Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

osaka35 · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
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.

right, which more comes down to what you consider equivalent content.

the obvious and measurablely wrong, like anti-global warming, flat-earthers, 9-11 truthers, antivaxx, alternative medicine, chemtrails, etc., would probably say they're being unfairly silenced. it's not an easy business, combating the crazies. do you stick to the extreme fringes and go for the easy-to-disprove ones, like mentioned, or do you go for political manipulation of facts too? how do you measure that exactly?

I'm not sure why you think it's obvious and easy to measure. what kind of content are you talking about?

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
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.

I never said that the government owns the business, I said that the government owns the medium the business is conducted on and gets to set rules regarding how said business is conducted. If the government builds 10 miles of a train track, it's a publicly-owned train track. A private company can use said train track for the purposes of commerce, but the government gets to decide what the privileges and the limitations of that usage are. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

osaka35 said:
right, which more comes down to what you consider equivalent content.

the obvious and measurablely wrong, like anti-global warming, flat-earthers, 9-11 truthers, antivaxx, alternative medicine, chemtrails, etc., would probably say they're being unfairly silenced. it's not an easy business, combating the crazies. do you stick to the extreme fringes and go for the easy-to-disprove ones, like mentioned, or do you go for political manipulation of facts too? how do you measure that exactly?

I'm not sure why you think it's obvious and easy to measure. what kind of content are you talking about?

It's actually fairly simple to make that determination - are they silenced at all? Then it's not a public square, determination made. I'm a free speech absolutist - unless the speech is blatantly in violation of the law, it must necessarily be allowed on the public square.

osaka35 · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
It's actually fairly simple to make that determination - are they silenced at all? Then it's not a public square, determination made. I'm a free speech absolutist - unless the speech is blatantly in violation of the law, it must necessarily be allowed on the public square.

hmmm ...how would you feel if anti-factual stuff was auto-tagged with warnings or evidence as to why it's crazy-land?

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
I said that the government owns the medium the business is conducted on and gets to set rules regarding how said business is conducted.

I look forward to the shitshow that ensues on the day the US government tries to lay proprietary claim to the internet.

That said, the likelihood of it ever actually happening is near zero. The internet is well beyond the US government's control by now, especially considering they get hacked by it regularly.

Additionally, if getting banned from websites or getting comments deleted constituted violations of the first amendment, there would've been numerous class-action lawsuits by the ACLU and such carried through already.

supersonicwaffle · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
I look forward to the shitshow that ensues on the day the US government tries to lay proprietary claim to the internet.

That said, the likelihood of it ever actually happening is near zero. The internet is well beyond the US government's control by now, especially considering they get hacked by it regularly.

The medium would be the actual infrastructure like copper or fiber, idk how things are in the US but over here most of that stuff is publicly owned.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

supersonicwaffle said:
The medium would be the actual infrastructure like copper or fiber, idk how things are in the US but over here most of that stuff is publicly owned.

In the US the government gave tons of money to certain ISPs to install all the necessary infrastructure. They didn't stipulate that the infrastructure would be publicly owned, and the ISPs didn't provide near as much coverage as they promised, either. None the less, the two major ISPs in America own nearly the entire internet infrastructure.

So yeah, our government owns nothing about the internet at this point except bragging rights that they helped invent it.

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

osaka35 said:
hmmm ...how would you feel if anti-factual stuff was auto-tagged with warnings or evidence as to why it's crazy-land?

How would you feel if "A Modest Proposal" was prefaced with a mandatory disclaimer that it's satire?

Xzi said:
In the US the government gave tons of money to certain ISPs to install all the necessary infrastructure. They didn't stipulate that the infrastructure would be publicly owned, and the ISPs didn't provide near as much coverage as they promised, either. None the less, the two major ISPs in America own nearly the entire internet infrastructure.

