How Facebook and Google Actually Fund the Creation of Misinformation (technologyreview.com) 196
MIT's Technology Review shares data from a Facebook-run tool called CrowdTangle. It shows that by 2018 in the nation of Myanmar (population: 53 million), " All the engagement had instead gone to fake news and clickbait websites.
"In a country where Facebook is synonymous with the internet, the low-grade content overwhelmed other information sources." [T]he sheer volume of fake news and clickbait acted like fuel on the flames of already dangerously high ethnic and religious tensions. It shifted public opinion and escalated the conflict, which ultimately led to the death of 10,000 Rohingya, by conservative estimates, and the displacement of 700,000 more. In 2018, a United Nations investigation determined that the violence against the Rohingya constituted a genocide and that Facebook had played a "determining role" in the atrocities. Months later, Facebook admitted it hadn't done enough "to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence." Over the last few weeks, the revelations from the Facebook Papers, a collection of internal documents provided to Congress and a consortium of news organizations by whistleblower Frances Haugen, have reaffirmed what civil society groups have been saying for years: Facebook's algorithmic amplification of inflammatory content, combined with its failure to prioritize content moderation outside the US and Europe, has fueled the spread of hate speech and misinformation, dangerously destabilizing countries around the world.
But there's a crucial piece missing from the story. Facebook isn't just amplifying misinformation.
The company is also funding it.
An MIT Technology Review investigation, based on expert interviews, data analyses, and documents that were not included in the Facebook Papers, has found that Facebook and Google are paying millions of ad dollars to bankroll clickbait actors, fueling the deterioration of information ecosystems around the world.
Facebook pays them for permission to open their content within Facebook's app (where Facebook controls the advertising) rather than having users clickthrough to the publisher's own web site, reports Technology Review: Early on, Facebook performed little quality control on the types of publishers joining the program. The platform's design also didn't sufficiently penalize users for posting identical content across Facebook pages — in fact, it rewarded the behavior. Posting the same article on multiple pages could as much as double the number of users who clicked on it and generated ad revenue. Clickbait farms around the world seized on this flaw as a strategy — one they still use today... Clickbait actors cropped up in Myanmar overnight. With the right recipe for producing engaging and evocative content, they could generate thousands of U.S. dollars a month in ad revenue, or 10 times the average monthly salary — paid to them directly by Facebook. An internal company document, first reported by MIT Technology Review in October, shows that Facebook was aware of the problem as early as 2019... At one point, as many as 60% of the domains enrolled in Instant Articles were using the spammy writing tactics employed by clickbait farms, the report said...
75% of users who were exposed to clickbait content from farms run in Macedonia and Kosovo had never followed any of the pages. Facebook's content-recommendation system had instead pushed it into their news feeds.
Technology Review notes that Facebook now pays billions of dollars to the publishers in their program. It's a long and detailed article, which ultimately concludes that the problem "is now happening on a global scale." Thousands of clickbait operations have sprung up, primarily in countries where Facebook's payouts provide a larger and steadier source of income than other forms of available work. Some are teams of people while others are individuals, abetted by cheap automated tools that help them create and distribute articles at mass scale...
Google is also culpable. Its AdSense program fueled the Macedonia- and Kosovo-based farms that targeted American audiences in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. And it's AdSense that is incentivizing new clickbait actors on YouTube to post outrageous content and viral misinformation.
Reached for comment, a Facebook spokesperson told Technology Review that they'd misunderstood the issue. And the spokesperson also said "we've invested in building new expert-driven and scalable solutions to these complex issues for many years, and will continue doing so."
Google's spokesperson confirmed examples in the article violated their own policies and removed the content, adding "We work hard to protect viewers from clickbait or misleading content across our platforms and have invested heavily in systems that are designed to elevate authoritative information."
"In a country where Facebook is synonymous with the internet, the low-grade content overwhelmed other information sources." [T]he sheer volume of fake news and clickbait acted like fuel on the flames of already dangerously high ethnic and religious tensions. It shifted public opinion and escalated the conflict, which ultimately led to the death of 10,000 Rohingya, by conservative estimates, and the displacement of 700,000 more. In 2018, a United Nations investigation determined that the violence against the Rohingya constituted a genocide and that Facebook had played a "determining role" in the atrocities. Months later, Facebook admitted it hadn't done enough "to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence." Over the last few weeks, the revelations from the Facebook Papers, a collection of internal documents provided to Congress and a consortium of news organizations by whistleblower Frances Haugen, have reaffirmed what civil society groups have been saying for years: Facebook's algorithmic amplification of inflammatory content, combined with its failure to prioritize content moderation outside the US and Europe, has fueled the spread of hate speech and misinformation, dangerously destabilizing countries around the world.
