Russia Puts the Squeeze on Social Media to Police Its Critics (wsj.com) 66
Russia's government was quick to use social media when it tried to steer the course of U.S. elections, American officials say. It isn't quite as eager to see its own opponents at home try the same thing. From a report: Ahead of a parliamentary vote later this year, the Kremlin has been fine-tuning its strategy to pressure platforms such as Twitter, YouTube and TikTok to remove antigovernment content, classifying a growing number of posts as illegal and issuing a flurry of takedown requests. So far it appears to be working. The Western-dominated tech giants have in many instances complied. YouTube temporarily removed links to content laying out the opposition's voting strategy. Russian officials say Twitter is working to comply with requests to remove content that Moscow deems illegal. TikTok, owned by China's ByteDance, also removed or altered a handful of videos that criticized the government and promoted opposition street protests. TikTok, Twitter and Google, the Alphabet subsidiary that owns YouTube, say they decide whether to delete content based on local laws where they operate and on their own internal guidelines. None of the companies commented on specific cases mentioned in this article.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:America could do a lot of good here (Score:5, Insightful)
I think European countries are trying that with the US. Seems to be working; we have privacy rights now.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a Winston Churchill level of comebacks. If you were a famous figure you'd have an attributed quote.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to drop the mic.
Re: (Score:3)
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Winston Churchill
Will that do?
Also, funny that this article is just ahead of the one about Apple folding to the Chinese Gov.'s demand to disable their latest privacy enhancements. Courage, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the first time either. You also have a free Internet sans enforced Internet Explorer but instead a browser choice, documented Microsoft APIs, many many anti-monopoly laws (at least in the EU), many sensible safety and other regulations that stop corporations from profiting from poisoning or putting in danger consumers, etc etc.
Maybe the US might not care much about the EU and its regulations. The US's capitalists do mind about the EU's very very rich market. And they wont sell anything on the EU's side
Re: (Score:2)
Then they will go with local companies. It won't solve anything, and US companies lose out on revenue.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America could do a lot of good here (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that many "educated democratic countries" have pretty different legal systems, so such laws would practically stop any programs of any company with office in US to be used in almost all countries in the world.
Re: (Score:1)
That only works if most democracies go along with it. Some may vote for economics over morality.
Re:America could do a lot of good here (Score:4, Interesting)
Did not the whole Russiagate Mueller failure prove this to be false "Russia's government was quick to use social media when it tried to steer the course of U.S. elections". A small Russia troll farm doing political click bait to drive people to ads is nothing like the US and UK governments have been exposed doing.
Russia regulatory actions are a direct results of publicly exposed US and UK social media operations, government backed PR corporations running propaganda for terrorist organisations.
So push a lie to hide the truth. It is the US and UK governments who are the global corrupters of democracy, no ally safe, their governments corrupted to profit insiders. Most countries are starting to realise the necessity of specifically kicking out US and UK tech corporations because they are corrupt and can not be trusted.
Re: (Score:1)
Example?
Re: (Score:2)
So instead you'd be fine with Putin threatening companies with financial loss if they don't censor hate or dangerous speech, "like the kind my political opponents use"?
Re:America could do a lot of good here (Score:4, Informative)
As a matter of fact, the variety of viewpoints in their media is now significantly wider and more diverse than in USA or UK. You can pour faecal matter over Vlad daily like Novaya Gazeta [novayagazeta.ru] or this guy in MK [www.mk.ru] and there are no consequences. And this is before we even get to proper opposition press like Rain, Bell, Medusa, etc. If you are having an objection to that statement - learn to read and start reading Novaya or Medusa.
As far as the take-down requests served on Google, Twitter and Facebook, none of them in the last month are on opposition speech. 50% or so are paedophile materials. Most of the rest are materials related to drug production, assisted suicide and material from terrorist organizations on the UN list like ISIS and Al Qaeda and their affiliates. Google, Facebook and Twitter remove that material in other jurisdictions (f.e. Germany) in under 24 hours aiming for 1h. They drag their feet to remove it if it is Russian for months. No comment on why, statement of the fact.