We're not talking about a spool of wires and some servers, we're talking about the abstract concept of the Internet which was the result of separating ARPANET into MILNET for military purposes and the Internet for the purposes of use by the public. I reiterate, Facebook, YouTube and other companies of high caliber that deal with insane amounts of traffic lobbied for Safe Harbor in order to ensure that the liability for copyright infringement lays primarily on the users uploading content as the sheer amount of it is so huge that it is effectively impossible to moderate, even with advanced AI. They made a calculated bet that the cost of fighting legal battles was higher than the cost of providing a public square for the people where they can freely exchange ideas so long as they're not in violation of the law. That is the cost of the protection they received from the government, and they must necessarily pay up. This isn't about a fringe lunatic here or there, this is about the freedom of expression on the Internet. All I see is Silicon Valley companies colluding to remove certain voices from the public square and making efforts to squash any and all competition that might provide an alternative - GAB is a prime example. In order to show everyone that they totally do not collude, Google and Apple banned the GAB app in both of the app stores, thus proving that there are animals that are equal and more equal on the Internet. "It's a private company, it can do whatever it wants" can only function if the possibility of competition exists. Let's say that GBAtemp gets delisted from Google results because "it's a private company, it can do what it wants", then it gets denied hosting because "that's a private company too, it can do what it wants", then it gets straight up banned by ISP's because "they're private companies", and to make things even more fun, it gets blacklisted by Stripe and PayPal because "they're private", give me your feasible step 1. Do we build our own Internet, now with hookers and blow? No. Currently there exist scenarios where private citizens are simply not allowed on the Internet, or their reach is severely limited, and that cannot be allowed - it is counter to the purpose of the Internet.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
I reiterate, Facebook, YouTube and other companies of high caliber that deal with insane amounts of traffic lobbied for Safe Harbor in order to ensure that the liability for copyright infringement lays primarily on the users uploading content as the sheer amount of it is so huge that it is effectively impossible to moderate, even with advanced AI. They made a calculated bet that the cost of fighting legal battles was higher than the cost of providing a public square for the people where they can freely exchange ideas so long as they're not in violation of the law.

When have social media rules ever been aligned with US law? Not now, not ever. Still no lawsuits challenging that, either, because it's clearly a losing case.

Foxi4 said:
"It's a private company, it can do whatever it wants" can only function if the possibility of competition exists.

Facebook does have a bit too much of the market, but there is still plenty of competition when it comes to social media. As a last resort there's always the cesspool that is 4chan, practically not moderated at all.

Foxi4 said:
Currently there exist scenarios where private citizens are simply not allowed on the Internet, or their reach is severely limited, and that cannot be allowed - it is counter to the purpose of the Internet.

This ignores the entire concept of personal responsibility. You can't just say whatever you want in public without consequences. Same deal on the internet. Social media sites are under no obligation to provide a platform to edgelord teenagers who post walls of text full of racial slurs.

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
When have social media rules ever been aligned with US law? Not now, not ever. Still no lawsuits challenging that, either, because it's clearly a losing case.

We don't need one. There are two solutions in this kerfuffle - either A) the government takes Safe Harbor away and equalises the market to allow start-ups to compete on a level playing field or B), the more likely scenario, the Internet further decentralises and starts working as it was originally intended to work thanks to services like Mastodon which split the network across constituent nodes. That's a true "web", as opposed to the current spaghetti factory.

Facebook does have a bit too much of the market, but there is still plenty of competition when it comes to social media. As a last resort there's always the cesspool that is 4chan, practically not moderated at all.

Apples and oranges.

This ignores the entire concept of personal responsibility. You can't just say whatever you want in public without consequences. Same deal on the internet. Social media sites are under no obligation to provide a platform to edgelord teenagers who post walls of text full of racial slurs.

Again, false. You absolutely can say whatever you want in the public and the consequences, much like the responsibility, are personal. The consequence of saying stupid crap is being ostracised by your peers, not being dragged off the public square and into a dirty alley, out of sight and earshot. You are offloading your responsibility to Unfriend idiots onto Facebook by depriving the idiots of the right to speak. You can keep saying that they have no obligation to provide a public platform, but I must reiterate that they do - they operate as a public platform, not a publisher, that's why they don't get hounded from one court to the other by copyright holders.

It's funny how the proponents of Net Neutrality are always the first to point out that Social Media companies are "private and can do whatever they want". It must be nice to have principles that are this flexible.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
You absolutely can say whatever you want in the public and the consequences, much like the responsibility, are personal. You are offloading your responsibility to Unfriend idiots onto Facebook by depriving the idiot of the right to speak.