But there's a crucial piece missing from the story. Facebook isn't just amplifying misinformation.
The company is also funding it.
An MIT Technology Review investigation, based on expert interviews, data analyses, and documents that were not included in the Facebook Papers, has found that Facebook and Google are paying millions of ad dollars to bankroll clickbait actors, fueling the deterioration of information ecosystems around the world.
Facebook pays them for permission to open their content within Facebook's app (where Facebook controls the advertising) rather than having users clickthrough to the publisher's own web site, reports Technology Review: Early on, Facebook performed little quality control on the types of publishers joining the program. The platform's design also didn't sufficiently penalize users for posting identical content across Facebook pages — in fact, it rewarded the behavior. Posting the same article on multiple pages could as much as double the number of users who clicked on it and generated ad revenue. Clickbait farms around the world seized on this flaw as a strategy — one they still use today... Clickbait actors cropped up in Myanmar overnight. With the right recipe for producing engaging and evocative content, they could generate thousands of U.S. dollars a month in ad revenue, or 10 times the average monthly salary — paid to them directly by Facebook. An internal company document, first reported by MIT Technology Review in October, shows that Facebook was aware of the problem as early as 2019... At one point, as many as 60% of the domains enrolled in Instant Articles were using the spammy writing tactics employed by clickbait farms, the report said...
75% of users who were exposed to clickbait content from farms run in Macedonia and Kosovo had never followed any of the pages. Facebook's content-recommendation system had instead pushed it into their news feeds.
Technology Review notes that Facebook now pays billions of dollars to the publishers in their program. It's a long and detailed article, which ultimately concludes that the problem "is now happening on a global scale." Thousands of clickbait operations have sprung up, primarily in countries where Facebook's payouts provide a larger and steadier source of income than other forms of available work. Some are teams of people while others are individuals, abetted by cheap automated tools that help them create and distribute articles at mass scale...
Google is also culpable. Its AdSense program fueled the Macedonia- and Kosovo-based farms that targeted American audiences in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. And it's AdSense that is incentivizing new clickbait actors on YouTube to post outrageous content and viral misinformation.
Reached for comment, a Facebook spokesperson told Technology Review that they'd misunderstood the issue. And the spokesperson also said "we've invested in building new expert-driven and scalable solutions to these complex issues for many years, and will continue doing so."
Google's spokesperson confirmed examples in the article violated their own policies and removed the content, adding "We work hard to protect viewers from clickbait or misleading content across our platforms and have invested heavily in systems that are designed to elevate authoritative information."
*Gets out Popcorn* (Score:3, Funny)
This should be a fun discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the discussion would have produced more humor if your FP had been visibly modded Funny? But it was a weak attempt at humor and the Subject was vacuous, too.
Narrator: They don't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Misinformation is clickbait; clickbait is profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh good, some one complaining about why an article was posted on Slashdot. Now I can read it assured that the article truly belongs.
Does Facebook Offer Any Benefits? (Score:2)
I don't use Facebook, never have. Originally, it was just that I wasn't interested in that kind of thing, not because I thought it was 'evil' or 'bad'. But, over the years, mostly what I've read about it has been negative. So this is not meant as a rhetorical question. I'm really curious, what was the attraction of Facebook in the first place? And, does anybody benefit from it? (Besides advertisers that is.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Market share.
It is essentially one stop shopping to follow your favorite celeb, make contact with your high school crush, and family and friends.
Hell, several businesses have it as their main portal on the web if they can't be bothered to maintain a website.
Anyone could use any of the smaller alternatives, but as they don't have the reach, they are of limited value.
And as they are one stop shopping, mounting an effective competitor is a Herculean effort
Re: (Score:2)
Dedicated groups. With forums dead or dying, there are two large generic community platforms left: Discord and Facebook.
Everybody and their dog moves to one of those two platforms, and I admire those who still resist doing so.
And yes, I benefit from both, from a knowledge point of view. It takes some skill and time spent to shift through the shit, but gems are there, and they helped me numerous times.
Re: Does Facebook Offer Any Benefits? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've found these old fashioned things called 'books' tend to be full of useful, on-topic, coherently & cohesively organised, factually verified information.
But not with information that people actually need right now
E.g. I can not wait till one writes a book about current Thailand Immigration laws and procedures regarding "Thailand Pass" and Covid.
