Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

[supersonicwaffle]

Just out of interest who of you knows the difference between a media outlet, and a common carrier?

Just out of interest, do you know that social media is neither but it can be argued that they act as both?

 

[osaka35]

Wait. Let me get this straight. The white house wants you to tell them if you've felt you've been silenced on social media.

Okay.

But why do you think they'd actually do anything about it? Why do you think they'd do anything other than cherry-pick examples given to them? Or draw up some statistics that'll support whatever they're trying to do? What do you think they're going to do with unverifiable opinions? This ain't no study.

 

[Xzi]

They learned their lesson after Trump and other anti-establishment politicians rose to power thanks to social media.

"Anti-establishment," rofl. Anti-establishment leaders don't cut the corporate tax rate in half, attempt to get abortion banned, push for an uneccessary war with Iran, declare the children of gay couples 'non-citizens,' etc. Not only is Trump a pawn of the Republican establishment, he's also pawn to a number of foreign government establishments. Such a fucking joke to call a lifelong East-coast elitist "anti-establishment."

 

[supersonicwaffle]

But why do you think they'd actually do anything about it?

I believe there's already legislative efforts for regulation

Why do you think they'd do anything other than cherry-pick examples given to them? Or draw up some statistics that'll support whatever they're trying to do? What do you think they're going to do with unverifiable opinions?

I guess that's a problem with polling and surveys in general. As long as they make the data public, this is a really good thing.
There's a lot of shit flinging from both sides that has no basis in data like censorship of conservatives on facebook and twitter or youtube algorithms pushing extremism onto people. As far as I'm aware there's no data out there to substantiate anything, with regards to youtube there's some data that contradicts that mantra.

 

[osaka35]

I believe there's already legislative efforts for regulation. I guess that's a problem with polling and surveys in general. As long as they make the data public, this is a really good thing. There's a lot of shit flinging from both sides that has no basis in data like censorship of conservatives on facebook and twitter or youtube algorithms pushing extremism onto people. As far as I'm aware there's no data out there to substantiate anything, with regards to youtube there's some data that contradicts that mantra.

With surveys and polling in regards to things like this, you can only measure perceptions. While you could make that leap sometimes, it'd be incredibly irresponsible to do so in this kind of situation. And I always suggest hesitation to completely trust the government just because they ask you to. This is why such things are usually handled by independent organizations with transparency. Assume this is going to be used for shady political manipulation unless there's evidence to the contrary.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

With surveys and polling in regards to things like this, you can only measure perceptions. While you could make that leap sometimes, it'd be incredibly irresponsible to do so in this kind of situation. And I always suggest hesitation to completely trust the government just because they ask you to. This is why such things are usually handled by independent organizations with transparency. Assume this is going to be used for shady political manipulation unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Oh I agree, I'd rather this be done independent but the market (journalism) seems to have failed in this regard, they were more interested in opinion pieces supported by anecdotes than real journalism with facts and data.

Now, this could be because they have a very incestuous relationship with social media where they rely on shares and likes but that's speculation.

 

[notimp]

Just out of interest, do you know that social media is neither but it can be argued that they act as both?

Can be argued? As in that politics and the public say that they are media, but they always use the "common carrier" complaint to get out of any responsibility.

Heck you are dumb. Do you ever think before you speak?

Now - lets go through a few things here.

- Do they employ journalists?
- Do they produce news stories or journalism?
- Do they adhere to a media codex?
- Do they refer to themselves as mass media?
- Do they employ behavioral psychologists?
- Are they paid by their consumers?

F*ck.

People like you, see story on facebook, think its facebook - and like them for story. Story in most cases gets produced by your friends, who facebook makes you idolize more - so you get better feels, when they react to you. Thats the concept the entire influencer movement is born out of. Now are those media companies?

It can be argued for as well?

Now, what editorial responsibility were they willing to take so far?
- will fix it in algorithms (keyword filters, as far as we've seen so far)
- we'll make our censors in the philippines look over "all the content"
- we'll only push newsstories _ourselves_ (different from actual word of mounth which still can propagate freely (friends of friends)), if one of the major news networks pushed it

Now they deserve concerns about having their press freedoms upheld? As an ad company? Are you mad?

 

[osaka35]

Oh I agree, I'd rather this be done independent but the market (journalism) seems to have failed in this regard, they were more interested in opinion pieces supported by anecdotes than real journalism with facts and data.

can't argue too much with that. there's some good journalist out there, but it's hard to report proper news when you have to make a profit doing so. I try and stick to news directly from the AP.

 

[Xzi]

can't argue too much with that. there's some good journalist out there, but it's hard to report proper news when you have to make a profit doing so. I try and stick to news directly from the AP.

The larger issue stems from the demand to have news presented immediately, instead of having it presented when it's ready. Which ties back in to social media having too much influence over our entire discourse. The opinions of Twitter/Facebook are not the same as the opinions of the average US citizen.

