See, Koby, that is misinformation. Most of the fact checker partners are explicitly non-partisan and have strong track records as such. Indeed, the one fact checker that is explicitly partisan... is The Daily Caller, which is partisan in the other direction
Back in June, research into Facebook's so-called fact-checking organization called Lead Stories revealed that the group is mostly left wing.
Lead Stories Chairman and founder Perry Sanders is a Democrat, and donates thousands of dollars to democrat candidates every cycle.
Over half of its employees have worked for the CNNLOL.
90% of Facebook's fact checking oversight board belong to George Soros’ left wing Open Society Foundation.
So this is just the Facebook "fact-checking" outfit, and we haven't gotten to other social media companies yet. It's a bunch of Democrat activists playing judge, jury, and executioner for their other Democrat friends.
"Fascist" on the other hand is a political term--among other things (economic, sociological, etc).
The European fascists of the 1930s were left wing socialists. The Chilean fascists of the 1970s were right wing. People have struggled to find a common economic or social theme between the various groups.
But we DO know what all facists have in common, and it what makes them scary: facists cannot tolerate disagreement, to the point that if someone disagrees, then the facist demands punishment.
If a kid in school disagrees with a facist, then the facist wants the kid expelled from school, and humiliated. If the disagreer is an ordinary adult, then the facist wants that person fired from their job, and banned from social media. If the disagreer cannot be fired, perhaps because they own a business, then the facist wants a boycott to ruin the person financially, and then thrown in jail.
Fascists are unsatisfied with presenting their political view. They demand that disagreement be destroyed. This is why facism is either ruled by a strongman (for as long as they can ride the tiger), or else descends into mob rule.
Glad to know that the number of polar bears is a political disagreement.
PragerU apparently cited a number of researchers, and there is a high margin of error depending on who is counting, and when: 26,000 to 58,000, with 39,000 being a best guess estimate. But because the populations of the "threatened" polar bears keeps increasing, there is disagreement. Climate alarmists predicted that as ice breakup continued, that polar bear populations would decrease. Was their prediction wrong, and polar bears are thriving? Is the ice breakup not nearly as severe or important as predicted? Or is the polar bear apocalypse only moments away?
These are arguments that reasonable folks can have. And it is why attempting to "fact check" with biased fact checkers leads to the same crummy results as police departments running an internal review that determines their members have done no wrong.
Actually, that's my take on why Facebook is currently making these types of decisions to attempt to stay objective. Similar to how Patreon and Twitter now have competition, Facebook is savvy enough to not want to encourage a competitor. I can't say if it will work out for Facebook, but they're attempting not to shoot themselves in the foot on account of some SJW employees.
were not penalized for violations of the company’s misinformation policies.
Disagreement is not the same as misinformation. Especially when the so-called "fact checkers" are just a bunch of democrats. Just because you disagree politically with someone does not give anyone the right to label it as misinformation for censorship purposes on a supposedly objective platform. If your company employees are so biased that they demand to censor political opponents for disagreement, then showing deference may be the only solution to maintain the thin veneer of objectivity.
Personally, I think that social media companies should just drop the facade, and announce that they hate conservatives, so they will be banning anyone who voices a conservative opinion. It would be very honest if them to do that.
And why the myopic focus on just TikTok when Americans attach millions of totally unsecured Chinese-made "smart" IOT devices to their home and business networks with reckless abandon?
On the TV show "24" they had a citywide surveillance satellite system called "Backtrace". Even in fiction, it seemed like an incredibly wasteful program, in that it would capture huge amounts of aerial footage just for the small possibility that a person of interest could be tracked.
And yet here we have metropolitan cities wanting to replicate it with aerial drones. I can only imagine what an expensive waste of money this is. Shut it down.
Well, there are a few things - on PC there's usually higher resolution, often the option of modding your game without requiring the platform owners to jump through hoops, etc.
On a similar note, PC users have been modding costumes for Street Fighter 5. Sure, if you are playing multiplayer then the person on the other end of the connection can't see your costume mod, but that doesn't matter. You can make your fighter appear the way that you want, and a number of high quality costumes have emerged to allow fighters to appear as everything from Marvel comics superheroes, to anime characters, to villains from completely unrelated video games. All without waiting for the developers, and without them charging tons of money for a single costume.
The main problem is DRM, and although a 3rd party repair could be attempted, the manufacturer effectively prevents it through a code scheme. Hardware will deliberately stop working until the DRM protected program is given the right code that tells it that a proper repair has been completed. And the manufacturer isn't going to give you that code.
So unless the 3rd party repair can crack the DRM and then re-program the components to work without a "repair completed" code, 3rd party repair is prevented. This is mostly what the Right To Repair advocates want: equipment that is not protected by DRM such that 3rd parties can access the onboard diagnostics so that repair is easier, and then provide it the "repair completed" code such that the equipment will begin working again.