Perhaps a historian will write a short paragraph about this in 30 years. And still then: I would need to have a way to find the book. Being in a face book gro
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, because those "books" (which have not yet been written, and likely never will) would certainly answer ALL my questions, such as:
"Has anyone beta-tested the Phaetus Rapido hotend, and if so, what is your opinion on how it behaves on a CoreXY printer?"
Don't be obtuse.
I refer to books when they can give me an answer, and I refer to other information means when books don't help.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't use Facebook, never have. Originally, it was just that I wasn't interested in that kind of thing, not because I thought it was 'evil' or 'bad'. But, over the years, mostly what I've read about it has been negative. So this is not meant as a rhetorical question. I'm really curious, what was the attraction of Facebook in the first place? And, does anybody benefit from it? (Besides advertisers that is.)
Facebook is fundamentally an instant website CMS. Anyone can have what to 99.99% of people is a website up and running for their business, club, political party, family newsletter, hobby or racist rantings about how the Jews are taking over something/everything in basically no time at all.
The fast majority of people on FB use it for totally uninteresting (to other people) things and never get involved in the stuff that hits the headlines.
Re: Does Facebook Offer Any Benefits? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a good argument because you then have to endlessly moderate & curate the pages to save them from being overwhelmed by bots & nutjobs. Set up a WordPress instance once, turn off commenting, update or add to it as desired, & get on with your actual job/business. Additional bonus, visitors don't need a Facebook account to view your pages & it's open to search engines.
I'm not really saying it's a great argument, but it's the perception among most people. Want a website? Sign up to Facebook. Tell your friends; who cares about search engines?
Re: (Score:2)
And why would I do all this when I simply can use Facebook? Facepalm?
Where would I host my Wordpress Page? You see: it already starts with the simplest things.
As soon as my Word Press Site is up: sooner or later one will mention it on facebook anyway. So: why not just start there?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really curious, what was the attraction of Facebook in the first place?
A place to keep in touch with people you know.
And, does anybody benefit from it?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I benefit slightly from the alleged design purpose and also from groups which put me in contact with other people doing things I'm doing. For example, RV conversion, or repair of specific models of automobile.
Re: (Score:2)
I had it for about a year at one point as it was the easiest way to keep track of a band I followed. I literally did nothing else with it. But based on how miserable the people I know are who spend countless hours on it, I've never seen any real benefit to it. I deleted my account when that band folded up shop and haven't been back.
Granted, I know my shadow profile still exists and my "delete" was really just a flag set in the database. My understanding is even if you delete your account, you can still
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really curious, what was the attraction of Facebook in the first place?
1) Most places in Asia had no internet till roughly year 2000
When internet popped up, also smart phones popped up, Facebook as an app popped up *AND* no one already had email. Because no one knew anything about "standard internet". So facebook became the ersatz for email, people would not ask you for your email address or give you theirs. They would ask "what is your facebook?" Plenty of people would have more than one facebook name
Facebook? (Score:2)
I think you mean 'Meta'. i.e. Meta-information.
Before facebook / google? (Score:3)
I'm not for one minute suggesting the practices of Facebook or Google when it comes to the models/algorithms employed are blameless, but it's useful to step back in history here.
In the case of Myanmar, a quick look at Wikipedia will demonstrate a problem that has existed for a long time before Facebook came along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sure, Facebook makes it ridiculously easy to spread misinformation, but it's not like they are the first platform to assist or rather facilitate the spread.
We can look to printed media as well - a news stand on every corner, big bold headlines, accessible to anyone who can read and spreadable by anyone who can communicate. Then there's radio - reaching into every home, onto every street, via dirt cheap transistor radio sets.
Like I said, I'm not saying big tech, specifically Facebook, are in any way blameless here.
The question is, how much of an impact are they really having, over what would likely have happened anyway, through other forms of misinformation.
Take a look at Nazi Germany in the 1930's - and how easy it was for the powers that be, to spread a message of hatred, via print, via radio, word of mouth, through fear.
Facebook etc. can absolutely amplify that voice and there is the very different monetary "value" associated with that amplification.
They are an amplification of what already exists in terms of spreading misinformation - e.g. print and radio.
You could argue the same forced employing these techniques, are simply switching to another way of spreading what they want people to believe - misinformation and conflict are as old as conflict itself.
It's an interesting and alarming trend, but I do think it needs far deeper analysis before jumping to conclusions. "Yeah, Facebook caused that conflict."
You can also say "Yeah, that newspaper, The Daily Rag, caused that conflict" or "Radio Dingbat, 702FM, caused that conflict."
Re: (Score:3)
You're a moron. Just because Burma had civil wars, doesn't mean that Facebook didn't incite riots and homicidal violence recently.