 

[Foxi4]

The reason why this is of interest to the government despite the fact that platforms like Facebook or YouTube are privately owned is the fact that they are the de facto public square on the Internet, much like a mall is in real life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

Let's not forget that these companies get a government kick-back for providing said public square - Social Media are protected by Safe Harbor laws for as long as they are vehicles for hosting user-created content which waives most of the responsibility regarding copyright claims and other forms of legal liability. If a case showing that these platforms disproportionately target specific groups of users (which they obviously do, let's not pretend that this isn't common knowledge) can be made then that makes them publishers responsible for moderating said content, and not just "some of it", but all of it.

This isn't a "they are private companies, they can do whatever they want" case, this is a case of companies that exist because the government pumped billions of dollars into the infrastructure and they continue to exist because the government allows them to on the proviso that they remain impartial.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Can be argued? As in that politics and the public say that they are media, but they always use the "common carrier" complaint to get out of any responsibility.

Heck you are dumb. Do you ever think before you speak?

Now - lets go through a few things here.

- Do they employ journalists?
- Do they produce news stories.
- Do they adhere to a media codex?
- Do they refer to themselves as mass media?
- Are they paid by their consumers?

F*ck.

They're no using the common carrier complaint to get out of responsibility. They aren't responsible because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

If they were common carrier the argument for social media to ban only in accordance with constitutional rights (free speech) would be much stronger.

You can argue that their rules for content curation or promotion, because that's kinda what their rules and algorithms are, is editorial work, so they are acting like a media outlet in some capacity.

You go back to stroke your superiority complex personality disorder and tell everyone how dumb humanity is.

 

[Xzi]

The reason why this is of interest to the government despite the fact that platforms like Facebook or YouTube are privately owned is the fact that they are the de facto public square on the Internet, much like a mall is in real life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

Let's not forget that these companies don't get a government kick-back for providing said public square - Social Media are protected by Safe Harbor laws for as long as they are vehicles for hosting user-created content which waives most of the responsibility regarding copyright claims and other forms of legal liability. If a case showing that these platforms disproportionately target specific groups of users (which they obviously do, let's not pretend that this isn't common knowledge) then that makes them publishers responsible for moderating said content, and not just "some of it", but all of it.

This isn't a "they are private companies, they can do whatever they want" case, this is a case of companies that exist because the government pumped billions of dollars into the infrastructure and they continue to exist because the government allows them to on the proviso that they remain impartial.

And government (especially under Republicans) doesn't just give tons of money away to all corporations? Are you saying the government has de facto control over all the means of production? Why, Foxi, I never knew you were such a staunch Socialist.

 

[notimp]

Here is what being a media company means.

If they push any content, you are liable for it. Can be sued personally - by anyone that thinks that you used their name in vain.

And your main defense along those lines is - that you did it, because it was in the public interest.

Nothing facebook does is in the public interest.

Huh. Hows that for contrast.

If we get down to the legalities, they arent even 'connecting people' they are providing tech, that is connecting people.

Storage space is down to cents of a gigabyte - they compress the heck out of your images - grandma doesnt know how to upload a video - they are making money out of everyone - with every action they are doing. Uploading photos? They use to train AI sets. Setting up the college you are out of. Creating a better ad profile. Talking to people, creating social graphs. Thats what they are producing, or do you think their VR gag - was their companies output?

What do they use the money for? To buy patents on the backend. Ammunition against legal battles and anyone trying to infinge on their business model.

I mean, in all seriousness, how many of the programmers in this community do you think would it take to create some facebook equivalent? Five, ten? For three months, maybe six? Now - what are facebook doing apart from that? Being an ad sales company the entire rest of the day. Media stuff? Not so much.

 

[osaka35]

The reason why this is of interest to the government despite the fact that platforms like Facebook or YouTube are privately owned is the fact that they are the de facto public square on the Internet, much like a mall is in real life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

Let's not forget that these companies don't get a government kick-back for providing said public square - Social Media are protected by Safe Harbor laws for as long as they are vehicles for hosting user-created content which waives most of the responsibility regarding copyright claims and other forms of legal liability. If a case showing that these platforms disproportionately target specific groups of users (which they obviously do, let's not pretend that this isn't common knowledge) then that makes them publishers responsible for moderating said content, and not just "some of it", but all of it.

This isn't a "they are private companies, they can do whatever they want" case, this is a case of companies that exist because the government pumped billions of dollars into the infrastructure and they continue to exist because the government allows them to on the proviso that they remain impartial.

how do you measure whether a group has been targeted?

if you target, for example, death threats for removal. and you run a poll like this and you get feedback that one particular group, let's say 90 year old ladies in knitting clubs, are being banned a lot more than any other group...do you assume that group is being targeted? or does that group just post more of the offending materials? how much should we care or know?

I suppose the question is, what responsibility does these common places have to allow fake news, personal attacks, and political manipulation (among other things)? and what other than the content should be considered?

