I think the position of Twitter/Facebook/etc on these things has been made pretty clear - politicians are quite literally allowed to break the rules, purportedly because it's important for the public to see that they broke the rules. It'll take more than a little political pressure to make them change their minds on that.
Does that count for people like the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? That's a political position, too. Or the head of ISIS.
First one yes, second one no. We've seen more than enough examples on how Twitter enforces their rules.
Yeaah, melanin count, or genetic measure of caucasity, goes a long way to determining treatment by social media.
Though not disproportionately from society at large.
I think the position of Twitter/Facebook/etc on these things has been made pretty clear - politicians are quite literally allowed to break the rules, purportedly because it's important for the public to see that they broke the rules. It'll take more than a little political pressure to make them change their minds on that.
Politicians are allowed to break the rules because it makes these companies money. If I brought several million $s worth of traffic to Facebook every day, they'd let me say whatever I wanted as well.
I think the position of Twitter/Facebook/etc on these things has been made pretty clear - politicians are quite literally allowed to break the rules, purportedly because it's important for the public to see that they broke the rules. It'll take more than a little political pressure to make them change their minds on that.
Politicians are allowed to break the rules because it makes these companies money. If I brought several million $s worth of traffic to Facebook every day, they'd let me say whatever I wanted as well.
And Donald Trump is the best thing that has happened to Twitter in years, maybe ever.
I think the position of Twitter/Facebook/etc on these things has been made pretty clear - politicians are quite literally allowed to break the rules, purportedly because it's important for the public to see that they broke the rules. It'll take more than a little political pressure to make them change their minds on that.
Politicians are allowed to break the rules because it makes these companies money. If I brought several million $s worth of traffic to Facebook every day, they'd let me say whatever I wanted as well.
And Donald Trump is the best thing that has happened to Twitter in years, maybe ever.
Until Russia decides to turn off the troll farm, anyway
If ever there was a surefire way to sour users against a two-factor authentication system that was already highly flawed, Twitter has found it. On Tuesday, the social media site said that it used phone numbers and email addresses provided for 2FA protection to tailor ads to users.
Twitter requires users to provide a valid phone number to be eligible for 2FA protection. A working cell phone number is mandatory even when users' 2FA protection is based solely on security keys or authenticator apps, which don't rely on phone numbers to work. Deleting a phone number from a user's Twitter settings immediately withdraws an account from Twitter 2FA, as I confirmed just prior to publishing this post.
Security and privacy advocates have long grumbled about this requirement, which isn't a condition of using 2FA protection from Google, Github, and other top-ranked sites. On Tuesday, Twitter gave critics a new reason to complain. The site said it may have inadvertently used email addresses and phone numbers provided for 2FA and other security purposes to match users to marketing lists provided by advertisers. Twitter didn't say if the number of users affected by the blunder was in the hundreds or the millions or how long the improper targeting lasted.
If ever there was a surefire way to sour users against a two-factor authentication system that was already highly flawed, Twitter has found it. On Tuesday, the social media site said that it used phone numbers and email addresses provided for 2FA protection to tailor ads to users.
Twitter requires users to provide a valid phone number to be eligible for 2FA protection. A working cell phone number is mandatory even when users' 2FA protection is based solely on security keys or authenticator apps, which don't rely on phone numbers to work. Deleting a phone number from a user's Twitter settings immediately withdraws an account from Twitter 2FA, as I confirmed just prior to publishing this post.
Security and privacy advocates have long grumbled about this requirement, which isn't a condition of using 2FA protection from Google, Github, and other top-ranked sites. On Tuesday, Twitter gave critics a new reason to complain. The site said it may have inadvertently used email addresses and phone numbers provided for 2FA and other security purposes to match users to marketing lists provided by advertisers. Twitter didn't say if the number of users affected by the blunder was in the hundreds or the millions or how long the improper targeting lasted.
Not sure how many here follow her, Lindsay Ellis a well regarded YouTube and Internet critic allowed the XOXO convention to put out on YouTube her talk from this year. In it she doesn't go into detail but does speak around the issues she has had to deal with as being a person who says things on the internet. The brigading, the harassment, and the general fuckery which comes making a living from producing videos, books, and so forth in our times.