I understand that many people want to associate their real life with their online social media handles. But I see this as an excellent lesson in maintaining a degree of anonymity. Kids: sometimes jerks online don't like what you have to say, and will demand punishment for anyone who dares to criticize. So post some of those pictures or videos anonymously if you can, and add some plausible deniability.
There's no explanation for this other than really bad handling of data at Twitter, and the company should be punished for it.
Once upon a time, a scorpion approached the bank of a river, looking to cross. The scorpion saw a nearby frog, and asked, "Hey there Mr. Frog, can you help me across the river? I can ride on your back!" And the frog replied, "No, I don't want to give you a ride on my back. You'll sting me." The scorpion denied it, saying "No I won't. If I sting you in the middle of the river, I'll drown too." So the frog agreed.
The scorpion climbed onto the frog's back, and the frog swam across the river at the top surface, keeping the scorpion dry and above water. But when they got to around halfway, the scorpion stung the frog with its poisonous tail.
As the frog slowed down, struggling to stay above water, the poison filling his veins, and death becoming apparent, the frog asked "Why did you sting me, scorpion? Now we will both die in the river."
And the scorpion replied, "I tried not to, but I couldn't help it. I'm a scorpion!"
Hackers hacking a hacker forum, and then making the entire database public. Serving the information on a platter to investigators, with no warrant. It almost seems too convenient. While I have no doubt that the miscreants who peruse such sites would be willing to target one-another for lulz, petty dispute revenge, or discrediting their rivals, this almost seems too good to be true for law enforcement. It potentially sanctions a loophole whereby government-backed hackers can compromise a website, and then the police can go ahead and use any information they desire, with the caveat that they publicly release the information beforehand.
Once again, the internet out-innovates a stagnant old industry with a better model. Now the legacy model needs to begin filing lawsuits in the hope that they can "catch up".
(24) No person shall intentionally take a photograph or otherwise record a child without the consent of the child's parent or guardian.
In recent years, we have documented how police attempt to escape accountability by preventing citizens from photographing or videotaping them. Fortunately, those sorts of anti-recording laws have been found unconstitutional.
But maybe this could be a loophole. If the police simply hire some new cops that look young enough...
That was one of the key takeaways from this New Hampshire court case:
"...whose Instagram account was deleted for some sort of terms of service violation (it is never made clear what the violation was, and that seems to be part of the complaint)."
"So, in this case (as in many such cases), Facebook didn't even raise the (c)(2) issue, and stuck with (c)(1), assuming that like in every other case, that would suffice. Except... this time it didn't."
It does not matter whether the customer makes the disturbance before or after paying, it matters that the disturbance is noticed and acted upon.
In my analogy, there was no reason provided. In your counter-example, there is a reason. I think this lines up with both the court decision, and your experience. If you can provide a reason, then the business has a defense. But if you can't provide a reason, then the business will need to suffer the consequences. Better have that c(2) defense ready.
Why? You're an asshole and I kicked you out of my restaurant, no specific reason nor explanation needed. Sue me!
Since the cafe alleges that they paid Instagram, the analogy that I think fits better is "If you pay for a meal at a restaurant up-front, can they kick you out before you get your meal without a reason?"
Re: Action: Suspended account. Reason: Because we can.
In which case platforms will always argue both to cover their bases
Exactly, Facebook totally needed to include a c(2) defense in this case.
that they can give you the boot for whatever reason they feel like, and if you don't like it don't use the service, no 'reason' needed.
A smart idea. In this case, however, the company claims that it was paying fees to Instagram. Perhaps it was advertising? I wouldn't know how these things work for companies attempting to deal with social media. In any case, once money is being exchanged, we may be entering into the area of contract law. So now the defendant can't simply provide no reason at all.
In reading the decision, I now think that this court case will be of limited use to those who want to tear down section 230. I'm guessing no money exchanges hands for most accounts, and so this nuance may prevent any further problems. But this could limit any social media company's ability to charge money for regular users, if they ever wanted to start some kind of subscription.
Perhaps this might be a new front of attack against 230: good faith. If the person files suit not because of someone else's speech, as protected by c(1), then the defendant may need to provide a good faith c(2) defense. But if the defendant can't provide any reason, and can't explain what happened, now there may be civil liability. How can you claim good faith if you dont know?
C(2) might not be interpreted to say any moderation is allowable, only that certain good faith moderation is allowable.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re:
Back in June, research into Facebook's so-called fact-checking organization called Lead Stories revealed that the group is mostly left wing.
Lead Stories Chairman and founder Perry Sanders is a Democrat, and donates thousands of dollars to democrat candidates every cycle.
Over half of its employees have worked for the CNNLOL.
90% of Facebook's fact checking oversight board belong to George Soros’ left wing Open Society Foundation.
