Documents Show 15 Social Media Companies Failed to Adequately Address Calls for Violence in 2021 (msn.com) 80
The Washington Post has obtained "stunning new details on how social media companies failed to address the online extremism and calls for violence that preceded the Capitol riot."
Their source? The bipartisan committee investigating attacks on America's Capitol on January 6, 2021 "spent more than a year sifting through tens of thousands of documents from multiple companies, interviewing social media company executives and former staffers, and analyzing thousands of posts. They sent a flurry of subpoenas and requests for information to social media companies ranging from Facebook to fringe social networks including Gab and the chat platform Discord."
Yet in the end it was written up in a 122-page memo that was circulated among the committee but not delved into in their final report. And this was partly because the committee was "concerned about the risks of a public battle with powerful tech companies, according to three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the panel's sensitive deliberations." The [committee staffer's] memo detailed how the actions of roughly 15 social networks played a significant role in the attack. It described how major platforms like Facebook and Twitter, prominent video streaming sites like YouTube and Twitch and smaller fringe networks like Parler, Gab and 4chan served as megaphones for those seeking to stoke division or organize the insurrection. It detailed how some platforms bent their rules to avoid penalizing conservatives out of fear of reprisals, while others were reluctant to curb the "Stop the Steal" movement after the attack....
The investigators also wrote that much of the content that was shared on Twitter, Facebook and other sites came from Google-owned YouTube, which did not ban election fraud claims until Dec. 9 and did not apply its policy retroactively. The investigators found that its lax policies and enforcement made it "a repository for false claims of election fraud." Even when these videos weren't recommended by YouTube's own algorithms, they were shared across other parts of the internet. "YouTube's policies relevant to election integrity were inadequate to the moment," the staffers wrote.
The draft report also says that smaller platforms were not reactive enough to the threat posed by Trump. The report singled out Reddit for being slow to take down a pro-Trump forum called "r/The-Donald." The moderators of that forum used it to "freely advertise" TheDonald.win, which hosted violent content in the lead-up to Jan. 6.... The committee also spoke to Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, whose leaked documents in 2021 showed that the country's largest social media platform largely had disbanded its election integrity efforts ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. But little of her account made it into the final document.
"The transcripts show the companies used relatively primitive technologies and amateurish techniques to watch for dangers and enforce their platforms' rules. They also show company officials quibbling among themselves over how to apply the rules to possible incitements to violence, even as the riot turned violent."
Their source? The bipartisan committee investigating attacks on America's Capitol on January 6, 2021 "spent more than a year sifting through tens of thousands of documents from multiple companies, interviewing social media company executives and former staffers, and analyzing thousands of posts. They sent a flurry of subpoenas and requests for information to social media companies ranging from Facebook to fringe social networks including Gab and the chat platform Discord."
Yet in the end it was written up in a 122-page memo that was circulated among the committee but not delved into in their final report. And this was partly because the committee was "concerned about the risks of a public battle with powerful tech companies, according to three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the panel's sensitive deliberations." The [committee staffer's] memo detailed how the actions of roughly 15 social networks played a significant role in the attack. It described how major platforms like Facebook and Twitter, prominent video streaming sites like YouTube and Twitch and smaller fringe networks like Parler, Gab and 4chan served as megaphones for those seeking to stoke division or organize the insurrection. It detailed how some platforms bent their rules to avoid penalizing conservatives out of fear of reprisals, while others were reluctant to curb the "Stop the Steal" movement after the attack....
The investigators also wrote that much of the content that was shared on Twitter, Facebook and other sites came from Google-owned YouTube, which did not ban election fraud claims until Dec. 9 and did not apply its policy retroactively. The investigators found that its lax policies and enforcement made it "a repository for false claims of election fraud." Even when these videos weren't recommended by YouTube's own algorithms, they were shared across other parts of the internet. "YouTube's policies relevant to election integrity were inadequate to the moment," the staffers wrote.
