The Stanford Internet Observatory is Being Dismantled (platformer.news) 37
An anonymous reader shares a report: After five years of pioneering research into the abuse of social platforms, the Stanford Internet Observatory is winding down. Its founding director, Alex Stamos, left his position in November. Renee DiResta, its research director, left last week after her contract was not renewed. One other staff member's contract expired this month, while others have been told to look for jobs elsewhere, sources say.
Some members of the eight-person team might find other jobs at Stanford, and it's possible that the university will retain the Stanford Internet Observatory branding, according to sources familiar with the matter. But the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future.
Some members of the eight-person team might find other jobs at Stanford, and it's possible that the university will retain the Stanford Internet Observatory branding, according to sources familiar with the matter. But the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future.
Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good Riddance (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah!
Who needs some sort of centralized data outlet for something stupid and useless like abuse of a huge communications channel or the elections anyway!
That's what we have CNN, Fox News, et. al. for, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Shitter is already implementing censorship. You're late to the game.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't have social media without a system to decide what's going into the feed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Show me everything posted by the people I follow, and nothing else.
We can't have that. Just think what that would do to my bonuses and stock price if you listen to Joe Rogan and decide not to do 4th booster?
-Albert Bourla [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Show me everything posted by the people I follow, and nothing else.
There are no absolutes in anything, clown. Twitter is supposed to just let any asshole dump terabytes of copyrighted information into their feed? How about your medical records? Your tax returns? Videos of you banging your gay lover?
Re: (Score:2)
Usenet was the fucking Wild West in the 90s, and yet here I still am.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not how the law works. Hell, that's not even how reality works. Precisely how the fuck are you going to deal with someone dumping your private information? Block them? Whoopty do. That will accomplish NOTHING. Everyone on their feed is still going to get your info.
Anarchy doesn't work because there's always one asshole who will fuck it up. Educate yourself on the "Tragedy of the Commons".
I'm plenty familiar with USENET. How the hell is that relevant? Usenet became mostly software piracy after
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, existing laws against harassment are just fine, and so are civil remedies for libel, defamation, etc.
To regain the original context before you goofs ran off into the weeds with it: I want my FEED , which is the sum of posts from people I have chosen to follow, to be unadulterated.
Re: (Score:1)
And .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Audobon's Field Guide to North American Shitbirds (Score:4, Funny)
"After five years of pioneering research into the abuse of social platforms, the Stanford Internet Observatory is winding down."
Oh, neat. So you solved the problem already? That was so fast! Congratulations and great job!
Unwavering from the Mission Objective (Score:1)
âoe After five years of pioneering research into the abuse of social platformsâ
Quite a charitable description of their activity, given recent revelations. Misleading and propagandizing to the very end.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate on these revelations?
Re:Unwavering from the Mission Objective (Score:5, Interesting)
In parallel, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and his Orwellian “Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” have subpoenaed documents at Stanford and other universities, selectively leaked fragments of them to friendly conservative outlets, and misrepresented their contents in public statements.
He is so concerned with free speech that he is abusing the power of the the Federal government to stifle the study of how propaganda is spread. Notice how the Trumpers chimed in before normies even knew what the Observatory did. Admittedly, its hard to tell who is in on the con.
Re:Unwavering from the Mission Objective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Unwavering from the Mission Objective (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Taibbi strongly disparaged the concept of "malinformation", in which the information is true enough, but greatly exaggerated or misleadingly framed.
It's ironic, because Taibbi himself suffered great reputational damage from a WaPo article printed by the late Fred Hiatt, good friend of otherwise-retired author Kathy Lally. Ms. Lally accused Matt of various "metoo" violations back in the 90s in Moscow, often based on Taibbi's and partner Mark Ames' own writings, which were intended as satire, but not very c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is and always was. You can find anything information about any side effects about any vaccine with a click of the mouse and typing a few letters. Apparently in your world that is too difficult to do.
It is not up to any government agency or University organization to try to filter it out, no matter the motivation.
No one did. What are you r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unwavering from the Mission Objective (Score:4, Insightful)
It is no great trick to use true facts to support a false argument (e.g. damned lies and statistics)--see for example the Florida Surgeon General [politico.com]. I don't think website proprietors have a duty to forward these messages, and I can think of good reasons they would not want to.
But I do object when the Federal Government uses its subpoena power to punish disfavored speech by demanding internal documents and then misleadingly releasing excerpts to weaken support for the entity making disfavored speech. This is worse for the free exchange of ideas (and more contrary to the First Amendment) than private parties discussing means of keeping their most gullible customers alive.
if you had an actual argument... (Score:2)
You would not have felt the need to:
[a] deliberately mis-type the name of the congressman as "Gym Jordan", instead of "Jim Jordan"
[b] parrot the term "Orwellian" in the reference to his committee, with no reference as to just what's so Orwellian about its digging into the partisan political activities of people in the federal government who are legally banned from engaging in partisan politics.
[c] divide people into "Trumpers" and "normies" particularly when there are plenty of normal people, many of whom d
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Orwellian", the quote is clearly set apart. I think it is an apt descriptor: this “Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” is literally The Hon. Jim Jordan's way to use the power of Congress to attack institutions who study or say things Jordan disagrees with (as described in the quoted story).
As some internet shithead once said:
If you think this stuff is fine, just as long as your team is the one deriving benefit, then you need to do some serious re-thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should... (Score:2)
look into the partnership between The Stanford Internet Observatory, UW's Center for an Informed public, Graphika, The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Lab, elements of the Federal Government, and several state and local governments...
You're perfectly free to look into some of the court filings, and the stuff the congress has published.
These people were working to mislead the public in ways that would have made Leni Reifenstahl blush. Anything various people in government did not want spread around, part
Who benefits, you ask? (Score:2)
The shutdown comes amid a sustained and increasingly successful campaign among Republicans to discredit research institutions and discourage academics from investigating political speech and influence campaigns.
Too bad Stanford caved, a compromise would have been to limit the Observatory to reporting on Stanford's own Hoover Institution.
Someone Got Paid? (Score:2)
probably wise (Score:2)
"But the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future."
Honestly, that's smart.
There's plenty of good to be done dealing with social media addiction and the growing body of evidence that it's actually damaging young people (and - probably those older of us as well).
As far as I care, I more or less disbelieve nearly every "study" about politics these days as the filthy business is about so much money, and filled with people who are so tendentious that politics are more