unckeyherb
Footballguy
I thought the same thing.
ETA as what you are saying. Don't see how that's a conservative "own".
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Facebook Whistleblower is a Trojan Horse for Censorship (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Max Power
- Start date
ETA as what you are saying. Don't see how that's a conservative "own".
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
This was discussed a lot in the excellent Qanon documentary on HBO. The creator of 8chan Fredrick Brennan talks a lot about how he created 8chan as a safe haven for free speech. He realized not long later what that really meant and how vile and disgusting it can become. The whole thing raises some very interesting discussion points.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Yeah that doc was a trip. I think the biggest factor, or one of the biggest, is the anonymity prescribed by these sites. It gives people the ability to act so abhorrently, when in reality they'd never do so.
dkp993
Footballguy
100%. As it does even here in the super tame land of FBG’s. People say and do things here they never would if they were standing face to face with the other person.
In regards to that doc, I’ve never considered myself a sheltered or “inexperienced” person. I’ve had a very rich and full life. I was straight up blown away by how some (and that some is a pretty large number apparently) live their lives. The internet is a dark and very disturbing place.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anyone would describe Greenwald as a traditional conservative. Rather, he is (currently) a right-wing personality. Being a traditional conservative and being a right-wing personality often have nothing to do with each other these days. See, for example: Donald Trump.
If you want to know why someone would call Greenwald a right-wing personality, start by observing that he goes on right-wing shows and says things that right-wingers applaud, but not the reverse. Look at who is cheering him and who is deriding him in this thread. I think that's a giveaway.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
This seems to be an odd take about what Frances' message was. I know many people have seen the NF doc, but I can't recommend enough the podcast Your Undivided Attention. It's by the same people and dives even further into what the doc was going for.
I fully agree that it's not an issue of censorship, it's an issue of amplification. Especially when they 100% know the harm it causes, misinformation it spreads, and divide it creates. You don't need to make it so Joe Citizen can't post X if it's toxic, but the problem is the whole business model for these sites is to push that post to the forefront b/c that's what keeps people clicking, keeps people on site, and generates the most money.
Some of their solutions on the pod (when I can understand them
) have been interesting.
I fully agree that it's not an issue of censorship, it's an issue of amplification. Especially when they 100% know the harm it causes, misinformation it spreads, and divide it creates. You don't need to make it so Joe Citizen can't post X if it's toxic, but the problem is the whole business model for these sites is to push that post to the forefront b/c that's what keeps people clicking, keeps people on site, and generates the most money.
Some of their solutions on the pod (when I can understand them
) have been interesting. 
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
I haven't seen the documentary, but back when SlateStarCodex was still a thing, Scott Alexander was very open about his struggle with what ideas to allow in the comments section, as he really didn't want to censor any viewpoints, but there are all sorts of second order effects. For instance, if everywhere else on the internet is blocking people from advocating for animal abuse except you, guess where all the pro-animal abusers end up? Fringe views are going to have a lot of overlap with some pretty broken, awful people, which can lead to a lot of difficult decisions.
dkp993
Footballguy
For sure. Highly recommend you watch the doc. The non Qanon stuff stumbles down some pretty dark holes.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Restrictions on free speech arent something we need more of. They dont make things better.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
He’s going on “right wing shows” because the left wing has decided to silence him, not because he’s right wing. The things he’s talking about, freedom of speech, truth from the fourth estate, the perils of a surveillance state, the evils of imperialistic intervention wars by the US. All used to be LIBERAL ideals. Now he’s a right winger because Tucker Carlson is the only person that’s willing to talk to him. What a crock.
Nugget
Footballguy
I was going to post about this podcast as well. I’ve really enjoyed the conversations with Daniel Schmachtenberger.This seems to be an odd take about what Frances' message was. I know many people have seen the NF doc, but I can't recommend enough the podcast Your Undivided Attention. It's by the same people and dives even further into what the doc was going for.
I fully agree that it's not an issue of censorship, it's an issue of amplification. Especially when they 100% know the harm it causes, misinformation it spreads, and divide it creates. You don't need to make it so Joe Citizen can't post X if it's toxic, but the problem is the whole business model for these sites is to push that post to the forefront b/c that's what keeps people clicking, keeps people on site, and generates the most money.
Some of their solutions on the pod (when I can understand them
They posted a new episode tonight based on the Facebook debacle this week, but I didn’t catch it before my walk. Will try to get caught up on Friday.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
it was just a brief preview episode. I guess their next full episode will be with Francis
Herb
Footballguy
You're right?