The draft report also says that smaller platforms were not reactive enough to the threat posed by Trump. The report singled out Reddit for being slow to take down a pro-Trump forum called "r/The-Donald." The moderators of that forum used it to "freely advertise" TheDonald.win, which hosted violent content in the lead-up to Jan. 6.... The committee also spoke to Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, whose leaked documents in 2021 showed that the country's largest social media platform largely had disbanded its election integrity efforts ahead of the Jan. 6 riot. But little of her account made it into the final document.
"The transcripts show the companies used relatively primitive technologies and amateurish techniques to watch for dangers and enforce their platforms' rules. They also show company officials quibbling among themselves over how to apply the rules to possible incitements to violence, even as the riot turned violent."
Please. (Score:2, Insightful)
"threat posed by Trump."
Please. Trump lives rent-free in your head. And most of us are sick of hearing about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sick of hearing about him, he's a loser and adds zero value to society. The world would instantly become a better place without him. So the minute he shuts his trap and fades quietly into the distance is the day we all can stop reminding everyone how much of a PoS he is.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: Please. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Life under Trump was WAY WAY WAY better than under this clown
Sure, bro. Whatever you say [imgur.com]. Last I checked we don't have 2,000 people dying every day from a single virus. We don't have farmers begging for handouts because of a self-imposed trade war in which our supposed enemy was being paid by the taxpayers. We don't have an idiot who speaks at a fourth grade level and acts the same. But best of all, we don't have a makeup wearing adulterer holding up a Bible and claiming to be Christian after denying
Re: (Score:1)
The most dangerous fool is a self-righteous fool like this shit for brains fascist wanna be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Please. (Score:2)
Only Sith speak in absolutes.
Or, put another way..
If you're attempting to paint a giant, disparate group of people with the same narrow-minded brush you're probably doing something wrong and should either re-examine your thinking or possibly start thinking in the first place. Believe it or not, humans are slightly more complex than you've apparently been led to believe. Really wish they'd start teaching that in schools again. :-(
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, let me get this straight.
Re: Please. (Score:2)
The assumption that Biden is responsible for the recession instead of it being the result of a process that took years doesn't make sense.
That's what's dumb about democracy , many candidates, including the hated Trump, are blamed for processes that have started before they were elected
Re: Please. (Score:2)
Additionally, hated by people who are very likely as dumb as bricks about the causes of said economic situation. Not that it would cause most folks on either side of our not-really-2-party system to so much as blink.
After all, in post -Chump Amerika, facts are really just opinions. No need to back them up, just stomp and yell about how you're being mistreated until someone shoves a sugar coated pacifier into your gob. You know, like you would any other immature child who won't listen to reason (and you don'
Re: (Score:2)
However the guy spent a couple years spreading lies and now is still considering another run for President. I'm sick of hearing about him, he's a loser and adds zero value to society. The world would instantly become a better place without him. So the minute he shuts his trap and fades quietly into the distance is the day we all can stop reminding everyone how much of a PoS he is.
You know, you really shouldn't speak so harshly of President Biden The US Secret Service still has that job you know, and "without him" implies a lot.
(Oh, and for those questioning if Slashdot doesn't have blatant and obvious political bias, let's see how MY comment is rated vs. the parents. This should be fucking rich.)
Re: Please. (Score:2)
Both should be down-rated into the mantle of the planet where the rest of us don't have to smell them. :/ RIP
Sadly, those days have long passed into memory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"threat posed by Trump."
Please. Trump lives rent-free in your head. And most of us are sick of hearing about it.
He motivated his supporters to launch a violent insurrection.
That seems like one of those things you want to take a second look at to understand why it happened and how to avoid it happening again.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
And as far as violence, the only person injured during the protest was one of the protestors, killed by one of the police officers who opened the doors of the capitol. Unless you count the capitol police officers who committed suicide well after the event, but I don't see how that would make sense.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So by your own time line, Trump was still speaking to a crowd somewhere else while people who were not listening to him were fucking shit up in some other place.
