What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official*** Free Speech Thread (1 Viewer)

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 have no issue with the result in this particular case. The headline in the Think Progress article was misleading. The Weekly Standard was right to call it out. Headlines are important. They are much more widely read than the actual story. Think Progress ruined a perfectly good article with a misleading headline. They should get the message and stop doing that if they want their articles to be widely shared on Facebook. That would be good for democracy.
I think this is the classic case of good article, awful headline. And frankly this goes on at very respectable places like the NYT & WaPo. I'd like to think this might actually help publications tone down the noise in their headlines, but then a site like TP is trying to draw readers who feel very passionately about liberal and progressive causes in. There's some tail wagging dogs here, but then I'm guessing in the days of the big newspaper something similar was forced upon the wire reporters like UPI & AP.

 
Last week, the liberal publication ThinkProgress published a piece on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing with the headline “Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade and almost no one noticed.” ...

The claim in the article itself, that Kavanaugh had all but openly said he would vote to repeal Roe v. Wade during his testimony, was defensible, and both conservative and liberal legal scholars find the legal analysis underpinning Millhiser’s piece sound.

But the headline really is too far: Kavanaugh did not literally say he would overturn Roe, and a lot of readers don’t get past the headline. Many people probably saw that and left with the impression that Kavanaugh said words in his testimony that he didn’t.
- Otoh I have to say you have to give people a little literary license. Try writing that headline in an interesting way without running afoul of the literalness police.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think this is the classic case of good article, awful headline. And frankly this goes on at very respectable places like the NYT & WaPo. I'd like to think this might actually help publications tone down the noise in their headlines, but then a site like TP is trying to draw readers who feel very passionately about liberal and progressive causes in. There's some tail wagging dogs here, but then I'm guessing in the days of the big newspaper something similar was forced upon the wire reporters like UPI & AP.
It won't change anything regarding headlines. The Weekly Standard will back off doing their vetoes, and the fact-checking will go on as it did before. This time is only different because conservatives who complain about internet censorship are confronted with a conservative fact-checker changing how it's done to shut down a liberal article. And suddenly a few of them think headlines are more important than the substance of articles, because defend our side.

 
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).

Really terrible, awful and Anti-American to the core.  
Hillary should be president, she won by over 3,000,000 votes. This whole administration needs to go to prison. They are destroying our country.

 
Texas is fresh off updating approved thought in their school curriculum. Billy Graham, the impeachment trial of former President Clinton and Moses get to stay, but Hillary Clinton, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Hobbes and Helen Keller are banished. They also deleted the phrase "such as holding public officials to their word" from a fourth-grade unit on civic participation.

Yes, Helen Keller.

"Helen Keller does not best represent the concept of citizenship. Military and first responders are best represented."

 
Texas is fresh off updating approved thought in their school curriculum. Billy Graham, the impeachment trial of former President Clinton and Moses get to stay, but Hillary Clinton, Barry Goldwater, Thomas Hobbes and Helen Keller are banished. They also deleted the phrase "such as holding public officials to their word" from a fourth-grade unit on civic participation.

Yes, Helen Keller.
Hillary Clinton banished?  Who will they banish next?  Benedict Arnold?

 
Add James Woods to the list of snowflakes who don't understand the first amendment.

Actor James Woods has been locked out of his Twitter account over a tweet he sent out months ago that was found to be in violation of Twitter’s rules.

The tweet was posted July 20 and includes a hoax meme that said it came from Democrats and encouraged men not to vote in the midterm elections. Woods got an email from Twitter on Thursday saying the tweet “has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.” The email says Woods can use his account again if he deletes the tweet.

In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, Woods said this means he’ll be allowed back on Twitter only if he decides to do what Twitter says. He says he won’t do that, and he won’t delete the tweet.

“Free speech is free speech — it’s not Jack Dorsey’s version of free speech,” Woods said, referring to Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey.

 
Free Speech is free speech...it is a concept that extends beyond the first amendment which only addresses the government.

often, though, with the cozy relationship that many large companies have with the government, the company may just be the glove while government entities are the hand...

the other issues at hand are:

- are the social media networks simply networks to communicate, or are they curators of content?  If they are curators, then they inherit a lot of legal liability for the content that gets posted

- to what extent is a social network with an exceedingly large reach a “public forum”

i cite Marsh v Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama And the recent ruling against Trump being able to block users on Twitter https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trump-cant-block-twitter-followers-federal-judge-says.html of examples of cases where company owned resources were still considered public forums.