There has been NO requests to remove "opposition" material YET, because the case for putting what we call "leaders of the opposition" (some leaders - they poll under 2%) on the prohibited list is still in court. Even then it will be challenged, appealed and will not come in force until a supreme court (or maybe even constitutional court) ruling which cannot happen before November if not December.
Last, but not least - the so called takedown on "strategy" was a takedown on election campaign materials BEFORE an election campaign official opening date. Their election law is different from ours. You cannot collect money for election (doing so is a fraud) before the election campaign has officially opened. You can collect it if you make it clear that it is not for election campaign. No issues. Example - one of their smarter (and very pro-western) opposition people doing so - his twitter and youtube materials. He made it clear that it is not for election campaign - it is for "feasibility" at this stage. Legal. Being done. Follow the law. No issues [twitter.com]. Or alternatively, disobey the law deliberately and collect money from your and mine taxes for doing so. This is what their "opposition" (quotes needed) is being paid for. Statement of the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So we found the guy good with imperialism
Re: (Score:2)
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”
— Winston Churchill
Re: (Score:3)
The result from this is:
International law and can go suck a tailpipe.
Any International treaty signed by USA has less value than used toilet paper in roadside motel in a 3rd world country.
Why? Because a village court in USA can rescind and override
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well Trump [wikipedia.org] lost so apparently the situations aren't comparable.
Re: (Score:1)
Aww, you're too cute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. We have free speech here, which means the government can not FORCE a private individual or company to print or reproduce speech they do not agree with. We can not force you to say "I love Democrats," and we can not force social media companies to print speech they do not want to print.
Do you want to change that? Do you believe that Forced Speech is Free Speech? Or do you think Free Speech necessarily entail the right to NOT reprint or broadcast things you don't agree with?
The Democratic party is t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom of speech denies the government from retaliating against you for speaking ill of the government.
Furthermore the government isn't trying to force these companies to say anything. They are saying if you let one guy say his piece you must also let other guy say his. This isn't addressed under the first amendment so it will be ligated in the courts.
It is sad to see this moderated as insightful.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech denies the government from retaliating against you for speaking ill of the government. . . .They are saying if you let one guy say his piece you must also let other guy say his. This isn't addressed under the first amendment so it will be ligated in the courts.
You do not have a useful understanding of the First Amendment. Furthermore, this issue was litigated in the 1970s: "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Self-contradiction within two sentences. Here's your prize.
"... you must also let other guy say his."
That's the government forcing the companies to say something - the other guy's piece. The government is the one penalizing the companies for not doing what they "must."
It is. It was. It lost [wikipedia.org]. Compelled speech is still a likely violation of the first amendment absent a compelling government interest, which that case affirmed does not extend to "also let[ting] the other guy say his."
Thus endeth the lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
> Compelled speech is still a likely violation of the first amendment ...
And/or possibly the The Fifth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are renting out your lawn for people to hold parades, then yes you should not discriminate against what kind of parade someone wants to hold on it.
If you make it available to one group, you should make it available to other groups on the same terms. Of course you're free to not make your lawn available for anyone at all.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech denies the government the right to control your speech. It is most certainly more than just forbidding the government from retaliating against speech they don't like.
What you describe is forced speech! That is compelling someone to say something they don't agree with. And it goes against all norms of free speech. For example, networks cancel shows all the time. They don't think a particular show will make them money, so they stop broadcasting it. They are not infringing on anyone's right to free speech. And in fact, the producers may well take that show to another channel, like The Expanse went from ScyFy to Amazon when ScyFy cancelled it.
Explain how you would regulate social media in such a way that it compels social media companies to print speech they think will lose them money, but allows networks to cancel shows they don't think will make them money.