If you want to learn specifically what they incited and when, you can read about it:
https://www.goodreads.com/book... [goodreads.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The question is would it have happened without Facebook? I would point to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the ensuing violence and genocide that took place. There was no internet in Yugoslavia in 1991 let alone Facebook.
I would also point to Rwanda in 1994. Nobody needed Facebook or any other sort of social media to provoke something far far worse than anything that has taken place in Myanmar.
Given the long history of issues in Myanmar then I think it would be a reasonable conclusion that while Facebook facil
Re: (Score:2)
The question is would it have happened without Facebook?
Probably. But we should punish those who get themselves involved rather than playing mind games about alternate time lines. Facebook's behavior is not one we should excuse so easily, let alone encourage from other tech companies.
The best possible policy is that these American companies not get involved. Responsible social media shouldn't broadcast false and inflammatory material to algorithmically-determined groups that eat that shit up. Facebook on the other hand doesn't feel any need to behave responsibly
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between Facebook and 1930s Nazi Germany is that Facebook makes that power available to anyone.
In the 30s it cost a lot of money to print a newspaper or operate a radio station. You have to be very wealthy or in a position of power, like the government, to be heard. On Facebook anyone can build up an audience for free.
What used to be the fringe and largely ignored because, despite it all, the publishers and broadcasters had some minimal standards, now gains traction on Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not for one minute suggesting the practices of Facebook or Google when it comes to the models/algorithms employed are blameless, but it's useful to step back in history here. In the case of Myanmar, a quick look at Wikipedia will demonstrate a problem that has existed for a long time before Facebook came along: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, you just said that a simple google search would have told them that Myanmar was flammable, and that they decided that pouring gasoline on the situation and then tossing in lit matches would be lucrative, because making the situation worse would generate outrage and ad revenue.
Sure, Facebook makes it ridiculously easy to spread misinformation, but it's not like they are the first platform to assist or rather facilitate the spread.
You didn't read the article. This isn't an article about "making it ridiculously easy to spread misinformation." This is an article about paying people to generate misinformation because misinformation generates ad revenue.
*cough* Iraq war *cough* (Score:4, Insightful)
"According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, conducted Oct. 3-6, 2002, 53% of Americans say they favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power." https://news.gallup.com/poll/6... [gallup.com]
The likes of the New York times supported the war criminals Rumsfeld, Cheney, W., Powell, and the voters in the USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, and Spain; in invading Iraq and killing more than a million civilians in a war of aggression which was so obviously based on lies, that it resulted in the largest anti-war protests in history: in 600 cities on 15 February 2003 - before the war even started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Fox News not complicit? (Score:3)
Cable news channels (Score:5, Informative)
Cable news channels long ago shifted "news" into a perverse "entertainment" medium.
What used to be the confines of "shock jocks" and sleazy talk show hosts now is mainstream. Every night we have people on "news" channels that fill the airways with their opinions about things. News has taken a back seat.
News used to be boring. News should be boring.
Today what passes for news is simply designed to piss you off. By getting your emotional response they get ratings.
And it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. Both sides do it.
So I always find it weird that those same "news" sources now somehow blame social media for "promoting" the stuff that they create and promote.
Maybe they don't like the role social media has taken from them.
Re: (Score:3)
News used to be boring. News should be boring. Today what passes for news is simply designed to piss you off.
This. Look at the news coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Responsible journalists would have restricted themselves to fact, and to factual reporting about the trial itself. None of the MSM did that. Instead, they deliberately reported falsehoods designed to rile people up. Illegal weapon. Crossed state lines. And many other "facts" that they knew to be false, but that served the purpose of generating clicks and outrage.
it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on. Both sides do it.
Also absolutely true. Try to find neutral, factual journalism. It almost doesn't exi
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds salacious, yeah, but those are both facts. The prosecution tried to charge him with the first thing (a minor in possession of a prohibited weapon), until it turned out that the weapon was classified as a long gun by state law, and so they had to drop the charge. He did cross state lines, but it's not illegal to cross state lines. The BBC reported the same thing. The news is not lying in r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they don't like the role social media has taken from them.
Taken from them? They abdicated. Now the print media is crying about subscribership and the TV media (except for Faux news, which makes its money telling conservacucks what they want to hear) is crying about viewership. But they stopped doing news and started doing entertainment and I don't want that, so why would I reward them for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is like nuclear war (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook does not bank roll the sites - its a lie (Score:2)
The summary uses lots of inflammatory text, but ultimately makes no sense. So I looked to the article for understanding.
But there's a crucial piece missing from the story. Facebook isn't just amplifying misinformation.