So this is just the Facebook "fact-checking" outfit, and we haven't gotten to other social media companies yet. It's a bunch of Democrat activists playing judge, jury, and executioner for their other Democrat friends.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re:
The European fascists of the 1930s were left wing socialists. The Chilean fascists of the 1970s were right wing. People have struggled to find a common economic or social theme between the various groups.
But we DO know what all facists have in common, and it what makes them scary: facists cannot tolerate disagreement, to the point that if someone disagrees, then the facist demands punishment.
If a kid in school disagrees with a facist, then the facist wants the kid expelled from school, and humiliated. If the disagreer is an ordinary adult, then the facist wants that person fired from their job, and banned from social media. If the disagreer cannot be fired, perhaps because they own a business, then the facist wants a boycott to ruin the person financially, and then thrown in jail.
Fascists are unsatisfied with presenting their political view. They demand that disagreement be destroyed. This is why facism is either ruled by a strongman (for as long as they can ride the tiger), or else descends into mob rule.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Special treatment to not be persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition is not special treatment, that's called being treated normally.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re:
PragerU apparently cited a number of researchers, and there is a high margin of error depending on who is counting, and when: 26,000 to 58,000, with 39,000 being a best guess estimate. But because the populations of the "threatened" polar bears keeps increasing, there is disagreement. Climate alarmists predicted that as ice breakup continued, that polar bear populations would decrease. Was their prediction wrong, and polar bears are thriving? Is the ice breakup not nearly as severe or important as predicted? Or is the polar bear apocalypse only moments away?
These are arguments that reasonable folks can have. And it is why attempting to "fact check" with biased fact checkers leads to the same crummy results as police departments running an internal review that determines their members have done no wrong.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Re: Re:
Actually, that's my take on why Facebook is currently making these types of decisions to attempt to stay objective. Similar to how Patreon and Twitter now have competition, Facebook is savvy enough to not want to encourage a competitor. I can't say if it will work out for Facebook, but they're attempting not to shoot themselves in the foot on account of some SJW employees.
On the post: Yes, Facebook Treats Trump Fans Differently: It Has Relaxed The Rules To Give Them More Leeway
Disagreement is not the same as misinformation. Especially when the so-called "fact checkers" are just a bunch of democrats. Just because you disagree politically with someone does not give anyone the right to label it as misinformation for censorship purposes on a supposedly objective platform. If your company employees are so biased that they demand to censor political opponents for disagreement, then showing deference may be the only solution to maintain the thin veneer of objectivity.
Personally, I think that social media companies should just drop the facade, and announce that they hate conservatives, so they will be banning anyone who voices a conservative opinion. It would be very honest if them to do that.
On the post: Forget TikTok. Feebly Secured Infrastructure Is Our Real Problem
Tech Monopoly
Because tech monopolies are the biggest threat.
On the post: Baltimore's Aerial Surveillance Program Has Logged 700 Flight Hours, One (1) Arrest
Life Imitating Art
On the TV show "24" they had a citywide surveillance satellite system called "Backtrace". Even in fiction, it seemed like an incredibly wasteful program, in that it would capture huge amounts of aerial footage just for the small possibility that a person of interest could be tracked.
And yet here we have metropolitan cities wanting to replicate it with aerial drones. I can only imagine what an expensive waste of money this is. Shut it down.
On the post: Crystal Dynamics Explains Spider-Man PS4 Exclusivity By Saying A Bunch Of... Words, I Guess?
Re: Re:
On a similar note, PC users have been modding costumes for Street Fighter 5. Sure, if you are playing multiplayer then the person on the other end of the connection can't see your costume mod, but that doesn't matter. You can make your fighter appear the way that you want, and a number of high quality costumes have emerged to allow fighters to appear as everything from Marvel comics superheroes, to anime characters, to villains from completely unrelated video games. All without waiting for the developers, and without them charging tons of money for a single costume.
On the post: Congress To Consider National Right To Repair Law For First Time
Re: Magnuson Moss anyone?
The main problem is DRM, and although a 3rd party repair could be attempted, the manufacturer effectively prevents it through a code scheme. Hardware will deliberately stop working until the DRM protected program is given the right code that tells it that a proper repair has been completed. And the manufacturer isn't going to give you that code.
So unless the 3rd party repair can crack the DRM and then re-program the components to work without a "repair completed" code, 3rd party repair is prevented. This is mostly what the Right To Repair advocates want: equipment that is not protected by DRM such that 3rd parties can access the onboard diagnostics so that repair is easier, and then provide it the "repair completed" code such that the equipment will begin working again.
On the post: Georgia School District Inadvertently Begins Teaching Lessons In First Amendment Protections After Viral Photo
Anonymity
I understand that many people want to associate their real life with their online social media handles. But I see this as an excellent lesson in maintaining a degree of anonymity. Kids: sometimes jerks online don't like what you have to say, and will demand punishment for anyone who dares to criticize. So post some of those pictures or videos anonymously if you can, and add some plausible deniability.