I completely believe in free speech. But how do we de-amplify the toxicity? Just don't look for it? It's ubiquitous.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Exactly. We don't need more restrictions on free speech. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to tell the companies that we don't like the amplification of crap, and ask them to change - especially when they know and understand the effects. At the very least, there should be controls on the customer's end for that type of stuff. We can't just shrug our shoulders and say "that's how social media and the internet works" when we know what it's causing.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
This sounds like a great idea. A good start at least that should find common ground. I do worry how far these things might be pushed and where we draw the line.KarmaPolice said:
Ultimately I'm for limiting material that may be harmful to people, but I also hope this review lets us reflect on our culture as a whole. Zuck did hit on a great point that Facebook is workdwide, there are certain problems that seem to be unique to America. Maybe we should figure out why that is.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If only these controls existed.KarmaPolice said:
Like if you were following somebody and they were posting radical stuff you should be able to unfollow them.
Or if there are ads you shouldnt have to click on them.
Or if there were things like ignore features or blocking features.
Somebody needs to get on this.
Max Power
Footballguy
Nugget
Footballguy
If your entire news feed was radical, how would you know? How would a 12 year old know? Do you think we should reward social media for continuing an addiction model?
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Maher is currently the most prominent champion for centrist liberals, for as long as his is allowed to do so.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Section 230, with its blanket immunity, is also unique to America. Coincidence?
Also, I'm not really sure I agree with Zuckerberg that these issues are unique to America.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
Without Trump he loses half his punchlines. Now that he has to fill his airtime speaking his mind, they are watching his takes carefully.
Max Power
Footballguy
You'll have to connect those dots for me. How is "misinformation" or claimed misinformation a bigger problem for America a result of 230?
Zuck's claims were that facebook brought other communities closer together while in America it is pushing people further apart.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Section 230 provides extremely broad, blanket immunity to the provider against basically anything anyone posts or anything the provider does in terms of censoring, not censoring, etc. That is, Facebook (et.al.) can amplify, target, or push whatever posts they want without any fear of being held liable. That doesn't exist in other countries. The algorithms for all of this are secret, of course, but do you want to bet that they're different for the US (maximize profits at all cost) versus other countries (maximize profits while staying within the boundaries of legal liability)?
I'm not at all sure I agree with this (I edited my post above to note this, but you replied too quickly). I suspect some, though likely not all, of the same issues exist in other countries.
Max Power
Footballguy
I remember hearing some other countries were fighting facebook censorship, but I don't recall the details. I don't know much about how facebook operates and what laws they need abide by in each country.
230 is going to be front and center in America. Is the arguement that it does or doesn't work?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Again, I can't encourage listening to that pod enough. Your usual snarky reply aside, that is not what we are talking about. I guess your next smart ### reply is to tell people not to use the internet?
We know that that algos push anorexia videos to girls - they've shown that happens even if you just start with healthy food info. They push pedo info, how to kill yourself, conspiracy theories, misinformation, etc.. These aps and sites are purposely formulated to keep people addicted and logging on through all the tools we have talked about - anything from the infinite scroll to notifications to outrage and misinformation.
There could be pretty quick and easy fix so that this crap is not what is amplified and suggested millions of times. You don't need to ban that, you need to not amplify the #### out of it.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I don't think they are. This is the business model, this is how it currently works.
There was one of the pods talking about the Phillipines and other countries. They are on FB and online more than any others (I think she said 8-10 hours a day). just different problems bc other countries are able to control info even more due to their governments.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
230 is complicated and, in my opinion, neither perfect as is nor the genesis of everything wrong with social media. I'll try to PM you something a little later...
Sand
Footballguy
The blue team has been a massive cheerleader for stifling of free speech under the guise of "censor anything that we deem untrue". We have seen this play out when the stifled speech ended up being true - Russian collusion, Hunter's laptop, lab leak. Over and over and over again.Rich Conway said:
yak651
Footballguy
I don't know how it's accomplished so both sides are happy but there has to be a way to prevent stories/theories that can easily be proven false from being posted on social media. I know some may say that violates rights to free speech but you aren't able to yell fire in a theatre, why can you spread a bunch of lies that rile people up? Families and friendships are being torn apart by this and no way the country is going to come together with the current state of affairs.
yak651
Footballguy
And the red team has been a massive cheerleader for stifling of free speech under the guise of "fake news". We have seen this play our when they stifled speech ended up being true - paying off mistress, no contact with Russia, Covid no big deal. Over and over and over again.
Max Power
Footballguy
Calling something fake news and censoring that news are two different things. Not even in the same ballpark really.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I've seen some odd lines drawn in the sand in the last couple years as to what people think businesses should and shouldn't be allowed to do when decided what's best for them and how they want their business to allow.
That said, I would much rather these sites adjust their algos and amplification methods vs. trying to pick and choose what they take down. Misinformation isn't an issue if the 10 knuckleheads that want it are getting it vs. that stuff being pushed to the forefront because that's what generates clicks/views/$$.
