disinformation is (Score:2)
The lawyer lives in the world where outrage etc is a career/life killer.
He was probably considering the mob response likely aimed in his direction.
Re: (Score:2)
He actually just said "put the fucker's head on a pike," which every normal, native English speaker knows is a figure of speech that is so obviously first amendment-protected speech that you look like a total tool for even blinking at it.
A) Every normal, native English speaker knows it means to behead the person and put the severed head on a pike. It's what was literally done for centuries.
B) Go ahead and make the same statement about the con artist or Biden and see if you don't get a visit from the Secret
Re: (Score:2)
It was reported that he also talked about where to display the heads. That takes it out of the "figure of speech" category. At best it could be considered an extended metaphor, but that sensible people could think he meant it literally isn't totally unreasonable...and that unsensible people could act on it is ... believable.
It's not a direct threat, but when broadcast widely it becomes an incitement to violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians, if anyone, should be aware that some of their audience do not understand metaphors (provided it was a metaphor in the first place). There are people who are very naive, easy to influence, or gullible, there are people with mental disorders, there are people who are idiots, etc. There are also people who do not fall in the previous categories, but who have a mindset that leads them to consider beheading as an OK solution to a political, cultural, or religious conflict (see latest terror attacks
30 year long panic over IRC servers (Score:5, Insightful)
And that people can hang around and discuss terrible things. It's not such a big deal, you can use conventional law enforcement to discover and foil evil actions. And even if there is some danger, it's still America, and we still protect free speech as a social as well as legal value. Finally, consider transparent self serving motives of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. Reminds me about Microsoft naked PC campaign saying that if you sell one without their OS, people might pirate.
Well, if it does not censor... (Score:2)
Then it will be a million percent better than current âoesocial media.â
Stormfront Streisand Effect (Score:2)
How well did it work, kettling White Nationalism (WN) onto Stormfront back in the 1990s?
How well is suppression working in Hong Kong?
This just furthers the divide, driving one half of the population to alternate media sources.
The real story here is that with Fox News leaning to the Left, Right-wingers as mass defecting from mainstream media entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Working pretty well in Hong Kong, all the dissidents are trying to flee.
Parler is just a venue (Score:3)
The users are responsible for what they post/spread. Every platform has users that spread misinformation.
Not worried (Score:2)
I haven't seen that Conservipedia ever became a force to be reckoned with. Why would this be any different?
At worst/best this is just going to be another 4chan like message board.
Is this really a shock? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reddit banned r/The_Donald (800k subs), blacklisted thedonald.win as a forbidden word, and banned anyone that posted an image containing the URL. Twitter blocks the New York Post for two weeks for writing about evidence of possible corruption from Hunter Biden's laptop, and blocks anyone from linking to or retweeting the story. In the same month they have the president's supposed stolen tax returns as front page news. Add to that shadow bans, grey-out, and fact checks on even obvious humor and is it really a huge shock that users are willing to go find another platform?
I support all platforms right to choose what content they host. That said, you don't get to complain if the users and content creators decide to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter blocks the New York Post for two weeks for writing about evidence of possible corruption from Hunter Biden's laptop, and blocks anyone from linking to or retweeting the story.
Tucker Carlson gave up on the laptop. For him, that's like quitting a 12oz prime rib two bites in. Maybe it's time for you to give up on it too. Is it that really that hard to understand you are being lied to?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused on something and maybe you can help clear it up. Can you point me towards any laws or regulations saying reddit must publish everything that gets posted to its site?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused on something and maybe you can help clear it up. Can you point me towards any laws or regulations saying reddit must publish everything that gets posted to its site?
What a lame straw man retort. How about first you point to the part of the GP that mentions any law or legal issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda (Score:2)
Nice piece of propaganda disguised as a question for debate.
Great Target! (Score:2)
The Trump administration has already started undoing the legal protections to platforms offered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
So, should this ever go through, it will shut down this site and send everyone scrambling...
So Twitter doesn't like competition so ... (Score:2)
Twitter hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Act by claiming it is not and "editor", yet it edits posts to its site. Time to enforce 230 and make Twitter liable again.
It's a natural balance (Score:2)
Trump loses the Presidency, and all the Right Wing extremists slink back under the floorboards where they were before.
Yes of course (Score:2)
'Alternative social media app': 4chan! (Score:2)
'Social media' as an entire concept needs to die and go away, forever. The human species is not mature and responsible enough to have such tools without them being twist
Re: (Score:2)
So, Al Gore, what do you think? (Score:2)
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the new conservapedia. It will also serve as unintentional satire of itself and its users.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're always looking at the positive, you'll never fix the bugs. It's important to attend to your goals, but don't ignore the problems to do so.
Re:Social Media is not your parents (Score:5, Insightful)
You wouldn’t let these companies run your schools and colleges so why are we letting them determine what is true in our day to day conversations.
Agreed, which is why they wouldn't let me post stories about the out of wedlock child Lindsey Graham had with that Puerto Rican maid.
The scary part is these companies will block and hide information they deem to be un true.
Name one story which was hidden or blocked which wasn't a falsehood or lie.
They literally claimed to be an authority on things like coronavirus right when it was spreading before scientists ever studied it
No they were not. Right there is a lie. They claimed no authority whatsoever. What they did was look at the evidence provided by the people studying the virus, what was being said in the medical community, what the best course of action was based on the evidence, and when someone put out a lie about how hydro whatever was the cure all for everything, despite there being zero evidence to make the claim, they flagged it. They were flagging snakeoil salesmen, which has been done since whenever.
They literally are trying to control the entire conversation on these topics in the name of safety.
They are trying to control the spread of lies and disinformation so people don't get killed [cbsnews.com].
There is no trust in the intelligence of the US or any country any longer.
Do shut up. Every word you speak lowers the country's intelligence. There are enough unedcuateds believing in conspiracy theories about people from Mars voting [msn.com] that we don't need another troll stirring the pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't want them to run our schools, no. OTOH, neither would I want the fundamentalist churches to do the same thing. But Texas controls what the publishers put in the school text books. And it's played a big part in suppressing the teaching of evolution.
So it's reasonable to be worried about social media BEFORE they fully grasp the levers of power.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so happy you found your safe space. God bless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)