 

[Foxi4]

how do you measure whether a group has been targeted?

if you target, for example, death threats for removal. and you run a poll like this and you get feedback that one particular group, let's say 90 year old ladies in knitting clubs, are being banned a lot more than any other group...do you assume that group is being targeted? or does that group just post more of the offending materials? how much should we care or know?

I suppose the question is, what responsibility does these common places have to allow fake news, personal attacks, and political manipulation (among other things)? and what other than the content should be considered?

I don't understand how this is even a question. If one group is allowed to post content that the other group is penalised for, that's bias right there. It's obvious and measurable.

And government (especially under Republicans) doesn't just give tons of money away to all corporations? Are you saying the government has de facto control over all the means of production? Why, Foxi, I never knew you were such a staunch Socialist.

It's a bit of a different story here. The government in large part funded the creation and expansion of the Internet, any company that operates in the confines of the Internet effectively operates in the publicly funded square and is subject to legislation concerning such public settings. I certainly agree that they should give basically no money to any private company ever, but I don't get to make those decisions.

 

[Xzi]

how do you measure whether a group has been targeted?

if you target, for example, death threats for removal. and you run a poll like this and you get feedback that one particular group, let's say 90 year old ladies in knitting clubs, are being banned a lot more than any other group...do you assume that group is being targeted? or does that group just post more of the offending materials? how much should we care?

I suppose the question is, what responsibility does these common places have to allow fake news, personal attacks, and political manipulation (among other things)? and what other than the content should be considered?

Largely irrelevant because the case he cited doesn't apply to websites. You can't 'stand outside of' websites to collect signatures for a cause. You're either on the platform or you're not. And just to create an account, you have to agree to the platform's ToS/EULA/rules/etc, and subsequently abide by them. Otherwise risk deletion of comments or an account ban. It's always been the same, even before Myspace was popular and a million different forums/geocities sites ruled the web.

The Trump administration has no more right telling social media sites how to enforce their rules than they do telling GBAtemp how to enforce ours.

 

[Foxi4]

Largely irrelevant because the case he cited doesn't apply to websites. You can't 'stand outside of' websites to collect signatures for a cause. You're either on the platform or you're not. And just to create an account, you have to agree to the platform's ToS/EULA/rules/etc, and subsequently abide by them. Otherwise risk deletion of comments or an account ban. It's always been the same, even before Myspace was popular and a million different forums/geocities sites ruled the web.

The Trump administration has no more right telling social media sites how to enforce their rules than they do telling GBAtemp how to enforce ours.

You're conveniently forgetting that A) yes, you absolutely can, affiliate links are a thing (as in, go to Amazon normally *or* follow my link to Amazon which gives me a kickback, or funds a cause, or whatever else) and B) the Supreme Court decision concerns all public places inside the mall that are used for the purposes of gathering and relaxation, not "outside". Read the actual decision.

It's also demonstrably false that the government has "no right" to intervene, and I explained why. Unlike Facebook, GBATemp is not protected by Safe Harbor in the same way Facebook or YouTube are purely due to our size. Our site is effectively responsible for what's hosted on it, and pretty directly at that. It's a completely false dichotomy.

 

[Xzi]

It's a bit of a different story here. The government in large part funded the creation and expansion of the Internet, any company that operates in the confines of the Internet effectively operates in the publicly funded square and is subject to legislation concerning such public settings. I certainly agree that they should give basically no money to any private company ever, but I don't get to make those decisions.

Ohhh, so the government only owns all the businesses which use the internet to conduct said business. Yeah, still gonna have to disagree on that one. Only the ISPs should feel indebted to the government in any way, and they absolutely do not give a fuck and have not held up their end of the bargain. Facebook and other social media companies do not get funded by the government any more than other big corporations do. Private business is still private business, and none of them would take that government money if it meant giving up operational sovereignty.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Here is what being a media company means.

If the push any content, you are liable for it. Can be sued personally - by anyone that thinks that you used their name in vain.

And your main defense along those lines is - that you did it, because it was in the public interest.

Nothing facebook does is in the public interest.

Huh. Hows that for contrast.

Look, I haven't said they are a media outlet or a publisher, I said they're acting like one in some capacity.
They aren't liable because they provide an "interactive computer service", it's a 25 year old law, the internet was way different back then. Facebook has even argued they're a publisher in court before, but you go ahead and tell me I'm dumb.

That's all that I'm going to respond to you with, you're clearly not interested in arguing the dictionary definition of the terms you bring up yourself and I'm quite sure any rebuttal would be met by further shifting of goalposts. You can argue what a term means to you personally to a mirror for all I care.

 

[notimp]

Social media: You all produce the media content. For nothing in return. (Emotional payouts.)

Ask Media Molecule what they are doing with Dreams, ask Ubisoft - when they wanted to make Beyond good an Evil 2 a 'community driven endless universe'. Are they media companies?