EU Guidelines Target Tech Giants Over Monetising Disinformation (financialpost.com) 37
New stricter European Union guidelines will push Facebook, Google and other big tech companies to commit not to make money from advertising linked to disinformation. From a report: The European Commission said on Wednesday that its strengthened non-binding guidelines, which confirmed a May 19 Reuters report, set out a robust monitoring framework and clear performance indicators for firms to comply with. read more Concerns about the impact of disinformation have intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic and after claims about election fraud in the United States, with some critics pointing to the role of social media and tech giants in spreading it.
"Disinformation cannot remain a source of revenue. We need to see stronger commitments by online platforms, the entire advertising ecosystem and networks of fact-checkers," EU industry chief Thierry Breton said in a statement. "We need online platforms and other players to address the systemic risks of their services and algorithmic amplification, stop policing themselves alone and stop allowing to make money on disinformation, while fully preserving the freedom of speech," she said. Signatories to the code, which was introduced in 2018, include Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Mozilla, TikTok and some advertising and tech lobbying groups.
"Disinformation cannot remain a source of revenue. We need to see stronger commitments by online platforms, the entire advertising ecosystem and networks of fact-checkers," EU industry chief Thierry Breton said in a statement. "We need online platforms and other players to address the systemic risks of their services and algorithmic amplification, stop policing themselves alone and stop allowing to make money on disinformation, while fully preserving the freedom of speech," she said. Signatories to the code, which was introduced in 2018, include Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Mozilla, TikTok and some advertising and tech lobbying groups.
Should lying be a crime without profit? (Score:2)
That would be a first, wouldn't it? Also reminded of the old expression "Cheaters never prosper." I wish. And a pony would be nice, too.
My initial reaction to the story was "Nice idea, but it'll never work." The three main problems are that (1) some of the liars are not profit driven, (2) the links from lies to profits are often too hard to trace, and (3) too many people like lies (especially reassuring or flattering lies). From that shallow analysis, it seems the only way to start would be by assuming the
Re: (Score:2)
The "liars" that would be subject to this are the social media giants. So, not the ones actually coming up with the lies, but distributing them to the masses and making money on the ads.
The reason it's not going to work is because they're not deliberately pushing conspiracy theory content in the first place. It's incidental to their algorithms designed to promote "engaging content." The EU can tell them they're not allowed to profit over that subset of content, but since it doesn't cost them anything to pus
Re: (Score:2)
Partial concurrence, but mostly I think I was going for a Funny mod. Didn't get it. Probably didn't even manage to change the vacuous Subject.
Re: (Score:2)
They build their systems to maximize engagement. They built a paperclip maximizer and they are responsible for the results. Negative content gets more engagement and the algorithm favors that. I have no problems with holding them accountable for the results. If a human did it they would be legally liable and they should not be able to pass off that liability just because they taught a computer program to do it.
Re:Disinformation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
... with having a consortium of governments decide what's "disinformation"?
Re: (Score:2)
It just shows how loud and delusional a small group of people can be. But right only you know the deep truth and everyone else is lying.
What about religions? (Score:4, Insightful)
They can't all be right, so most are disinformation.
Re: What about religions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Over the past year or so, there have been several things related to covid that have had people silenced or banned or even deplatformed for saying things that the proper sources had set down as canon....and were later proved wrong.
Let's look at Faucci....started out saying you don't need masks.
Later, he changed his mind.
There were people out there saying different right at the first that masks would help.
Even recently, people (doctors
Re: (Score:2)
... with having a consortium of governments decide what's "disinformation"?
Why not? It seems to be working fine in China and Belarus? They avoid the disagreements and political churn that are so common in Western democracies.
Re: (Score:2)
i could not agree more! Lets keep the status que where it is extremely big ad-companies that decides these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Being that we have the likes of Flat Earthers getting a lot of traction lately where before it was just some crazy wacko, that we let yell in a public street with a poorly written cardboard sign. There is a real problem with Social Media Misinformation, as it will spread just as fast and sometimes faster than factual information.