On the post: Twitter About To Be Hit With A ~$250 Million Fine For Using Your Two Factor Authentication Phone Numbers/Emails For Marketing
Parable Time
Once upon a time, a scorpion approached the bank of a river, looking to cross. The scorpion saw a nearby frog, and asked, "Hey there Mr. Frog, can you help me across the river? I can ride on your back!" And the frog replied, "No, I don't want to give you a ride on my back. You'll sting me." The scorpion denied it, saying "No I won't. If I sting you in the middle of the river, I'll drown too." So the frog agreed.
The scorpion climbed onto the frog's back, and the frog swam across the river at the top surface, keeping the scorpion dry and above water. But when they got to around halfway, the scorpion stung the frog with its poisonous tail.
As the frog slowed down, struggling to stay above water, the poison filling his veins, and death becoming apparent, the frog asked "Why did you sting me, scorpion? Now we will both die in the river."
And the scorpion replied, "I tried not to, but I couldn't help it. I'm a scorpion!"
On the post: FBI Used Information From An Online Forum Hacking To Track Down One Of The Hackers Behind The Massive Twitter Attack
Parallel Construction
Hackers hacking a hacker forum, and then making the entire database public. Serving the information on a platter to investigators, with no warrant. It almost seems too convenient. While I have no doubt that the miscreants who peruse such sites would be willing to target one-another for lulz, petty dispute revenge, or discrediting their rivals, this almost seems too good to be true for law enforcement. It potentially sanctions a loophole whereby government-backed hackers can compromise a website, and then the police can go ahead and use any information they desire, with the caveat that they publicly release the information beforehand.
On the post: Internet Archive Responds To Publishers Lawsuit: Libraries Lend Books, That's What We Do
Innovation
Once again, the internet out-innovates a stagnant old industry with a better model. Now the legacy model needs to begin filing lawsuits in the hope that they can "catch up".
On the post: Federal Court Can't See Any First Amendment Implications In Local Ordinance Blocking The Photography Of Children
Loophole
In recent years, we have documented how police attempt to escape accountability by preventing citizens from photographing or videotaping them. Fortunately, those sorts of anti-recording laws have been found unconstitutional.
But maybe this could be a loophole. If the police simply hire some new cops that look young enough...
On the post: New Hampshire Supreme Court Issues Very Weird Ruling Regarding Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Faith
That was one of the key takeaways from this New Hampshire court case:
"...whose Instagram account was deleted for some sort of terms of service violation (it is never made clear what the violation was, and that seems to be part of the complaint)."
"So, in this case (as in many such cases), Facebook didn't even raise the (c)(2) issue, and stuck with (c)(1), assuming that like in every other case, that would suffice. Except... this time it didn't."
On the post: New Hampshire Supreme Court Issues Very Weird Ruling Regarding Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good Faith
In my analogy, there was no reason provided. In your counter-example, there is a reason. I think this lines up with both the court decision, and your experience. If you can provide a reason, then the business has a defense. But if you can't provide a reason, then the business will need to suffer the consequences. Better have that c(2) defense ready.
On the post: New Hampshire Supreme Court Issues Very Weird Ruling Regarding Section 230
Re: Re: Good Faith
Since the cafe alleges that they paid Instagram, the analogy that I think fits better is "If you pay for a meal at a restaurant up-front, can they kick you out before you get your meal without a reason?"
On the post: New Hampshire Supreme Court Issues Very Weird Ruling Regarding Section 230
Re: Action: Suspended account. Reason: Because we can.
Exactly, Facebook totally needed to include a c(2) defense in this case.
A smart idea. In this case, however, the company claims that it was paying fees to Instagram. Perhaps it was advertising? I wouldn't know how these things work for companies attempting to deal with social media. In any case, once money is being exchanged, we may be entering into the area of contract law. So now the defendant can't simply provide no reason at all.
In reading the decision, I now think that this court case will be of limited use to those who want to tear down section 230. I'm guessing no money exchanges hands for most accounts, and so this nuance may prevent any further problems. But this could limit any social media company's ability to charge money for regular users, if they ever wanted to start some kind of subscription.
On the post: New Hampshire Supreme Court Issues Very Weird Ruling Regarding Section 230
Good Faith
Perhaps this might be a new front of attack against 230: good faith. If the person files suit not because of someone else's speech, as protected by c(1), then the defendant may need to provide a good faith c(2) defense. But if the defendant can't provide any reason, and can't explain what happened, now there may be civil liability. How can you claim good faith if you dont know?
C(2) might not be interpreted to say any moderation is allowable, only that certain good faith moderation is allowable.
Next >>