 
Free Speech is free speech...it is a concept that extends beyond the first amendment which only addresses the government.
Every once in a while, I agree with Rove. James Woods has some weird views, but he didn’t mention anything about the First Amendment as quoted in that article.

It’s okay in principle to criticize Twitter for failing to uphold the ideals and spirit of free speech while acknowledging that it has no constitutional duty to do so. (Though in this case, I think such criticism is misplaced. It’s good that Twitter, in a non-ideological way that doesn’t discriminate against any philosophical viewpoint, is trying to stop the spread of fake news in the form of hoax memes.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Every once in a while, I agree with Rove. James Woods has some weird views, but he didn’t mention anything about the First Amendment as quoted in that article.

It’s okay in principle to criticize Twitter for failing to uphold the ideals and spirit of free speech while acknowledging that it has no constitutional duty to do so. (Though in this case, I think such criticism is misplaced. It’s good that Twitter, in a non-ideological way that doesn’t discriminate against any philosophical viewpoint, is trying to stop the spread of fake news in the form of hoax memes.)
But Woods is not spreading fake news...he is sharing a satire, and joking that with how crazy the left has been these days he wouldn’t be surprised if it was real.

i would also say that Twitter clearly does discriminate against philosophical viewpoints, even by the admissions of some of their own employees...

 
But Woods is not spreading fake news...he is sharing a satire, and joking that with how crazy the left has been these days he wouldn’t be surprised if it was real.

i would also say that Twitter clearly does discriminate against philosophical viewpoints, even by the admissions of some of their own employees...
Well one "philosophical viewpoint" tends to share massive amounts of fake news stories, lying memes and infographics, among other disinformation.

 
But Woods is not spreading fake news...he is sharing a satire, and joking that with how crazy the left has been these days he wouldn’t be surprised if it was real.

i would also say that Twitter clearly does discriminate against philosophical viewpoints, even by the admissions of some of their own employees...
I didn't actually look at the hoax meme in question, so you may be right that it's legitimate parody rather than fake news. Knowing Woods, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt in general, but without seeing the tweet in question, I shouldn't make assumptions.

 
https://fair.org/home/facebooks-new-propaganda-partners/

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

Facebook’s New Propaganda Partners

ALAN MACLEOD

Media giant Facebook recently announced (Reuters, 9/19/18) it would combat “fake news” by partnering with two propaganda organizations founded and funded by the US government: the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The social media platform was already working closely with the NATO-sponsored Atlantic Council think tank (FAIR.org, 5/21/18).

In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the “fake news” issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebook’s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams(5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan government–backed TeleSur English and the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.

The Washington, DC–based NDI and IRI are staffed with senior Democratic and Republican politicians; the NDI is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while the late Sen. John McCain was the longtime IRI chair. Both groups were created in 1983 as arms of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Cold War enterprise backed by then–CIA director William Casey (Jacobin, 3/7/18). That these two US government creations, along with a NATO offshoot like the Atlantic Council, are used by Facebook to distinguish real from fake news is effectively state censorship.

Soon after it partnered with the Atlantic Council, Facebook moved to delete accounts and pages connected with Iranian broadcasting channels (CNBC, 8/23/18), while The Intercept (12/30/17) reported that in 2017 the social media platform met with Israeli government officials to discuss which Palestinian voices it should censor. Ninety-five percent of Israeli government requests for deletion were granted. Thus the US government and its allies are effectively using the platform to silence dissenting opinion, both at home and on the world stage, controlling what Facebook‘s 2 billion users see and do not see.

Public trust in government is at 18 percent—an all-time low (Pew, 12/14/17). There is similar mistrust of Facebook, with only 20 percent of Americans agreeing social media sites do a good job separating fact from fiction. And yet, worldwide, Facebook is a crucial news source. Fifty-two percent of Brazilians, 61 percent of Mexicans, and 51 percent of Italians and Turks use the platform for news; 39 percent of the US gets their news from the site.

This means that, despite the fact that even its own public mistrusts it, the US government has effectively become the arbiter of what the world sees and hears, with the ability to marginalize or simply delete news from organizations or countries that do not share its opinions. This power could be used at sensitive times, like elections. This is not an idle threat. The US created an entire fake social network for Cubans that aimed to stir unrest and overthrow the Cuban government, according to the Guardian (4/3/14).

That a single corporation has such a monopoly over the flow of worldwide news is already problematic, but the increasing meshing of corporate and US government control over the means of communication is particularly worrying. All those who believe in free and open exchange of information should oppose Facebook becoming a tool of US foreign policy.