Here's one of the XOXO creators tweets about the talk:
One of the most salient points made is the supreme lack of any kind of support system put in place by places like YouTube or Twitter to help those deal with the mental fallout that comes with being dogpiled by the Alt-Right zombie hoards. And the point which keeps going around in my own head is the nature of the abuse that these asses are doing. Lindsay calls it "bad faith tactics" in her video and that's a good label, but I feel like it misses something. I feel like that phasing misses the intent of those who are looking for someone to attack and doing the work of digging into other's past. She says several times throughout the video how these people are immune from satire, humor, and logic and points to the tweet which prompted her talk. How James Gunn's own growth as a person and previous apologies about his own bad takes is outright ignored. Because to do otherwise wouldn't give the Alt-Righters the attack surface needed. I dunno, this was just something that stuck out to me while watching. Something I think everyone who has been in this thread should do. Not just for the perspective but for Lindsay's expressions of her experience. This is someone who was able to successfully break away from Channel Awesome and that cesspit and still make a good career doing what she's doing. Yet she was taken to a breaking point by rando Alt-Right mobs who have weaponized the language of self-criticism in order to freeze out voices which would otherwise be silenced by society.
Here's her own tweet about her talk and the accompanying video.
Hampton told CNN Business that he will use his new status as a candidate to run false ads on Facebook (FB) about President Trump, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and other Facebook executives. He said he also plans to run false ads on Facebook about executives of Twitter (TWTR), which also has a policy of not fact-checking ads run by candidates.
His goal is to force Facebook to stop allowing politicians to run false ads.
He initially just started a superPAC and ran a fake ad about Lindsey Graham supporting the Green New Deal using spliced audio which was obviously fake, also the point, but Facebook took it down because, “While Facebook allows politicians to lie in ads, it does not allow PACs or other political groups to do so.”
So yesterday he registered for the California gubernatorial election and plans on dumping fake ads attacking Facebook, Zuckerberg, Trump, and Twitter until they change their stance on political ads.
"The genesis of this campaign is social media regulation and to ensure there is not an exemption in fact-checking specifically for politicians like Donald Trump who like to lie online," he told CNN Business.
He’s also encouraging others to run for election as well in order to pressure Facebook, which I think is a great thing even if Facebook ignores it, as too many Republicans run unopposed these days. That said, I’m looking forward to the mental gymnastics for why Facebook takes down his ads but not Trump’s.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Facebook put zero thought in to this policy. There's no way to ensure veracity in political ads that doesn't disproportionately affect conservatives.
Technically a true statement, because they lie all the time.
It's a problem the likes of Zuckerberg and other people who consider themselves "apolitical" have. They believe that because there are two factions of relatively equal power then those two factions must have relatively comparable ethics.
Facebook put zero thought in to this policy. There's no way to ensure veracity in political ads that doesn't disproportionately affect conservatives.
Technically a true statement, because they lie all the time.
It's a problem the likes of Zuckerberg and other people who consider themselves "apolitical" have. They believe that because there are two factions of relatively equal power then those two factions must have relatively comparable ethics.
There are plenty of studies showing that's false. Sure, there are left wing FB pages producing fake news too, but it's nowhere near as prevalent as the right wing fake news.
Maybe if enough fake ads run through facebook and twitter, society will finally learn that these are not and have never been news services
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Maybe if enough fake ads run through facebook and twitter, society will finally learn that these are not and have never been news services
Solution: Let's make a superpac to run the most absurd anti-Republican fake news and saturate social media with it. I wanna hear about Mitch McConnell's 15-year-old gay lover. I want to hear that Trump is secretly dead and being played by an actor. I want to hear that Bill Barr is hiding Jeffrey Epstein in his home. I want it all funded by Iran.
Maybe if enough fake ads run through facebook and twitter, society will finally learn that these are not and have never been news services
Solution: Let's make a superpac to run the most absurd anti-Republican fake news and saturate social media with it. I wanna hear about Mitch McConnell's 15-year-old gay lover. I want to hear that Trump is secretly dead and being played by an actor. I want to hear that Bill Barr is hiding Jeffrey Epstein in his home. I want it all funded by Iran.
THEN we might see some attention to the issue.
Facebook says they'll take down fake ads by SuperPACs. Or, well, they will if it bothers them enough. Only candidates can run fake ads, which is why that guy above is now running for governor.
Hampton told CNN Business that he will use his new status as a candidate to run false ads on Facebook (FB) about President Trump, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and other Facebook executives. He said he also plans to run false ads on Facebook about executives of Twitter (TWTR), which also has a policy of not fact-checking ads run by candidates.