I'm not seeing the distinction. You offload your responsibility to stop hearing idiots yell about conspiracy theories in public onto police or third-party security officers. Either way the offender is removed from the equation. The only other option is letting the offender stick around and drive everyone else off, which is obviously terrible for business. And at the end of the day, like all capitalist ventures, social media sites are far more beholden to their bottom line (advertisers) than they are to the government.

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
I'm not seeing the distinction. You offload your responsibility to stop hearing idiots yell about conspiracy theories in public onto police or third-party security officers. Either way the offender is removed from the equation. The only other option is letting the offender stick around and drive everyone else off, which is obviously terrible for business.

...and the police does what, exactly? If the speech is not illegal, it is permissable by definition. You fail to see the distinction because you fail to understand the ramifications of operating as a public platform. I'm pretty much wasting my breath here, but I'll state it to the audience - we are not like Facebook. GBAtemp is a privately owned website. As such, membership is a privilege, not a right, and it is conditional on following our rules board. We are responsible for the content hosted on the site and reserve the right to remove content if we deem it to be in violation of the rules. We directly and plainly state that content is moderated and may be removed from the site if the staff decides that it warrants deletion. We do our best to provide a fair environment to share ideas, but that's our choice, not obligation. Facebook, due to its chosen nature of business, does not operate in this fashion. If they make the estimation that their users must be moderated for content, they accept the mantle of responsibility similar to ours. There are only two futures ahead of us - one were certain websites are allowed to legally discriminate without any responsibility on their end and one where sites are treated equally.

EDIT: Just to be clear, any website that allows users to upload content is covered by the same DMCA regulations as Facebook, what I mean to say is that they apply somewhat differently, and the reasons for that stem purely from our size. I think I explained that earlier, but I just wanted to be a little clearer.

Freezerbomb · May 17, 2019

Burlsol said:
These sites are privately owned. Free Speech protections do not apply for very good reason.

The problem with that is it’s creating “echo chambers.” Why is that wrong? Because it’s making people tribalistic and self righteous. It maybe necessary to ban privately owned public social networks.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
...and the police does what, exactly? If the speech is not illegal, it is permissable by definition.

Usually just drive them a few miles away and drop them off where they won't bother anybody. Or jail them if they were getting too aggressive with people. There's no mental healthcare infrastructure in this country, after all, so getting the proper care for the individual isn't an option.

Foxi4 said:
We are not a public platform, GBAtemp is a privately owned website. As such, membership is a privilege, not a right

I simply have no idea where you got the idea that that Facebook is a publicly-owned platform. They're publicly traded, but they're still a private company. They don't get any more exemption for copyrighted content than the rest of the internet, either. You can't just post links to torrent downloads and shit on Facebook/Reddit/etc. Pretty much the only stuff that doesn't end up getting taken down on most social media falls under parody law or fair use.

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
Usually just drive them a few miles away and drop them off where they won't bother anybody. Or jail them if they were getting too aggressive with people. There's no mental healthcare infrastructure in this country, after all, so getting the proper care for the individual isn't an option.

I simply have no idea where you got the idea that that Facebook is a publicly-owned platform. They're publicly traded, but they're still a private company. They don't get any more exemption for copyrighted content than the rest of the internet, either. You can't just post links to torrent downloads and shit on Facebook/Reddit/etc. Pretty much the only stuff that doesn't end up getting taken down on most social media falls under parody law or fair use.

Where did I say that they're publicly owned? I said that they're a public platform, in the sense that they're intended for use by the public - that's how the website is advertised and that's how it operates. Are you unfamiliar with the term?

Facebook is strongly protected by Safe Harbor regulations, more so than GBAtemp, because the sheer amount of user-generated content is impossible to moderate effectively. In the case of any smaller website, any DMCA notice must be complied with in order to avoid legal action. In the case of Facebook or YouTube the process is very much internal, they simply need to show that they've implemented technology to remove infringing content - how they use it is up to them. You mentioned that challenging that would be a losing battle, it'd be a shame if someone did challenge it. Oh wait. Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal happened.

http://copyright.nova.edu/safe-harbor/

Once again, qualifying for full Safe Harbor protection has certain requirements, and the abuse of DMCA legislation should be properly addressed.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
I said that they're a public platform, in the sense that they're intended for use by the public - that's how the website is advertised and that's how it operates.