The company is also funding it. [technologyreview.com]
The linked Technology Review article says this:
1) The publishers of the misinformation run web sites. Those web sites serve ads. Ergo, advertisers bankroll the misinformation sites. The article does not blame Facebook in this case, and does not claim that Facebook is bankrolling the site.
2) But some web sites are small and slow, so Facebook offers to host the content. Now the ads are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that's the point of the article.
But that isn't what the article is talking about. The article says that everything you just described is okay, but only if the web site is hosted somewhere else. And as soon as the IP address hosting the site becomes inside Facebook, suddenly it's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
They way I read it, it's a problem regardless.
okay, fair enough.
It's just that much more of a problem when FB is actually paying them directly.
How is it worse if the advertiser pays the web host then web host pays the content provider a cut, as opposed to the advertiser paying the content provider who then pays the web host? Like, how does the order of payment make it "more of a problem?"
You got it: Facebook DOES bankroll the sites (Score:2)
The summary uses lots of inflammatory text, but ultimately makes no sense. So I looked to the article for understanding.
But there's a crucial piece missing from the story. Facebook isn't just amplifying misinformation. The company is also funding it. [technologyreview.com]
The linked Technology Review article says this: 1) The publishers of the misinformation run web sites. Those web sites serve ads. Ergo, advertisers bankroll the misinformation sites.
Correct. Facebook makes money from the advertisers, and pays the people creating misinformation to create more misinformation and post it to Facebook, where they can make money from it.
The article does not blame Facebook in this case, and does not claim that Facebook is bankrolling the site. 2) But some web sites are small and slow, so Facebook offers to host the content. Now the ads are served by Facebook, and Facebook does a revenue-sharing agreement with the misinformation publisher: the publisher gets 30% of the ad revenue, and Facebook gets 60%. Ergo, Facebook is bankrolling the misinformation sites.
Yep! You said it: Facebook is bankrolling the misinformation sites. And in so doing, creating many more such sites, since they pay money that is huge compared to the average wage in the country.
The rest of your post simply says well, you think it's fine that Facebook (and Google) does that. OK, your opinion is noted.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is bankrolling the misinformation sites.
No, it's the opposite of bankrolling the sites - Facebook is *charging* the sites. The article explains that sites make *less* money under this scheme. Facebook is taking money from them, not paying them. Facebook is essentially charging those companies to be a caching provider. The article makes it seem like caching data is what makes this evil, but it is entirely okay so long as there is no caching going on.
The article's headline is just there to capitalize on Facebook hate. I hate Facebook too, but
Re: (Score:2)
There still seems to be confusion on this, so let me restate this a bit differently. Facebook offers the ability to cache the site content, and in exchange takes a piece of the ad revenue. Offering caching services isn't evil. There are lots of things to hate about Facebook, but their caching server isn't one of them.
Algorithm for e-gitation (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile in the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
But then, given one of the wastes of space offed by Kyle was a violent pedophile, ...
So happy that Kyle Rittenhouse, somehow, actually, knew that before hand and performed a public-service by being judge, jury and executioner -- without affording the victim(s) any due process. /sarcasm
You can try to spin this to your liking, after the fact, but if he hadn't taken it upon himself to arm himself, travel to another state, uninvited, and patrol around playing soldier, uninvited, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to instigate, or at least participate in, the events that led to him killing two people and wounding another. This is 100% on him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So happy that Kyle Rittenhouse, somehow, actually, knew that before hand and performed a public-service by being judge, jury and executioner -- without affording the victim(s) any due process. /sarcasm
Horseshit. It doesn't matter if he knew. The guy obviously had serious issues, and charging and being aggressive towards a guy with an AR-15 is dumb fuckery that will get you killed, and should. Pedo or not. Then, the other ass-hat batted him in the head with a skate board. Like, seriously WTF is with the clowns in this country thinking any of that is OK, or not sufficient enough to defend yourself against with deadly force. Fuck that.
The MSM in this country isn't even news or mainstream anymore. They ar
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, the other ass-hat batted him in the head with a skate board. Like, seriously WTF is with the clowns in this country thinking any of that is OK, or not sufficient enough to defend yourself against with deadly force.
Haven't you ever heard the expression "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Here in Florida, openly carrying your gun like some guerrilla solider isn't even legal. So, while I'm assuming it was legal in the shithole state where this happened, it ought to be illegal. Similarly, 17-year-old kids shouldn't have guns, period. We don't even trust 18-year-olds with cigarettes anymore, and do you know how hard it is to shoot someone with a cigarette? If the kid truly didn't break any laws crossing state lines to go
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, let me just say that I think that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense when he shot this guy.