I suggest you educate yourself, you don't seem to understand what the first amendment is all about. Here it is, in it's entirety: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Forcing someone to say something they don't agree with or want to say is ABSOLUTELY "abridging the freedom of speech."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
ALSO, who the fuck is "ArhcAngel?" That's not the same account name as the guy who usually uses that sig. His account is "ArchAngel." Who are you?
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry but no. Freedom of speech includes the right to refuse to say things you don't agree with, and forcing anyone to say things they do not agree with, for any reason, is an abrogation of free speech. If I force you to use your own bullhorn, on your own property, to reproduce my speech, I am absolutely destroying your right to free speech. By refusing to amplify my voice, you are not censoring me.
We can not force publishers to publish any and all content. That is not freedom, that is tyranny. You have a twisted and sick idea of what "freedom of speech" means, it is tyrannical and authoritarian, not at all free. You don't want freedom. You want license. They are very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason such provisions apply to the government is because you cannot avoid the government. If you refuse to deal with the government you have no reasonable alternative so you are severely impacted.
The theory is that you can avoid a private individual or organisation without suffering serious detriment, and this holds true for small companies. But in many cases now, companies have become so large that you can't realistically avoid them. If you avoid the big sites you will suffer a fairly significant detr
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, but I suffer serious detriment from all sorts of unregulated commercial activities that don't happen to be publishers. Are you saying the public has an interest in any economic activity if the owners are "big" enough? Wow! That means we could heavily regulate almost any large company, for any reason! It certainly sets an important precedent for regulating activity that impacts the climate. Funny to hear this coming primarily from the party that claims to hate regulation. I wonder why this issue, in pa
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of climate-focused regulation too, although that's an entirely different issue.
"Let the market sort it out" only works when there is a competitive market. Once one party becomes sufficiently influential in the market they no longer need to compete, and thats where regulation should step in. And in many cases it does (see public utilities, monopoly/antitrust laws etc).
The problem is that technology advances faster than the law, so there is a lag between a monopoly being formed and regulation
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
And so are the Republicans. Because that's where all the donor money comes from. What's your point? It sucks, but don't pretend it's only one party that kowtows to big corporations.
In fact, when we look at history, the last 150 years anyhow, the guys who regulate big corporations are Democrats. Food safety laws? Democrats. Workers' Rights laws? Yep, again, the guys regulating corporations in favor of workers were Democrats. Five day work week? Democrats. Eight hour work day? Democrats. Environmental safety laws forbidding corporations from poisoning your water? Thank a Democrat.
And who fought any and all regulations of corporations, every single time? Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Food safety laws? Democrats.
Not completely. The Pure Food and Drug Act [visitthecapitol.gov] was passed by the 59th US Congress [wikipedia.org] in 1906, and signed by Theodore Roosevelt on the same day he signed the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I did not know that particular congress had a Republican majority. The "Progressive Era" of US politics really was a different time!
Re: (Score:2)
So you are against regulations? You seem to the that for the Right, support of regulations is a binary choice. I assume you hold yourself to the same level.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I think we should regulate where appropriate, necessary to alleviate harm, and where it does not infringe any constitutional rights. This idea of forcing speech infringes constitutional rights, so it is not appropriate. Pretty simple, really.
This should really be a no brainer for conservatives and libertarian types. It is an absolute abrogation of property rights, which I hear you guys care about. I mean, you wouldn't want to get all hypocritical about one of your core principles, would you? I always he
Re: (Score:3)
In capitalist America, social media controls you!
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.amazon.com/Archie-... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:1)
There is a solution (Score:1)
"Social Media"® will just have to diversify and become "leaderless". Then the tyrants can play whack-a-mole all day. But then they will call out the heavy weaponry, your ISP, then whaddya gonna do?
Who painted my horse into a zebra? (Score:3)
Funny in Russia the government (Score:5, Interesting)
Putin must be really jealous of what President Biden has pulled off.
Re: (Score:2)