This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
- I'm actually interested in this subject. Why are greater privacy protections bad? Because that's my understanding of what GDPR means, greater protection of private data.
I haven't really kept up with Reason, but they haven't exactly been easy on this administration. Actual censorship, based on the arbitrary whims Google/Apple/etc., and attempts to hand control of information over to monolithic tech giants is a much more grave threat to free speech than Trump's petulant beef with corporate news reporters.
I don't know that I agree with that. Trump is smashing some extremely important norms about how the government should relate to the news media and private firms. Even if he's not technically breaking any laws, I think he's a serious threat to free speech and freedom of the press.
You should. Here's their section on free speech. The article on Facebook's banning of Alex Jones raises some difficult issues.
If prestige media had done a better job over the years at informing people on the issues, instead of propagandizing and breeding an ignorant citizenry, I'd feel a little more sympathy that Trump is so openly hostile towards them. Whatever happens between Trump and whatever CNN mannequin he's at odds with, it won't be a meaningful loss to freedom of press. I have yet to see anything as chilling as Obama's use of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers, and federal surveillance of journalists, which all happened very quietly. I don't mean it as an excuse for Trump, who is awful, but he's far from a unique evil on this front.
What model are you proposing?
I don't really buy that letting commentators such as Jones say whatever they want (as long as it's not inciting violence, which perhaps you could infer from his '1776!!' rambling) is necessarily harmful because it's fake. I'm sure he has a dedicated faithful who absolutely believe in lizard shapeshifters or whatever, but he also has a lot of fans who watch him the same way grown men watch a WWE match. He's an entertainer. An absolute caricature of conspiracy mongering. How damaging was he versus the media that credulously sold us the Iraq War? Where's their accountability for fake news?
Websites like archive.fo could be useful for situations like this. It already acts like a historical record in this regard. I would like to see websites like Twitter/Facebook/youtube offer users some sort of exportable download of their own submissions before taking them offline. That seems like a fair way for them to run their platform as they see fit while allowing users to retain their own records in the event of expulsion, etc.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
The problem with a guy like Alex Jones is that he doesn't always say things that are provably false. Things like "The government puts chemicals in the atmosphere!" or "The libs want to take your guns away!" are not false statements. Even a phrase such as "The Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors!" is not necessarily false, depending on which definition is used for the word 'actors'.
Who exactly is attempting to "hand control of information over to monolithic tech giants?" Do you mean customers doing so voluntarily? Are you saying people are a grave threat to their own free speech? That doesn't make any sense.
Disgusting. And exactly what was to be expected when our nation "choose" this path (which didn't begin with, but has reached new heights, with the election of this Administration).
The principle of Navigable waterways is older than the US presence here, this stuff has been tearing up our coast for decades now.
Apparently they brought her back after it got international attention, but...
Thanks for posting. I've seen instances of people suspended for less. I think the problem is (as we know here) reporting by itself can drive a suspension. She said something extremely upsetting, it angered people, they reported her in large numbers, she got suspended. I think twitter and FB both have a technical problem in that the machine / algorithms really can't distinguish subtle differences in substance. So 'the world would be better off if x dies' vs 'I wish x would die' vs 'someone needs to kill x' are not really things a data program can evaluate fairly. I think frequently even if mods are involved given the number of posts on twitter it might be impossible.
Thanks, for what it's worth I actually read this. I'm not going to get into details of who she is or what she claims to represent, but it seems to me she said something highly offensive on social media and she thought she had been banned but instead she was suspended for a short time. Also as I understand it twitter does keep the line open for people seeking to communicate about their suspensions/bans. I get the impression sometimes that some of the right wing folks don't really understand how this works technically. Just as an example I think words like "die" and "kill" and other terms can likely automatically catch the attention of programs designed to prevent offensive content. It's definitely not a fair cop but that's technology.
No doubt we'll here more about this "in a couple weeks". Or never. How does never sound?
Classic projection strategy. "Everyone else is an evil, sociopathic narcissist. I am the only person who can be trusted."
From the comments:
Sad to hear this, they’ve done some great journalism over the years. I’m surprised they’re not even maintaining a web presence.
Welcome to the new world order
Stopping the spread of fake news (by which I mean actual fake news, the original usage of that phrase, not the new usage introduced by the current President) is important, but hard to do in a consistent, fair, effective way. Deferring to generally reputable fact-checkers, as Facebook is doing, seems like a pretty good effort. Maybe it can be improved upon. Probably no method will be perfect.
I'd agree more if other articles with misleading headlines were stopped as well. But we both know they are not, not by the fact checkers until this one.
That seems like something the fact-checkers should get on the ball with. What is FactCheck.org doing these days, just eating pizza and watching Netflix?
Seems to me that until now, the fact checkers were checking the substance of articles, not quibbling about headlines, and that the Weekly Standard decided to change that.
Bravo to The Weekly Standard. The headlines are more important since they're at least 80% of what people read.