I'm willing to believe this, provided Facebook themselves state it to be true. Do you have a link to any such statement or not?

Because from my standpoint, any site that requires you to sign up for an account and agree to so many terms can't possibly be intended for use by the general public. Especially if they're selling off user data as we know they do.

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
I'm willing to believe this, provided Facebook themselves state it to be true. Do you have a link to any such statement or not?

Because from my standpoint, any site that requires you to sign up for an account and agree to so many terms can't possibly be intended for use by the general public. Especially if they're selling off user data as we know they do.

I'm not particularly interested in what you believe, nor am I interested in doing legwork for you - it fulfills the definition. If you're looking for Facebook saying as much, re-watch Zuckerberg testifying before Congress. Long story short, they're a social media platform that operates in the public space. You don't need to swipe your Facebook card that charges you Facebook Bucks to use it, it was created so that anyone can create an account and use it, or even not create one and browse the content anyways. The sole raison d'etre of a social media platform is accessibility to the public.

The problem with Facebook right now is that in the public eye and in front of Congress they present themselves as a "platform", but when they're sued they suddenly become a "publisher". They have to pick one or the other - either they claim editorial privilege or they don't. One of the posters above alluded to this already. They must pick one or the other, the contradiction has to be cleared up, because the two types of entities are treated very differently in the eyes of the law. Sadly I have to post a link to The Guardian, which I detest, but oh well.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ok-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit

notimp · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
That said, the likelihood of it ever actually happening is near zero. The internet is well beyond the US government's control by now, especially considering they get hacked by it regularly.

And then russia just created russianet. Basically.

And china has chinanet. Basically.

And the US have US and europe net. Basically. And the rest of the world net.

Now china wants to create europes 5G based mobile internet (new internet TM). And the US goes bonkers. (Strongarming countries into not going with Huawei equipment. Like literally saying - we will exclude you from all our intelligence findings/sharing, if you do.)

Just saying.

In all of those instances except for maybe the last one - but neh..

its about routing.

So russia and china want to be able to look into packets going into and out of their country (Because everyone has seen the US doing so.) while preventing others to do it to them, while maybe - just maybe... looking at the traffic of other countries. Like the ones who were on the verge of revolution int he past.

You can still reroute (using a company VPN f.e.) and encrypt. But then you'll light up onsome control board.

(No, the feds arent coming for you yet - still only a new normal for our societies..

)

This:

(And then more in the months that followed -
this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ase-of-foreign-disruption-putin-idUSKCN1Q92EQ)

Clydefrosch · May 17, 2019

zomborg said:
But what if you are a conservative who is not racist and whose only offense, for example was having a picture of the cross as your profile picture?

Believe it or not my friend but by the 1990s or perhaps earlier, most conservatives had moved past racism. It's only resurfaced in recent years in an attempt to divide.

When I talk to my average black fellow citizen in the deep south they know nothing about all of these stories being propagated to stir people up. We are just as friendly as always.

none of that has anything to do with this trump tantrum about having less followers than obama?
your what if doesn't make anyone the target of any algorithm.
unless your 'cross' is burning in someones frontyard of course.

no one said that most conservatives are racist.
the point is that most racists are self-indentifying as conservative (or try to obfuscate their racism as conservatism) and on a political level, they mainly do support conservatives. there's a huge difference between the two statements.
the problem being, the right side of politics doesn't seem to have any issue recruiting their politicians from that cespool of obvious racists. because it ensures that the otherwise voting-lazy racist votes for their side.

no idea what your 'average black fellow citizens' really have to do with it either. being friendly and being racist don't necessarily exclude each other. most racists clearly don't present themselves as openly racist when they're out and about, because they know there usually are social repercussions for that.