 
Are #resisters relieved that their dismay over fake news and Russian disinformation has now manifested itself in the stratification of monolithic tech giants, Silicon Valley billionaires, states, and militarist thinktanks deciding what does and doesn't constitute real news for billions of people?  

 
https://fair.org/home/facebooks-new-propaganda-partners/

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

Facebook’s New Propaganda Partners

ALAN MACLEOD

Media giant Facebook recently announced (Reuters, 9/19/18) it would combat “fake news” by partnering with two propaganda organizations founded and funded by the US government: the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The social media platform was already working closely with the NATO-sponsored Atlantic Council think tank (FAIR.org, 5/21/18).

In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the “fake news” issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebook’s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams(5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan government–backed TeleSur English and the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.

The Washington, DC–based NDI and IRI are staffed with senior Democratic and Republican politicians; the NDI is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while the late Sen. John McCain was the longtime IRI chair. Both groups were created in 1983 as arms of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Cold War enterprise backed by then–CIA director William Casey (Jacobin, 3/7/18). That these two US government creations, along with a NATO offshoot like the Atlantic Council, are used by Facebook to distinguish real from fake news is effectively state censorship.

Soon after it partnered with the Atlantic Council, Facebook moved to delete accounts and pages connected with Iranian broadcasting channels (CNBC, 8/23/18), while The Intercept (12/30/17) reported that in 2017 the social media platform met with Israeli government officials to discuss which Palestinian voices it should censor. Ninety-five percent of Israeli government requests for deletion were granted. Thus the US government and its allies are effectively using the platform to silence dissenting opinion, both at home and on the world stage, controlling what Facebook‘s 2 billion users see and do not see.

Public trust in government is at 18 percent—an all-time low (Pew, 12/14/17). There is similar mistrust of Facebook, with only 20 percent of Americans agreeing social media sites do a good job separating fact from fiction. And yet, worldwide, Facebook is a crucial news source. Fifty-two percent of Brazilians, 61 percent of Mexicans, and 51 percent of Italians and Turks use the platform for news; 39 percent of the US gets their news from the site.

This means that, despite the fact that even its own public mistrusts it, the US government has effectively become the arbiter of what the world sees and hears, with the ability to marginalize or simply delete news from organizations or countries that do not share its opinions. This power could be used at sensitive times, like elections. This is not an idle threat. The US created an entire fake social network for Cubans that aimed to stir unrest and overthrow the Cuban government, according to the Guardian (4/3/14).

That a single corporation has such a monopoly over the flow of worldwide news is already problematic, but the increasing meshing of corporate and US government control over the means of communication is particularly worrying. All those who believe in free and open exchange of information should oppose Facebook becoming a tool of US foreign policy.
Ministry of Truth...

 
Are #resisters relieved that their dismay over fake news and Russian disinformation has now manifested itself in the stratification of monolithic tech giants, Silicon Valley billionaires, states, and militarist thinktanks deciding what does and doesn't constitute real news for billions of people?  
This was the the plan all along even before the election...

 
I for one am all for Facebook and Twitter censoring lies and the liars that spread them.  You want to post false propaganda, start up DeplorableBook or Sh!tter and have at it.
But that's not what's happening.  The NED and Atlantic Council are propaganda organizations themselves.  Are you ok with them deciding what constitutes truth and what doesn't, for billions of users?  

 
But that's not what's happening.  The NED and Atlantic Council are propaganda organizations themselves.  Are you ok with them deciding what constitutes truth and what doesn't, for billions of users?  
Not knowing much about them, I probably am okay with it. They’re probably not propaganda organizations themselves. If it turns out I’m not okay with it, I’ll plan to get my information about stupid political stuff from some social media site that doesn’t use them. Or even better, I won’t plan to get my information about stupid political stuff from a social media site at all.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Not knowing much about them, I probably am okay with it. 
Well, you should.  They're deciding what is and isn't 'real news' for billions of people.  You might not get your news from facebook (I don't either) but if FB and Twitter are essentially the new public square, it's important they have a clearly delineated terms of service, and not arbitrarily ban people from it because a particular government or military thinktank doesn't like them.  I'm sure you can see the danger in that.  

Facebook announced Thursday it was partnering with DC think tank the Atlantic Council to “monitor for misinformation and foreign interference.” The details of the plan are vague, but Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab wrote in a non-bylined Medium post (

5/17/18) that the goal was to design tools “to bring us closer together” instead of “driving us further apart.” Whatever that means, exactly.