So how exactly does that equate to him telling people to fuck shit up when they started while he was still talking in another part of the city?
*boggle*
Re: Please. (Score:2)
Ever wonder what it must've been like to see and hear folks cheer while listening to a certain failed artist speak?
Here's your electronic counterpart. There's also a bunch of video on it as well. Welcome to history folks, I think we're living it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Republican: Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!
Democrat: Trump
Republican: ZOMG Trump lives rent free in your head! Why can't you stop talking about him??? Why can't you just let him go? What is wrong with you???
Re: Please. (Score:2)
Hey, I never said that Hillary doesn't live rent free in the opposing side's head. Because it sure does.
Re:Please. (Score:4, Funny)
direct your ire appropriately. (Score:2)
Please. Trump lives rent-free in your head. And most of us are sick of hearing about it.
Trump recently made a 'big announcement' which turned out to be NFT Trading Cards. Don't you wish he'd stop doing shit like that for a while so you could recover from your rent-free-sickness?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm stunned. Who'd have thought someone on the wrong side of history wouldn't want to hear more about how their glorious leader turned out to be evil, as everyone else knew all along. Shocking facts.
"Please stop, we won't admit we fucked up."
"Rent-free", "woke", "lock her up", "stop the count", "let's go Brandon". Your childish two-bit slogans tell us all we need to know about your mental age.
WaPo: Please censor speech we don't like (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter files already showed the shocking extent Democrats suppressed conservative speech while gaslighting us about it. There is no reason to expect that similar shenanigans are not happening on other social media platforms.
Re: (Score:1)
Why didn't ELON DUMP ALL THE FILES, loser?
Re: (Score:2)
Pearl clutching (Score:5, Insightful)
The same social media sites ignored the endless calls to violence of Antifa/BLM so nothing new going on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's (D)ifferent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Pearl clutching (Score:4, Insightful)
How about TODAY'S call for murdering cops and a night of organized revenge and rage?
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrA... [twitter.com]
Is that enough? I could give you a dozen examples from just the last week.
Genuinely curious how you're going to explain this away. I know you'll try, or simply not reply.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You mean that liar [latimes.com]? That's who you're basing this on? Try harder.
As you'll note, the person above said there are multiple items, but hasn't shown anything. So yes, let's show something real. Not the rantings of some right-wing imbecile whose only claim to fame is calling himself a "journalist". Let's see the texts or postings calling for the overthrow of the government like the Proud Boys [theguardian.com] and other right-wing terror groups [nbcnews.com] did and continue to do. Let's see the comments from elected officials openly prais
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not on antifa's mailing list, so I'm not in the cc chain for those, sorry.
Maybe discuss the point, instead of the messenger? Classic rhetorical diversion, points for that.
Are you seriously asserting what he's linking to is inauthentic?
https://twitter.com/PghAutonom... [twitter.com]
And again, I'm not saying Proud Boys are any better. But I do see the mass media focusing ONLY on the Proud Boys and their ilk.
I do think it's rather hilarious that people are asserting Jan 6 was an attempted overthrow of the US govt and
Re: (Score:1)
Arguing with lefties is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
Re: Pearl clutching (Score:2)
Not worth a bang, but with childish low brow insults, lies, and rampant stupidity put proudly on display, oh and a whimper from anyone left who can still use logic.
It's surreal watching slaves argue over whose chains are shiniest.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was on Antifa twitter lists watching it go by in real time. I saw the live videos from multiple people. Often the same event from different angles. And oh yeah, all the major media news orgs, such as cnn, msnbc, etc, which aren't exactly right wing hate sites, showed video every day for months.
Are you seriously saying there was no Antifa violence? What rock were you hiding under for the entire summer right up to just before the election? Estimates were over a billion dollars in damage and a few doze
Re: Pearl clutching (Score:2)
Nobody worth their salt would make a claim using "ONLY". Why?
Because that's not how actual logic works. If you used logic it would have let you recognize the field of straw men you're standing in. Some are colored red, some blue.