However, I am a bit confused by the whole line of argument here. Isn't the exact point you're making that lethal force is justified if you identify somebody as a threat?
So if you think that Rittenhouse did nothing wrong, then by extension, this should also
Re: (Score:3)
That was what Grosskreutz said at trial, but he also has a 10 million dollar lawsuit against the city of Kenosha that was dependent on the outcome of the trial. Indeed, upon cross examination he admitted that Kyle did not shoot and in fact lowered his weapon as Grosskreutz approached until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at him. Not to mention that Rittenhouse was heading directly towards the extremely obvious police line, not the actions of an active shooter so the ol' hue and cry standard doesn't really apply
Re: (Score:2)
Also, everybody on the scene entered that scene with the intention of escalating it. Rittenhouse went to this place with an AR-15. These other guys chased him. Everybody felt justified in escalating the situation.
And this is why duty-to-retreat laws were invented in the first place.
People seem to think "duty to retreat" was invented in a vacuum. It wasn't. It was a response to human nature and rising populations. There's always some percentage of the population that is belligerent, convinced of its own righteousness, and aggressive as hell, and the more people there are, the more of those people there are. Get enough of them in one place and you don't stop with just three shootings. You end up with a massacre,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe he was acting in self defence. He saw Rittenhouse with a gun and reasoned that he couldn't get away by running, he would just get shot in the back, so decided to kill him in self defence instead.
Then the other guy saw that Rittenhouse was murdering people with his gun and smacked in around the head with his skateboard in self defence.
Obviously the other guy who pointed a gun at Rittenhouse was also defending himself from an armed attacker.
Basically everyone was defending themselves from everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically everyone was defending themselves from everyone else.
That's pretty much exactly what happened, with the minor tweak that some of them (Huber and Grosskreutz) thought they were risking themselves to defend others (which is the same as self-defense under the law).
It was a series of very unfortunate events, triggered by people (especially Kyle and the unknown person who fired the first shot, into the air) choosing to jump gleefully into a powder keg. A powder keg largely created by some combination of politicians pushing dangerous lies, sensational media and,
Re: (Score:2)
Kyle was out after curfew, he was literally breaking the law and in breaking it created the scenario he found himself in. If he had not broken the law two people would be alive today. Furthermore, this incident illustrates one of the several reasons for a curfew during a riot, we don't need armed children wandering off alone into parking garages they can hear are full of rioters.
Those two people would not have died if he had obeyed the law, end of story. Furthermore, he created the scenario he found himself
Re: (Score:2)
The four shots in question occurred in the span of roughly 2.75 seconds and that the 4th shot entered his back at a horizontal angle as he was twisting after having leaned down to try and take Rittenhouse's gun. The idea that he shot him after some attempt on his part to retreat is fucking clown shoes. You would know this if you weren't merely regurgitating MSM talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
Also you idiotic source of misinformation, Huber was shot once. Rosenbaum was the one shot 4 times and Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse prior to Rittenhouse firing his weapon.
Re: Meanwhile in the US... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, about that, there was no official curfew because whatever the mayor had announced publicly to look good in the press, the police themselves were ordered not to enforce the curfew in question. Which is why that particular charge was dismissed entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rittenhouse did not in point of fact shoot at either Ziminski(who fired his weapon into the air before Rosenbaum attacked him) or Jump Kick man(Yes, this is how the prosecution referred to him in court) who attacked him prior to Huber's 2nd assault with the skateboard and attempt to take his weapon. The only people he shot at were the people who attempted to take his weapon or point a weapon directly at him. As such, the claim he didn't act in self defense is farcical on its face.
Re: (Score:2)
As such, the claim he didn't act in self defense is farcical on its face.
You must have mental problems.
It is not self defense if you go into a fight.
It is not self defense when you arm yourself with weapons of war, and go to a place: to fight.
It is cold blooded planed murder. The only thing he did not know before, was: who exactly he would go to kill.
Re: Meanwhile in the US... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All Rittenhouse knew was that a violent man who attempted to blow up a gas station and earlier that day threatened to carve his heart out and screamed various racial epithets at him in the company of someone(Ziminski, the other arsonist who attempted to blow up a gas station) firing a weapon into the air was attempting to take his weapon and so responded accordingly. Rittenhouse's actions had nothing to do with Rosenbaum's pedophilia. The MSMs on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
Rittenhouse knew that there was a violent protest going on, with attempted arson, and still put himself in the middle of it.
If he was perfectly safe at home watching bad thing happen on TV, then decided that he needed to arm yourself and travel to that place to help the cops do their job, it's not self defence. He clearly knew there was a good chance of coming into conflict because he brought an AR-15 with him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He could have done all of that at no consequence whatsoever, if the other dudes would just leave him alone.