His goal is to force Facebook to stop allowing politicians to run false ads.
He initially just started a superPAC and ran a fake ad about Lindsey Graham supporting the Green New Deal using spliced audio which was obviously fake, also the point, but Facebook took it down because, “While Facebook allows politicians to lie in ads, it does not allow PACs or other political groups to do so.”
So yesterday he registered for the California gubernatorial election and plans on dumping fake ads attacking Facebook, Zuckerberg, Trump, and Twitter until they change their stance on political ads.
"The genesis of this campaign is social media regulation and to ensure there is not an exemption in fact-checking specifically for politicians like Donald Trump who like to lie online," he told CNN Business.
He’s also encouraging others to run for election as well in order to pressure Facebook, which I think is a great thing even if Facebook ignores it, as too many Republicans run unopposed these days. That said, I’m looking forward to the mental gymnastics for why Facebook takes down his ads but not Trump’s.
What's the likelihood that Facebook turns around and says something like "We allows false ads only from active politicians", or something along the lines of "Only persons of note" or some other bullshit criteria that only they can classify?
Considering Zuckerberg‘s whole “allowing politicians to lie” thing is because he’s scared shitless of a Democrat regulating or breaking up Facebook up and he’s a sniveling little coward hiding behind Trump, I’d say it’s pretty good odds he’ll make up something to make sure this guy’s ads are taken down.
It’s not really about fairness or freedom of speech, that’s just the excuse they use to sell not moderating hateful content. It’s about their bottom line.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Hampton told CNN Business that he will use his new status as a candidate to run false ads on Facebook (FB) about President Trump, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and other Facebook executives. He said he also plans to run false ads on Facebook about executives of Twitter (TWTR), which also has a policy of not fact-checking ads run by candidates.
His goal is to force Facebook to stop allowing politicians to run false ads.
He initially just started a superPAC and ran a fake ad about Lindsey Graham supporting the Green New Deal using spliced audio which was obviously fake, also the point, but Facebook took it down because, “While Facebook allows politicians to lie in ads, it does not allow PACs or other political groups to do so.”
So yesterday he registered for the California gubernatorial election and plans on dumping fake ads attacking Facebook, Zuckerberg, Trump, and Twitter until they change their stance on political ads.
"The genesis of this campaign is social media regulation and to ensure there is not an exemption in fact-checking specifically for politicians like Donald Trump who like to lie online," he told CNN Business.
He’s also encouraging others to run for election as well in order to pressure Facebook, which I think is a great thing even if Facebook ignores it, as too many Republicans run unopposed these days. That said, I’m looking forward to the mental gymnastics for why Facebook takes down his ads but not Trump’s.
What's the likelihood that Facebook turns around and says something like "We allows false ads only from active politicians", or something along the lines of "Only persons of note" or some other bullshit criteria that only they can classify?
It depends on how much visibility this campaign continues to get
Likely; however, that could easily create a situation where someone could take them to court. Not sure how likely it is that someone would win, but I could see the compelling argument for "social media shouldn't get to decide which politicians are allowed to run fake ads and that they have no legal authority to determine which campaigns are legitimate or viable." I'm sure that's going to be Zuckerberg's shit argument, that only politicians that he deems as able to win, will be allowed to run. Even if he could win in court, I see this tanking things for FB in the court of public opinion because the attacks against Zuckerburg write themselves.
I'm also mystified that FB thought this was a good idea to begin with. If it were me, my response would be "Fuck, no! No gets to run fake bullshit because they are a politicians and maybe republicans should try not lying for a change. BTW we are liable if someone takes a candidate to court and proves that the ad qualifies as libel and did cause damage. At which point we are fucked because they can legitimately go after us for allowing it to go unchallenged onto our platform and be widely disseminated." FB is playing with fire and given that some conservative groups have already been burned in court for actual damage because of their fake claims against opponents, it's only a matter of time and I doubt the courts will be sympathetic to the argument of "but we're not responsible for the ads and articles that we push on our platform!" Especially, after they've taken down ISIS garbage and IIRC they've bowed to some number of demands from China. So they've shown they'll police their platform if they are concerned about the bottom line.