Behind its generic-sounding name and “nonpartisan” label, the Atlantic Council is associated with very particular interests. It’s funded by the US Department of State and the US Navy, Army and Air Force, along with NATO, various foreign powers and major Western corporations, including weapons contractors and oil companies. The Atlantic Council is dead center in what former President Obama’s deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes called “the blob”—Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy consensus. While there is some diversity of opinion within the Atlantic Council, it is within a very limited pro-Western ideological framework—a framework that debates how much and where US military and soft power influence should be wielded, not if it should in the first place.

When a venture that’s supposedly meant to curb “foreign influence” is bankrolled by a number of foreign countries—including the United Arab Emirates, Britain, Norway, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea—one would think that would be worth noting. Nor should US government money be exempt from the “foreign” qualifier with its suggestion of malicious influence; to most of Facebook’s 2.2 billion users, after all, the United States is a foreign country. (It should be noted the US government reserves the right to run unattributed propaganda on Facebook, and there’s much evidence they have. Needless to say, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab hasn’t done any work in this space.)

https://fair.org/home/media-ignore-government-influence-on-facebooks-plan-to-fight-government-influence
Here's the time Ben Nimmo, from the Atlantic Council's "Digital Forensic Research Lab," falsely accused a famed Ukrainian-American concert pianist of being a Russian bot.  This is the sort of clown that gets to decide what defines propaganda on facebook.  

This is where it was always going from the very beginning.  Inordinately powerful institutions discrediting independent media, applying pressure to generally open platforms like fb/twitter, and controlling the types of information that billions of users are exposed to.  

If someone prefers to be ignorant about this and pretend it doesn't pose a threat to free expression, they are welcome to do that, but I think people owe it to themselves to get educated on what's happening here.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inordinately powerful institutions discrediting independent media
Like the president and members of the Republican party trying to discredit news sources. Couldn't agree more on that point.

If someone prefers to be ignorant about this and pretend it doesn't pose a threat to free expression, they are welcome to do that, but I think people owe it to themselves to get educated on what's happening here
Yep.

 
Like the president and members of the Republican party trying to discredit news sources. Couldn't agree more on that point.

Yep.
Legacy "how dare you sir" papers that routinely kiss the ring for access and are typically owned by billionaires aren't what I would call independent.

 
Now summarize the differences between the 2 articles for the class.
The Breitbart article is Cobbled together from a number source, so it has more detail.  Why don’t you share with the class, what claims in the article you believe are fabricated.....

 
Harnett County, North Carolina had a Patriotic theme for their football game last Friday night.  One student wore a red, white, and blue Trump #45 jersey.  Some parents in the crowd started whining and the principal then removed the student from the crowd.   The principal was fired today.  

God, people are dumb.  Triggered over a jersey that fits the theme pushed by the school.  Principal losing her job over her politics.  

 
This is a free speech issue?

Didn't know there was a First Amendment right to have a Facebook page or that a private social media company should not be allowed to regulate their membership as they see fit.
The OP clearly states the thread is not limited to the notion of free speech as affected by the First Amendment.

 
The OP clearly states the thread is not limited to the notion of free speech as affected by the First Amendment.
And he didn't state that people shouldn't point out the First Amendment does not apply in specific incidences, either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a free speech issue?

Didn't know there was a First Amendment right to have a Facebook page or that a private social media company should not be allowed to regulate their membership as they see fit.
If facebook is essentially the new public square, and billions of people get their news primarily from facebook, then they should have a clearly delineated terms of service, and not just arbitrarily banish divergent opinions from their platform.  They shouldn’t partner with militarist thinktanks to decide what is and isn’t real news.  

These pages didn’t violate the terms of service any more than millions of other pages.  So why were they deleted?  

 
If facebook is essentially the new public square, and billions of people get their news primarily from facebook, then they should have a clearly delineated terms of service, and not just arbitrarily banish divergent opinions from their platform.  They shouldn’t partner with militarist thinktanks to decide what is and isn’t real news.  

These pages didn’t violate the terms of service any more than millions of other pages.  So why were they deleted?  
It is their company. They should be able to do what they please. They didn't break any laws. Always amazed as conservatives wanting the conduct of private companies regulated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is their company. They should be able to do what they please. They didn't break any laws. Always amazed as conservatives wanting the conduct of private companies regulated.
I’m not a conservative, and I don’t want them to be regulated.  I’m being critical of an obtuse policy that’s obviously meant to censor discussion of controversial subjects under the guise of the fake news pandemic.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top