Your argument is similar to the one (over)used in the past, blaming the victim for "inciting" the attacker. "Her skirt was too short, your honor. No sane man would resist that invitation, your honor."
But we digress. We were talking about Facebook funding misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
"Her skirt was too short, your honor. No sane man would resist that invitation, your honor."
Bullshit. A better analogy would be: I shot him because he was trying to rape me. The original crime was attacking Kyle, not the shooting of a rioter. We can talk about misinformation and its funding, but lets not obfuscate who was at fault in that situation. You don't assault a man with an AR-15 and expect to live to tell. That is both common sense and righteous. We later found at trial WHY neither were exercised on the part of Joseph Rosenbaum. He was a mentally unstable person, a pedophile, and enraged.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid something got lost in the communication. We are of the same opinion, I was responding to fahrbot-bot, because he was trying to blame Rittenhouse.
Was Rittenhouse's attitude (prior to the shootings) less than ideal? Yes, it was. But one could look for trouble and not find it, if the other dudes had half a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
The right of people is to "peaceably" assemble,
In most countries "peaceful assembly" explicitly forbids weapons.
Riots are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed or tolerated.
I would assume, that strongly depends on what the riot is about.
And, if that above is your standpoint: an asshole with a gun has nothing to do on a riot. Especially not as a self declared peacekeeper.
However it shows how incompetent the police is in your country and how retarded YOU and your fellow citizens are that you tolerate weapons of
Re: (Score:2)
if the other dudes would just leave him alone.
No one would leave anyone - especially not a kid - alone, that is running around with a war weapon.
Sorry! However I had made sure he is dead. So he can not kill anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Rittenhouse did not fire until trapped by the surrounding mob and no longer able to run away and Rosenbaum had his hands on his weapon. His first response was to attempt to disengage from his attackers. Indeed, Rittenhouse's only real mistake(and not one legally actionable in any lawsuits against him) that night was after getting separated from his compatriots to continue to render assistance. In hostile territory, wandering around with no one to watch your back is a poor idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His first response was to attempt to disengage from his attackers. Indeed, Rittenhouse's only real mistake ...
His first mistake was not staying home. His first response should have been to stay home and mind his own business. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the ignore the town that your father and grandparents live in and that you work in and your friends live in is being burned to the ground argument. Fuck off with that pathetic bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cleaning up graffiti, rendering medical aid, and putting out fires is taking the law into your own hands now? Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... because the violent pedo and his fellow arsonist certainly would have left Rittenhouse alone after he put out the fire they started.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Right... because the violent pedo and his fellow arsonist certainly would have left Rittenhouse alone after he put out the fire they started.
Whatever. If he hadn't gone looking for trouble he wouldn't have found it. If we wanted to play policeman, he should have joined the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the everyone takes a beating now and then argument. Prosecutors quite literally tried that one at trial. Didn't work out so well.
Re: Meanwhile in the US... (Score:3)
You need to understand that the Police are there to enforce the law, they aren't bodyguards and it's not actually their responsibility to defend you, or your property.
Re: (Score:2)
That should read "left Rittenyhouse alone if he didn't have his rifle after"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile in the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
His first response was to attempt to disengage from his attackers. Indeed, Rittenhouse's only real mistake ...
His first mistake was not staying home. His first response should have been to stay home and mind his own business. Just sayin'.
As should the rioters and looters. But they didn't.
Re: Meanwhile in the US... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you bother to watch any of the trial? Sheesh. He did not go looking for trouble, but when trouble found him I bet he was glad to be legally armed.
Then what was he looking for? What was he trying to accomplish. Why didn't he just stay home? He's not a LEO and they didn't ask him for help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because Rittenhouse had demonstrably bad judgement, he doesn't forfeit his right to defend himself when attacked. And the jury agreed. He is innocent (at least as far as the criminal charges are concerned). The case is over. Just because you don't like what someone has done, that does not make it illegal.
Now I'll tap my foot waiting for the same level of prosecution rigor to take place against all the the people videotaped participating in looting, burning, and violence during the MANY coordinated
Re: (Score:2)
But then, given one of the wastes of space offed by Kyle was a violent pedophile, ...
So happy that Kyle Rittenhouse, somehow, actually, knew that before hand and performed a public-service by being judge, jury and executioner -- without affording the victim(s) any due process. /sarcasm
You can try to spin this to your liking, after the fact, but if he hadn't taken it upon himself to arm himself, travel to another state, uninvited, and patrol around playing soldier, uninvited, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to instigate, or at least participate in, the events that led to him killing two people and wounding another. This is 100% on him.