Left-wing shows didn't silence him; they stopped inviting him on their shows. (He's not silenced since he still goes on right-wing shows.)unckeyherb said:
I think it's lame that right-wing entertainment shows on news channels* refuse to bring on guests who lean left, and left-wing entertainment shows on news channels refuse to bring on guests who lean right. They're responding to their audiences' preferences, I suppose. Left-leaning viewers like having MSNBC as their safe space, and right-leaning viewers like having Fox. It's regrettable, but I don't know what to do about it: it's just an upshot of capitalism.
I'd much prefer a world with more cross-over, less people sealing themselves off in bubbles.
The point remains, though, that Greenwald is currently part of the right-wing ecosystem, not part of the left-wing ecosystem. Describing him as a member of the left is very much like describing Alan Dershowitz as a member of the left: it's years out of date.
__________
*Actual news shows don't have guests, I don't think.
Last edited by a moderator:
yak651
Footballguy
Is there really a difference between not letting news get out or making it so no one believes the news that gets out? I can see where you are coming from but in my opinion I think it's pretty similar when you can get a large group of people to believe a proven fact is not true.
Yes, this is why it's a difficult issue. Amplifying speech is itself a form of speech, and we might not want the government telling people what kind of speech they're allowed to amplify even if it were constitutionally permissible.KarmaPolice said:
I approve of two mutually contradictory principles:
1. Spreading and amplifying stupid conspiracy theories and other harmful misinformation is bad, and it'd be nice if we could make people stop.
2. Freedom of speech is good, and the government shouldn't abridge it.
I'm really against stupid conspiracy theories, but I think principle #2 is the more important one if I had to choose. The issue isn't black-and-white, though, because both of those principles have fuzzy edges. Not all misinformation is protected speech; and not all restrictions on speech amount to unconstitutional censorship. Maybe it's possible to regulate algorithms prone to amplifying misinformation? I don't know -- it's complicated, it will depend on the details, and I haven't spent enough time studying the issue to have a worthwhile opinion about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
We can tell them that with our clicks. The problem is that we're telling them the opposite because it's not true. We do like the amplification of crap.KarmaPolice said:
Jimmy Dore is the most annoying human being on the planet. (No offense to him -- somebody has to hold that title.)
Russell Brand and Bill Maher are important voices, entertainingly articulating valid positions. The people on the left who ignore them (or try to suppress them) do so in serious error, IMO.
Max Power
Footballguy
I think a fake news claim can be "debunked" in the open like the good old days. Shutting down media who claimed covid leaked from the Wuhan lab, limits the critical thinking and discussion on the topic. It's also an example that came full circle and should be a warning to us all about censoring information.
Max Power
Footballguy
I will give you Jimmy is a hard listen for more than 10 minutes at a time. I think thats why he keeps his youtube clips under that. I do appreciate that he lets his guests talk without much interruption.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Right...the difference is actually worse for the right. The pushing not to trust came from the actual top. From POTUS. The push to not "let news get out" is coming from platforms themself (not the government).
-fish-
Footballguy
Hunter Biden conspiracy, Merrick Garland conspiracy, vaccine conspiracy, mask conspiracy, Biden is CGI conspiracy, election fraud conspiracy, Biden and Harris will both resign so Pelosi takes power...you can find all of this and more in the Gateway Pundit and Conservative Treehouse. Knowledge Dropper can tell you how to sign up for their daily talking points.unckeyherb said:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
yes/no. if the business model is when I search for x to throw 90% outrage and #### at me, imo that is a lot to ask Joe internet to wade through. if my kid looks up exercise tips and gets anorexia videos, that's an issue.
imo it's so bad and broken we basically have to quit internet and SM to accomplish what you are saying.
-fish-
Footballguy
Like election fraud? Trump is still beating that drum and his followers are marching to the beat.
Max Power
Footballguy
And Trump was kicked off social media. I think he is on GAB now though. You think it's a better idea to censor all electon fraud claims?
unckeyherb
Footballguy
What channel they are on?
ETA: I mean, you aren't possibly equating CNN and MSNBC with Gateway Pundit or Infowars, right? If people want to search the internet and find bad information they will do it. Do you think the aforementioned news orgs have a little more reqponsibility to not push conspiracy theories than Alex Jones?
Last edited by a moderator:
In the overall marketplace, I think it's good for different platforms to have different moderation policies. The ones with the better moderation policies will hopefully gain marketshare at the expense of the ones with worse moderation policies.
Personally, I'm more likely to visit platforms that limit trolling and propaganda and the intentional spread of misinformation. Other people with different preferences might want to spend time on GAB. It's good if both choices are offered, IMO.
Similar threads