All of them are bullshit and deserve scorn rather than amplification. Not that I expect the vast majority of Americans to recognize bullshit or logical fallacies given the circumstances. Too many people ensuring emotionality replaces logic. Easier to control people that way regardle
Re: (Score:2)
Social media didn't ignore those calls. They supported and amplified them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "hard statistics"? (Score:2)
"Since 2015, *right-wing extremists have been involved in 267 plots or attacks and 91 fatalities*, the data shows. At the same time, *attacks and plots ascribed to far-left views accounted for 66 incidents leading to 19 deaths.*"
It has only gotten *worse* since then with the right ramping up the violence across the nation dramatically in the last 2 years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Insurrection ... (Score:2)
The worst they could find for any real planning was a document Infiltrate, Execution, Distract, Occupy and Sit-In ... Sit-In, an insurrection ... come on, get over yourselves.
Re: (Score:1)
The worst they could find for any real planning was a document Infiltrate, Execution, Distract, Occupy and Sit-In ... Sit-In, an insurrection ... come on, get over yourselves.
Would you like to lie again [cnn.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
What? He broke in with a riot shield ... seriously, an insurrection?
Re: (Score:2)
What? He broke in with a riot shield ... seriously, an insurrection?
Yup, that's exactly what it was [thefreedictionary.com]. But keep up with the lies if it makes you feel better. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care about your constitution or dictionaries.
Calling a rowdy sit-in in which pretty much no one had any intent to actually take power an insurrection cheapens the word.
Re: Insurrection ... (Score:1)
Why did you cite a source well known for making stuff up? Why should anyone believe you or this?
Re: (Score:3)
Would you like to lie again[cnn.com]?
Sabri's law: "Anyone using CNN as a credible source of information ends the discussion and loses the argument".
CNN is not news, it's propaganda [wikipedia.org].
And to balance it out: so is Fox Noise.
Joe Biden denies this was an "insurrection" (Score:3)
As this very recent video shows [youtube.com] President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that it is impossible to overthrow the US government EVEN WITH MACHINE GUNS, (he asserts F15s are needed) which were not present on Jan 6th - yet THAT is what HIS federal prosecutors are alleging in courtrooms in DC. Joe's not the only Democrat on the record asserting it - Eric Swallwell famously suggested that gun owners in America are impotent to fight the government, which he claims could use nukes to stop them (probably NOT a pers
Mastodon can't be one of then (Score:1)
I'm shocked! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You know, if that all it were I'd actually be OK with that. But they aren't. Demonstrably, obviously, so. They're staffed by far-left nutbags on power trips, the twitter files prove that much. They aren't trying to make money, they're selling their message, they're fighting a narrative war.
In fact, if you read the twitter files, it's heavily implied that twitter itself was,in large part, being financed by the government ( this wouldn't be the first time ); so they could afford to ignore the money making
Defend to the death your right to say it (Score:2)
YouTube...did not ban election fraud claims until Dec. 9
I'm not a nutjob. There was no election fraud. But why shouldn't they get to say there was?
YouTube is free to censor or allow whatever they choose, but I think allowing ALL the opinions is the best choice.
TFS not only says YouTube is right to ban these opinions, but insists that they should have done it sooner.
I think that's a bad idea. You never know when your opinion will be the one that's out of favor.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of my opinions out of favor. I don't expect to see them on YouTube, and I don't whine about it. I guess not everyone is built that way.
Anyway, calling a naked coordinated propaganda campaign an "opinion" is a bit ridiculous. Might I suggest removing your head from your ass?
o rly? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, the entire tone of this is about those terrifying conservatives threatening to "overthrow our democracy"* but I can go on Twitter RIGHT NOW and see antifa members publicly organizing violence in...checking...Colorado and Atlanta as of /today/ (
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrA... [twitter.com] )
Oh, and this advocates the ACTUAL MURDER of police, not them going home and dying of sadness a few days or weeks later.