Nope.
He didn't "arm himself" and travel to another state. The gun was already in WI.
He worked in Kenosha and his father lives there. He has friends and family there.
The police (some of them) were just standing around watching idiots loot and burn while people like you cheered. Kyle went to help, you're right that he shouldn't have needed to, but that's not on him.
He acted in self defense when he shot the three white rioters who attacked him. The jury found this correctly, because they acted on the basis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when do Americans need an invitation to be in or defend America?
We're supposed to be society with due process, where trained authorities of the state make all reasonable attempts to bring suspects in alive, even at substantial risk to their own safety, to face a fair trial for their accused crimes.
A kid with a gun on a street corner who thinks he is "the law" is a bigger threat to what this country represents than an angry mob of protesters. It's a shame you can't see that.
Re:Meanwhile in the US... (Score:4, Informative)
Rittenhouse never attempted to apprehend anyone and his first instinct on being attacked and chased was to try and run to safety(the police line). It was only after he was unable to retreat any farther and his weapon was in danger of being taken from him or he was in danger of being shot that he fired his weapon in any of the instances in question. The fact that you think otherwise is yet another example of the misinformation spread by the MSM.
Re: (Score:2)
Andrew Coffee IV says hello.
Re: (Score:2)
The Rittenhouse charges were absolutely direct, in comparison. Rittenhouse killed people. Direct question: was he justified to shoot them? The jury said he was
Re: (Score:2)
What's really funny are all the articles coming out after the Rittenhouse case declaring that the protests in Kenosha were because of the death of Blake, someone who is very much alive.
Re: (Score:2)
TIL: Lenin was just doing his patriotic duty when he arranged for the assassination of Trotsky.
Lenin: A true American hero.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, speaking from the technological aspect of misinformation since this is /. , you had the prosecution of the Rittenhouse case manipulating evidence. Specifically Krause(who had both Handbrake and Format Factory on his laptop) both entered a cropped version of a video into evidence(This is a MAJOR no-no) and sent a reduced resolution version of said cropped video to the defense. The cropping was done to conceal the source of the video in question so the defense could not look around for the original sour
Re: (Score:2)
Rittenhouse's actions had nothing to do with Rosenbaum's pedophilia.
So why is it supposedly relevant? Because Rittenhouse's supporters keep bringing it up as if it was.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why did you decide to de-thread the quote you're using? As for why I brought it up in the thread that you decided to instead post in, that would rather obviously be because I was expressing my complete and utter disdain for the MSM.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why did you decide to de-thread the quote you're using? As for why I brought it up in the thread that you decided to instead post in
I didn't. You did. You brought it up, like you said. The real question is why you are blaming me for what you did.
Re: (Score:2)
? You pulled a quote from farther in a sub-thread to stick it in a response to the initial thread. Had you pulled a quote regarding pedophilia from my original post, it would have been the following
But then, given one of the wastes of space offed by Kyle was a violent pedophile, that's not surprising as that's their favorite demographic.
Which clearly is in reference not to the incident itself, but rather the MSM's response.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that the author of the piece which the NYT subsequently published after the election is lying(that being the second link in my post)? Really? Do tell what you think her motivations are. Especially since if she was lying the NYT would have a hell of a lawsuit to pursue.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is not to censor disinformation but to cut off revenue source for creating disinformation. Do you really think the clickbait farms would continue to exist if they couldn't monetize their product? Sure, there would be a few people peddling misinformation for other reasons, perhaps even personal gain doing things like starting cults, but the majority to fake news would just not be produced anymore. Of course, just telling FB they cannot finance misinformation is not enough, there need to be financial penalties, for example FB to pay 10x the ad revenue they made from the fake news article. If they start losing money like this, they will find a way to clamp down on the production of misinformation in a hurry, including cutting off the revenue from the producers (at least get back 10% of the penalty they have to pay). The biggest problem of course is who decides what misinformation is.
Re: False dichotomy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The false dichotomy is that we can choose between clamping down on the spread of misinformation, or just not and suffering the consequences. The reality is that the more a given platform censors, the more people reject it.
You seem to be commenting without having read the article we're discussing. That was the old defense that Facebook made: we didn't create the disinformation, we just gave them the conduit for distribution, and "clamping down" on misinformation would require censorship.
The article we're discussing [technologyreview.com] shows that no, they weren't just allowing disinformation to be spread, they were funding the troll farms creating disinformation.
So the real choice is between misinformation in daylight and misinformation under the rug.
That's a good question, but it's not the question under discussion here
The questio