Likely; however, that could easily create a situation where someone could take them to court. Not sure how likely it is that someone would win, but I could see the compelling argument for "social media shouldn't get to decide which politicians are allowed to run fake ads and that they have no legal authority to determine which campaigns are legitimate or viable." I'm sure that's going to be Zuckerberg's shit argument, that only politicians that he deems as able to win, will be allowed to run. Even if he could win in court, I see this tanking things for FB in the court of public opinion because the attacks against Zuckerburg write themselves.
I'm also mystified that FB thought this was a good idea to begin with. If it were me, my response would be "Fuck, no! No gets to run fake bullshit because they are a politicians and maybe republicans should try not lying for a change. BTW we are liable if someone takes a candidate to court and proves that the ad qualifies as libel and did cause damage. At which point we are fucked because they can legitimately go after us for allowing it to go unchallenged onto our platform and be widely disseminated." FB is playing with fire and given that some conservative groups have already been burned in court for actual damage because of their fake claims against opponents, it's only a matter of time and I doubt the courts will be sympathetic to the argument of "but we're not responsible for the ads and articles that we push on our platform!" Especially, after they've taken down ISIS garbage and IIRC they've bowed to some number of demands from China. So they've shown they'll police their platform if they are concerned about the bottom line.
Except that Facebook has an out in good ol' Section 230, which pretty much indemnifies them from any repercussions.
For now, they might be able to hide behind section 230, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on that. One, 230 could also get amended to tell the likes of Zuckerburg to fuck off. Two, given how this deals with election integrity and the fact that Zuckerburg has already shown that PACs aren't covered. Well someone might actually find enough to work with there to get a ruling against FB despite FB claiming protection under 230.
Facebook may just ban him for some arbitrary reason so they don't have to confront the issue.
Pretty sure you don't have to have a FB account to advertise on FB. Granted, if Zuckerburg tried that as a means to get around people highlighting how fucking stupid is policy is, I can only imagine that will open a giant can of face eating worms on Zuckerburg.
The galling part of Facebook's position is in the second tweet:
A Facebook spokesperson telling CNN: “This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking.
No, you feckless ass-hats...he's not getting around your policies, he's working within your asinine policies that you arbitrarily set! He is literally playing by your own rules!
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
The galling part of Facebook's position is in the second tweet:
A Facebook spokesperson telling CNN: “This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking.
No, you feckless ass-hats...he's not getting around your policies, he's working within your asinine policies that you arbitrarily set! He is literally playing by your own rules!
The galling part of Facebook's position is in the second tweet:
A Facebook spokesperson telling CNN: “This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking.
No, you feckless ass-hats...he's not getting around your policies, he's working within your asinine policies that you arbitrarily set! He is literally playing by your own rules!
So he would have been fine if he had just lied?
Nah. There'd be some other arbitrary reason.
Facebook just wants to decide who is and is not a "valid" political candidate.
The galling part of Facebook's position is in the second tweet:
A Facebook spokesperson telling CNN: “This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking.
No, you feckless ass-hats...he's not getting around your policies, he's working within your asinine policies that you arbitrarily set! He is literally playing by your own rules!
So he would have been fine if he had just lied?
Nah. There'd be some other arbitrary reason.
Facebook just wants to decide who is and is not a "valid" political candidate.
IANAL, but that seems like that would qualify as sufficiently editorial that they share liability for anything left up.
Posts
Yeaah, melanin count, or genetic measure of caucasity, goes a long way to determining treatment by social media.
Though not disproportionately from society at large.
Politicians are allowed to break the rules because it makes these companies money. If I brought several million $s worth of traffic to Facebook every day, they'd let me say whatever I wanted as well.
And Donald Trump is the best thing that has happened to Twitter in years, maybe ever.
Until Russia decides to turn off the troll farm, anyway
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Sure, "inadvertently".
Here's one of the XOXO creators tweets about the talk:
One of the most salient points made is the supreme lack of any kind of support system put in place by places like YouTube or Twitter to help those deal with the mental fallout that comes with being dogpiled by the Alt-Right zombie hoards. And the point which keeps going around in my own head is the nature of the abuse that these asses are doing. Lindsay calls it "bad faith tactics" in her video and that's a good label, but I feel like it misses something. I feel like that phasing misses the intent of those who are looking for someone to attack and doing the work of digging into other's past. She says several times throughout the video how these people are immune from satire, humor, and logic and points to the tweet which prompted her talk. How James Gunn's own growth as a person and previous apologies about his own bad takes is outright ignored. Because to do otherwise wouldn't give the Alt-Righters the attack surface needed. I dunno, this was just something that stuck out to me while watching. Something I think everyone who has been in this thread should do. Not just for the perspective but for Lindsay's expressions of her experience. This is someone who was able to successfully break away from Channel Awesome and that cesspit and still make a good career doing what she's doing. Yet she was taken to a breaking point by rando Alt-Right mobs who have weaponized the language of self-criticism in order to freeze out voices which would otherwise be silenced by society.