Seems like the rules and sensitivity about violence change when the call is from the left instead of the right.
*you know, those dastards clever enough to secretly manage the whole thing, yet apparently hilariously stupid enough to believe what? That if you occupy the capital for an hour you now own the United States like some massive game of capture the flag, right?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a false equivalence to compare the actions of the President with some fringe groups that you conveniently label as Antifa. There will always be crazy people out there, but we don't want them in power trying to "overthrow our democracy'. Antifa doesn't like Democrats or Republicans, and no one associated with that movement is in power.
As for banning "Antifa" from social media, sure,
Barking at the wrong tree. (Score:2)
Calls for violence are great for engagement (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If liberals weren't forever out for blood over Cambridge Analytica regardless of what the social media companies do, they might swing anti-hatespeech a little more. As it stands they can't really get friendly with any side regardless, so they just follow a first amendment line so the populist right doesn't get even more paranoid about media manipulation.
Take it up with the legislators and judges, so they don't have to be responsible for making the decision and get even more hostility from politicians.
You're just making stuff up (Score:2)
Nobody cares about the populist right except the billionaires manipulating them. As for taking it up with the legislature we've got about 10 years before the baby boomers go away. And until they are gone it's going to be impossible to get anything done there. They're old fat and want to wallow in their prejudices. Until younger generation comes up they're going to block anything or actually make things worse. Hell they've tried to end democracy before
adequately, extemism (Score:2)
"Adequately." "Extremism." According to whom? "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Good quote, but unfortunately from I believe Barry Goldwater.
BiPartisan Jan 6th committee? SERIOUSLY? (Score:4, Insightful)
That committee that, for the first time anybody remembers, excluded ANY members selected by the minority party? Under the traditional rules of the US House, the leader of the majority party appoints the members of his/her party to sit on a committee, and the leader of the minority party appoints the members of his/her party that will be on the committee. In this bizzarro-world committee, Nancy Pelosi (Speaker, and leader of House majority at the time) rejected all appointed Republican members, then hand-picked a couple never-Trumpers who were rejected by their own party to PRETEND it was "bi-partisan".
The result was that NOBODY on that committee (formed in violation of House rules) was there to represent ANY of the views of people accused, NOBODY was there to cross-examine ANY witness, question any introduced "evidence", or introduce any counter-evidence. This made the entire affair completely inconsistent with the most basic principles of justice in the USA. Even this was not enough for the Democrats - they hired a TV producer [npr.org] to stage the thing as a show! [Note: I used an NPR link, so it's NOT some Trumpy source] and even Newsweek had to admit [newsweek.com] to the committee deceptively editing evidence presented.
No matter how much Trump haters try to make everything about Trump, this is about much bigger and more important things. This is about the most basic questions of justice, truth seeking, accountability, function of government, etc. and there's simply no place for Obama- or Biden- or Trump-derangement syndromes in any of this. Even the hunt for Richard Nixon's political scalp, the hunt for the assassin of JFK, etc did not ditch the basics. Hell, the Democrats who led the South in the Civil War were treated better.
I trust that now with Republicans in charge of the House, no Democrats will complain if, in any investigation of President Biden, Republican House Speaker McCarthy follows every new precedent set by Pelosi and hand picks committee members of both parties, only including Biden-hating Democrats, not allowing any pro-Biden testimony or evidence, staging the hearings as TV productions, editing the evidence to make Biden look as guilty as possible, and even hiding most of the evidence from public view... Yup... I'm sure that will happen...
I'm NOT being pro-Trump in this - I am doing what I often do on Slashdot: urging partisans on one side or the other to consider the precedents they are setting (or cheering for as their side sets them) and warning that sooner or later the other side will take advantage of the precedents in unexpected/upsetting ways.
I'm confused (Score:1)
Wait - the WaPo is calling it the "Capitol riot"?? I thought it was an insurrection?? Now I'm confused. Who am I supposed to hate again?
Horror (Score:1)