Yes we have Science Fiction stories like 1984, which tells us of a world where the Government gives us all the information that we need to know. We have some Communist and Dictato
Re: (Score:2)
The EU isn't setting the definition. The signatories (mostly Internet and ad companies) will set their own definitions for what constitutes disinformation. This definition will serve as the basis for why ads are rejected, and in which contexts ads won't be displayed. It also calls on the signatories to recognize the value of independent fact checking organizations, and be more transparent to users why they have been targeted by an ad. This and other stuff will be continuously measured and shared in reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides what "disinformation" is? It's clear that the tech giants and the politicians are not capable or trustworthy.
If we're still here asking this question a month from now, then know the true answer is by design.
Re: (Score:2)
People who don’t wear foil hats.
As the world turns... (Score:1)
It's crazy to think that in this day and age, it might take the EU to figure out how to reign in propaganda from U.S. tech giants.
When I grew up, we worried about disinformation from the Soviets and then Russia. Today I watch as our own citizens revel in "Free Speech," where being provacotive (being a dick) on Youtube gets you the most engagement (Nelk boys anyone?), where Steve Bannon's "War Room" is watched by close to 100k people a day and referred to as "The Real News."
It won't be long until we hear t
It's really a tactic to mass suppress speech (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that fact-checkers are not to be legally liable for the impact of their work speaks volumes about the real goal. For example, consider the COVID vaccine issue. A minority of doctors and geneticists are very concerned about the mRNA vaccines. Usually unqualified fact-checkers will shut down their content because it conflicts with the WHO and other "approved experts."
Of course, if those "rogue experts" turn out to be right, none of the fact checkers will be liable. The WHO won't be liable, no one who said "citizen, stop reading that unapproved content" will be liable because the laws have already been structured to minimize liability for them.
This similar to the issue with global warming. Even people like Greta Thunberg don't want to be held to full account if they're wrong. Oh they want to to punish the every loving shit out of you if they're right and you're wrong, but if the roles are reversed, they absolutely do not want any liability.
Never, ever trust someone wanting authority who is not willing to put their head in the guillotine when they fail if they demand the right to use the guillotine on people who won't get with the program.
Re:It's really a tactic to mass suppress speech (Score:4, Interesting)
I know reading is difficult but you could at least read the summary. No one’s speech is being stopped. In fact that isn’t even a right in the EU. This is to prevent Facebook from getting advertising money from content deemed misinformation. Like another poster mentioned, pictures of an inauguration claiming to be the biggest ever when the pictures themselves tell a different story.
Re: (Score:3)
You're delusional.
Imagine if you were a newspaper company, would you carry op-ed's in your newspaper, if you were forced to offer them for free, because it was deemed to be "misinformation"
Re: (Score:3)
You can read the actual guideline PDF at https://digital-strategy.ec.eu... [europa.eu].
Companies will set their own definitions, policies, and procedures, then voluntarily have to adhere to them. Op-eds are already filtered to a degree, so the newspaper might see no issue with placing adverts there. However, maybe the newspaper will decide to not place adverts in their unmoderated comment section, or maybe avoid political ads in their politics section. It's up to them.
The guideline is mostly about convincing big Intern
Re: (Score:2)
The fact-checkers I've come across are generally transparent about their process for reaching a conclusion. The process should include citations and achieve consilience from independent sources to converge on a conclusion. This conclusion should be falsifiable and reproducible, given the process, much like a scientific theory.
All that can be asked of a fact-checker is to have a solid process to follow. They can't be held responsible if a reasonable assumption they made, or the findings of a systematic revie
Re: It's really a tactic to mass suppress speech (Score:2)
Link please. Especially to credible geneticists. Doctors if they have a specialism in the field. Thank you.
Your favorite bullshit is now ad free! (Score:2)
So now you won't have to sit through advertising waiting for your disinformation to start? How is that helpful (other than to fans of disinformation)?
Once again (Score:2)
Europe leads the way! Whoops! I meant Russia. Or was it China?
"Disinformation cannot remain a source of revenue. (Score:2)
Marketroids beg to differ.
"Lies" (the less PC term for disinfo) can ever quite profitable.
Whitewash (Score:2)
Signatories to the code, which was introduced in 2018, include Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Mozilla, TikTok and some advertising and tech lobbying groups.
That's all you need to know. Pure corporate whitewash. Nothing will change as a result of this non-binding "code of honour."