and institutionalized racism can still be a thing and will affect people of color even if we could wish every actual racist to the moon tomorrow. that's how institutions work and how for example hiring practises get entrenched, or the idea that it's safer to just shoot a black guy because you, as a trained policeman, feel he's much more likely to pull a gun on you than a white guy.

because racism is more than just angry people openly shouting insults at people of color.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
The problem with Facebook right now is that in the public eye and in front of Congress they present themselves as a "platform", but when they're sued they suddenly become a "publisher". They have to pick one or the other - either they claim editorial privilege or they don't. One of the posters above alluded to this already. They must pick one or the other, the contradiction has to be cleared up, because the two types of entities are treated very differently in the eyes of the law. Sadly I have to post a link to The Guardian, which I detest, but oh well.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ok-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit

Look at that lol, you made a big stink about providing a source in the first paragraph and then did it at the end anyway. Not Facebook admitting it directly, but it'll do.

I have no issue with cracking down on corporations exploiting legal loopholes on a whim to benefit themselves, but let's be honest: that's not what the Trump administration cares about here. They're just worried about what will benefit them politically, and allowing far-right extremism to flourish on social media accomplishes that. I detest Facebook and Zuckerbot, but on a business level, I still wouldn't recommend they cede any operational control to the government, who has their own obvious agenda.

Foxi4 · May 17, 2019

Xzi said:
Look at that lol, you made a big stink about providing a source in the first paragraph and then did it at the end anyway. Not Facebook admitting it directly, but it'll do.

I have no issue with cracking down on corporations exploiting legal loopholes on a whim to benefit themselves, but let's be honest: that's not what the Trump administration cares about here. They're just worried about what will benefit them politically, and allowing far-right extremism to flourish on social media accomplishes that.

Ah yes, let's pull out the good 'ol "far right extremism" card, as if it actually means anything. I provided a link to Facebook claiming they're a publisher, contrary to their long-standing policy of being a platform, because a user mentioned the case earlier, not because of your request. If it coincidentally fulfilled your odd requirement of providing evidence of the obvious then that's great - a two-for-one, if you will. Let's be clear, the legislation surrounding copyright and the Internet is antiquated and needs to be revamped for the modern age - which administration does it and why is immaterial to me as long as it serves my principles. As far as I'm concerned, the government shouldn't be involved in these matters at all, however since it has already inserted itself into the online marketplace of ideas and destabilised the playing field, it must be put to task again to straighten things out. Sadly, in all of time, the only method to combat the government was more government, so I have to lean towards a working solution because I'm pragmatic. I would have zero issues with Facebook operating however it wants if we weren't dealing with a cabal of companies that are clearly geared to exclude any and all alternative services that have a chance to achieve a modicum of success. If Facebook desperately wants users to be liable for the content they post instead of being relentlessly sued then it must necessarily waive the right to moderate the content said users post, that's how a true social media platform should operate. If it wants to operate as a publisher and review content that is posted, it must necessarily accept the responsibility for the content it reviewed and abjectly failed to address. If it's a weird beast in-between the two then that must be addressed and regulated, just like any other service on the market. In my eyes, the Internet is an equivalent of going outside - there are public establishments ran by the government, there are private establishments ran by citizens and there are open, public spaces. These three have their equivalents on the Internet and Facebook, much like other social media companies, have to decide which one they represent. It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened - the government split the Bells before, they can do it again if it is determined that Facebook's iron grip is so tight that nobody else can compete by providing an equivalent service.

Xzi · May 17, 2019

Foxi4 said:
Let's be clear, the legislation surrounding copyright and the Internet is antiquated and needs to be revamped for the modern age - which administration does it and why is immaterial to me as long as it serves my principles.

I agree on the former, but the latter is a bit of a contradiction if your 'principles' dictate that the reforms are done correctly. Trump has no fucking clue when it comes to technology on any scale, and I dare say neither does anybody in his entire administration. We can't have fucking buffoons setting the rules governing the internet, or odds are that things will be even worse and more restrictive than before.

Trump Launches Website to Report Social Media Censorship

Instructional Designer

Endless Trash

Instructional Designer

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Likes tacos

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Endless Trash

Time to fly, 621

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum