Internet Companies Censoring Debate

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Fair point but it was signed by experts from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford as well I believe. So it does have legitimate backing from some experts therefore I'm not so sure it's a good idea to omit it from search results if people google the name of the declaration whether or not you agree with the content of the declaration.

Was it really suppressed? I didn't particularly go searching and it seemed plastered all over the Web for a couple of days at least last week.

 

[Fame Monster]

But who would regulate / appoint the regulator? Is the bias presentation of the news you describe really any different to the slant put on the news by printed media or TV/radio? Plenty of other browsers out there that produce search results in a more transparent way than Google.

That's a good question: how independent is the regulator going to be?

Right now, we have voluntary regulation for print media, OFCOM regulating the broadcast media but they have no control over social media so websites like Google, Twitter etc have pretty much a free crack at what news they report/show.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

That's a good question: how independent is the regulator going to be?

Right now, we have voluntary regulation for print media, OFCOM regulating the broadcast media but they have no control over social media so websites like Google, Twitter etc have pretty much a free crack at what news they report/show.

Do ofcom actually deal with bias though or just set rules for offensiveness and such? I know they probably have rules for reporting elections and giving an equal platform the main parties but not sure they are concerned with the slant put on things

 

[Fame Monster]

Do ofcom actually deal with bias though or just set rules for offensiveness and such? I know they probably have rules for reporting elections and giving an equal platform the main parties but not sure they are concerned with the slant put on things

I'm not too sure tbh about what specifically OFCOM deal with but RT aside, I'd say broadcast media remains the most trustworthy and balanced way of getting news. That might have nothing to do with OFCOM or it could be the case that there's something to learn from there in terms of regulation.

I do think social media needs regulating and their algorithms or human decisions need to be made transparent so that regulators can see which results or news are being filtered out and whether they've been fairly filtered out.

Look at the Hunter Biden thing. Twitter have apologised but there's no mechanism, as far as I know, for Twitter to be fined or reprimanded if you think they deserve to be. Likewise, today they've removed a politician's post for saying that 'masks don't work'. Again, it doesn't matter whether you believe that or not or support Biden or Trump, that's not an opinion that should be censored when the topic is so widely debated in the academic literature and was being reported in the mainstream media at the height of the first wave of the pandemic.

As for the Barrington declaration (I missed your earlier post), this is what Google have said: https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/76181926?hl=en

You can make your mind up on that but I think it's bollocks. There are videos out there showing it's not on the first 10 pages of the Google search results.

It seems to me like they're being used as propaganda tools under the guise of removing 'fake news', and I think if they want to trade in the UK, they should be subject to regulation requiring impartiality. At the same time though, I get that regulation is potentially a vessel for state control in the wrong hands, and am happy to read arguments persuading me that that would be a bad idea.

 

[Rascal]

I'm not too sure tbh about what specifically OFCOM deal with but RT aside, I'd say broadcast media remains the most trustworthy and balanced way of getting news. That might have nothing to do with OFCOM or it could be the case that there's something to learn from there in terms of regulation.

I do think social media needs regulating and their algorithms or human decisions need to be made transparent so that regulators can see which results or news are being filtered out and whether they've been fairly filtered out.

Look at the Hunter Biden thing. Twitter have apologised but there's no mechanism, as far as I know, for Twitter to be fined or reprimanded if you think they deserve to be. Likewise, today they've removed a politician's post for saying that 'masks don't work'. Again, it doesn't matter whether you believe that or not or support Biden or Trump, that's not an opinion that should be censored when the topic is so widely debated in the academic literature and was being reported in the mainstream media at the height of the first wave of the pandemic.

As for the Barrington declaration (I missed your earlier post), this is what Google have said: https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/76181926?hl=en

You can make your mind up on that but I think it's bollocks. There are videos out there showing it's not on the first 10 pages of the Google search results.

It seems to me like they're being used as propaganda tools under the guise of removing 'fake news', and I think if they want to trade in the UK, they should be subject to regulation requiring impartiality. At the same time though, I get that regulation is potentially a vessel for state control in the wrong hands, and am happy to read arguments persuading me that that would be a bad idea.

These platforms are incredibly difficult to police, plus they are supranational entities whose whole raison d'etre is to make money. Also who decides what is news, are some loons spouting the Qanon stuff news, is anti vaxxer stuff news, is City signing Isco news. Should conspiracy loons be given free range to spread there stuff, should Trump be allowed to be inflamatory, should Johnson be allowed a phone. The overwhelming majority of social media has good intentions, but if i saw my mam sharing a Britain First page on facebook i would not be happy, but then if she saw some of the stuff i share on whats app with my gang, she would not be happy. I am not a fan of censorship but accept that some censorship may be necessary, i am a believer in free speech, but not absolute free speech, i believe in the right to expression, but not fully. I do not want to go my twitter account and read fascist shite but some day's i enjoy taking the piss out of the fascists, i dont like to read rag bullshit but they when they lose i want to read it all.

I don't think these companies can please everybody, because what you may consider news, I may consider a triviality and vice versa, that is just two of us, so imagine what its like trying please and be impartial to a billion people. Hunter Biden for instance, you obviously care about it as an issue, where as I really couldnt give two fucks and why would I not giving two fucks care about stuff from another country across the ocean mean I have to be concerned about it. I no doubt care about stuff you couldnt give two fucks about so why would it affect you in any way.

We live with levels of censorship because we need norms for society to function. If norms didn't exist and the internet was a free for all then I am certain there would be more people offended than there are now, there would be more people free to spread what ever they wished and there would be more fake news. As to who decided I am happy to decide for myself what I believe or feel to be right, but understand not everyone is capable of critical thinking and some are vulnerable to outside influence such as grooming and radicalisation. I am also sure that internet companies act with there own interests at the fore front, they are businesses and capitalism is inherently selfish in its pursuit of money and power. Yet you think that state control can be a bad thing in the wrong hands which indicates to me you have been influenced by the very things you are now advocating regulating. Then, we are all influenced to some degree by social media and the internet, but we are also influenced by our peers and our idols. As Harari says, the reason why humanity is the most successful species on the planet is because we learned how to tell stories, whether you believe those stories or not I suppose is the same as thinking Batman might really exist, you take from them what you will.

I talk some shite don't I :))

 

[Fame Monster]

These platforms are incredibly difficult to police, plus they are supranational entities whose whole raison d'etre is to make money. Also who decides what is news, are some loons spouting the Qanon stuff news, is anti vaxxer stuff news, is City signing Isco news. Should conspiracy loons be given free range to spread there stuff, should Trump be allowed to be inflamatory, should Johnson be allowed a phone. The overwhelming majority of social media has good intentions, but if i saw my mam sharing a Britain First page on facebook i would not be happy, but then if she saw some of the stuff i share on whats app with my gang, she would not be happy. I am not a fan of censorship but accept that some censorship may be necessary, i am a believer in free speech, but not absolute free speech, i believe in the right to expression, but not fully. I do not want to go my twitter account and read fascist shite but some day's i enjoy taking the piss out of the fascists, i dont like to read rag bullshit but they when they lose i want to read it all.

I don't think these companies can please everybody, because what you may consider news, I may consider a triviality and vice versa, that is just two of us, so imagine what its like trying please and be impartial to a billion people. Hunter Biden for instance, you obviously care about it as an issue, where as I really couldnt give two fucks and why would I not giving two fucks care about stuff from another country across the ocean mean I have to be concerned about it. I no doubt care about stuff you couldnt give two fucks about so why would it affect you in any way.

We live with levels of censorship because we need norms for society to function. If norms didn't exist and the internet was a free for all then I am certain there would be more people offended than there are now, there would be more people free to spread what ever they wished and there would be more fake news. As to who decided I am happy to decide for myself what I believe or feel to be right, but understand not everyone is capable of critical thinking and some are vulnerable to outside influence such as grooming and radicalisation. I am also sure that internet companies act with there own interests at the fore front, they are businesses and capitalism is inherently selfish in its pursuit of money and power. Yet you think that state control can be a bad thing in the wrong hands which indicates to me you have been influenced by the very things you are now advocating regulating. Then, we are all influenced to some degree by social media and the internet, but we are also influenced by our peers and our idols. As Harari says, the reason why humanity is the most successful species on the planet is because we learned how to tell stories, whether you believe those stories or not I suppose is the same as thinking Batman might really exist, you take from them what you will.

I talk some shite don't I :))

Haha I lost you on the Batman analogy but just wanted to respond to two points.

1. The Hunter Biden thing is important, not for what the story is (I don't really know what the story is tbh other than it seems to be true) but because of the fact that it was censored. A bit like the Great Barrington declaration or whether masks make a difference. It's not about whether you or I personally agree with those opinions: it's about whether social media companies should be allowing people to voice those opinions or share that news.

2. Regulation or control obviously can be bad in the hands of the wrong actors. We have tonnes of examples of it throughout history but the example the documentary gave is where the Myanmar Gov gave Facebook a virtual monopoly in their country because the Gov worked out a way of putting out anti-Rohingya or anti-Muslim bile on the platform to stir up hatred of them and censored all counteropinions.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

As for the Barrington declaration (I missed your earlier post), this is what Google have said: https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/76181926?hl=en

You can make your mind up on that but I think it's bollocks. There are videos out there showing it's not on the first 10 pages of the Google search results.

Maybe it's because I'm not in the UK (although searching on Google UK), but if I search for it, their official website is the second one down in the list of results, just above Wikipedia.

 

[Fame Monster]

Maybe it's because I'm not in the UK (although searching on Google UK), but if I search for it, their official website is the second one down in the list of results, just above Wikipedia.

Yeah, it's the same here (in the UK) now but the claim is that that's only because there was a backlash to them initially removing the result.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

YouTube suspends OANN for a week after it posted fake Covid-19 cure

YouTube barred One America News Network from posting new videos for a week, after the right-leaning media organization uploaded a fake cure for the coronavirus.

www.cnbc.com

I'm sure some will be outraged by the above story. I'm sure some will argue it shouldn't matter that YT's code of conduct was spelled out very clearly, just like it shouldn't matter that Twitter's policy against posting hacked content is what specifically got the "very important" (note the QUOTES) and "seems to be true" (MORE QUOTES) Hunter Biden "story" (HEAVY QUOTES) "censored" (EVEN HEAVIER QUOTES).

 

[urban genie]

They as a business have a duty to themselves to offer theirs services to all to use and comment.

But they have a duty to the populace to make sure that what they allow is fact checked, doesn't incite hatred or viloence, and isn't harmful to an individual or the general public.

All companoes should abide by local laws on what contemt is allowed.