Here's her own tweet about her talk and the accompanying video.
That is all
He initially just started a superPAC and ran a fake ad about Lindsey Graham supporting the Green New Deal using spliced audio which was obviously fake, also the point, but Facebook took it down because, “While Facebook allows politicians to lie in ads, it does not allow PACs or other political groups to do so.”
So yesterday he registered for the California gubernatorial election and plans on dumping fake ads attacking Facebook, Zuckerberg, Trump, and Twitter until they change their stance on political ads.
He’s also encouraging others to run for election as well in order to pressure Facebook, which I think is a great thing even if Facebook ignores it, as too many Republicans run unopposed these days. That said, I’m looking forward to the mental gymnastics for why Facebook takes down his ads but not Trump’s.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Technically a true statement, because they lie all the time.
AOC making The Zuck sweat with her questions was just *chef's kiss*
It's a problem the likes of Zuckerberg and other people who consider themselves "apolitical" have. They believe that because there are two factions of relatively equal power then those two factions must have relatively comparable ethics.
There are plenty of studies showing that's false. Sure, there are left wing FB pages producing fake news too, but it's nowhere near as prevalent as the right wing fake news.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Solution: Let's make a superpac to run the most absurd anti-Republican fake news and saturate social media with it. I wanna hear about Mitch McConnell's 15-year-old gay lover. I want to hear that Trump is secretly dead and being played by an actor. I want to hear that Bill Barr is hiding Jeffrey Epstein in his home. I want it all funded by Iran.
THEN we might see some attention to the issue.
Facebook says they'll take down fake ads by SuperPACs. Or, well, they will if it bothers them enough. Only candidates can run fake ads, which is why that guy above is now running for governor.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
What's the likelihood that Facebook turns around and says something like "We allows false ads only from active politicians", or something along the lines of "Only persons of note" or some other bullshit criteria that only they can classify?
It’s not really about fairness or freedom of speech, that’s just the excuse they use to sell not moderating hateful content. It’s about their bottom line.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It depends on how much visibility this campaign continues to get
I'm also mystified that FB thought this was a good idea to begin with. If it were me, my response would be "Fuck, no! No gets to run fake bullshit because they are a politicians and maybe republicans should try not lying for a change. BTW we are liable if someone takes a candidate to court and proves that the ad qualifies as libel and did cause damage. At which point we are fucked because they can legitimately go after us for allowing it to go unchallenged onto our platform and be widely disseminated." FB is playing with fire and given that some conservative groups have already been burned in court for actual damage because of their fake claims against opponents, it's only a matter of time and I doubt the courts will be sympathetic to the argument of "but we're not responsible for the ads and articles that we push on our platform!" Especially, after they've taken down ISIS garbage and IIRC they've bowed to some number of demands from China. So they've shown they'll police their platform if they are concerned about the bottom line.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Except that Facebook has an out in good ol' Section 230, which pretty much indemnifies them from any repercussions.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So the problem is that now they are the arbiters of what is politically acceptavle and viable, and that is a whole different ballgame, I think.
I think its been that way for a while now .... just kind of lower key
Pretty sure you don't have to have a FB account to advertise on FB. Granted, if Zuckerburg tried that as a means to get around people highlighting how fucking stupid is policy is, I can only imagine that will open a giant can of face eating worms on Zuckerburg.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
From a CNN dude
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
And entirely expected. Several people here predicted exactly this I think?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
No, you feckless ass-hats...he's not getting around your policies, he's working within your asinine policies that you arbitrarily set! He is literally playing by your own rules!
So he would have been fine if he had just lied?
Nah. There'd be some other arbitrary reason.
Facebook just wants to decide who is and is not a "valid" political candidate.
Their current approach of “accountability-less information hegemony” doesn’t end well for them and/or society
IANAL, but that seems like that would qualify as sufficiently editorial that they share liability for anything left up.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I imagine the end result however is they just change the rules again so that they exclude lesser known or poorly funded politicians.