Facebook doesn't want to be an "arbiter of truth," but will verify the identities of people...

nanoguy

Posts: 526   +7
Staff member

This week President Trump signed an executive order meant to limit the legal protections that have prevented social media platforms from being held liable for user-generated content. The move came right after Twitter started labeling some of his tweets with a fact-check warning -- an action he described as interference in the upcoming elections.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told CNBC that social networks -- and private companies in general -- should not be the "arbiters of truth," noting that "political speech is one of the most sensitive parts in a democracy, and people should be able to see what politicians say."

Zuckerberg explained that while Facebook does have a fact-checking program in place, it's purpose is to "really catch the worst of the worst stuff." This is the same line of thinking that led to last year's decision to allow "newsworthy posts" from politicians that break the rules.

The company is more inclined in trying to make sure that content posted on Facebook comes from real people, so it will now verify the identities of high-profile Facebook page owners in the US. Specifically, it will prioritize extensive ID verification for accounts with a large audience that exhibit a "pattern of inauthentic behavior" and whose content goes viral on a regular basis.

The ID verification process does need the user behind the account to consent to it. Failing that, Facebook will restrict the visibility of the content posted and reduce the chances of it getting viral.

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,072   +2,895
#1 Social Medias are private corporations. They can run their "services" how they want.

To those people who want to try to call them "public utilities - which they are not - you can't "force"Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc to"Stay on". If they want they can shut down at will and end their business. Forcing them to keep those services on would effectively be "government overreach" at best and "slavery" at worst.

#2 "Congress Shall Make No Law".

Trump's executive order is worthless. He can't "legislate" from the Oval Office and the Congress itself- or SCOTUS will overrule him.

The appropriate regulation for social media is supposed to be "the free market" (which is never wrong).

If the free market doesn't like a social media, they'll stop using it. We left Myspace for Facebook. I'm awaiting the day when we leave Facebook for whatever comes next.

The problem I see however is that Facebook is a data mining operation intent on limiting, marginalizing or buying out other social medias. And in cases of Tik Tok or anything they can't control, they can just label it a "Chinese spy tool" and have it banned or futher marginalized.

I wish conservatives and right wingers would stop whining and build an alternative to Facebook and Youtube. If they wanna post hate, rhetoric, gun videos, etc...without left wing censorship then that's what they should do.

I personally HATE Facebook and Zuckerberg. I'm only still there because my friends and family are, but I don't give their spies anything beyond dank memes and off-color comments.


#3 The social medias must do due diligence to ensure harmful, dangerous or illegal information is not being spread on their servers to ensure they are never liable for a lawsuit.

Let's just understand what happened. Trump has been using Twitter with impunity to "cyberbully" others because a sociopathic personality enjoys a system where his dissent can't be measured. There's a "like button" but no "dislike button". Emojis are vague.

I knew "conservatives" and "right wingers" would get exactly like this when I saw Youtube and other social medias take a stand against "information contrary to the WHO" in regards to coronavirus, using the death of an Arizona man from Chloroquine as a pretext. Completely unable to post misdirection, deflection, intimidation and various forms of hateful rhetoric, they went mad.


The icing on the cake was watching Twitter add the "fact checker" to Trump's tweets.

Trump is a ‘public servant’ in political office using a verified account in a professional capacity and should be fact checked if he's openly lying to voters. Private companies also have the right to refuse service, especially if somebody violates the terms of service.

This is the reason "social media" should never be used for these purposes.

How would Techspot feel if he decided to make Techspot his propaganda arm and then use it to make threatening comments and edicts that would normally get deleted if said by anyone else?

This is not how my government is supposed to be professionally run.
 
Last edited:

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,072   +2,895
"Posts from unverified Pages will have limited reach"

I created a page on Facebook and posted a video meme on it. Suddenly, I attracted over 800,000 views in a short period of time and gained close to 1000 subs.

Facebook tried to force me to verify myself suddenly, demanding my personal government ID and stuff.

YEAH: like I'm going to give you any personals after Cambridge Analytica?

I just wish everyone would join me in boycotting our personal info from Social Medias...with the exception of those we are specifically earning money from (Youtube ) who must collect data for IRS purposes.
 

psycros

Posts: 3,156   +3,293
#1 Social Medias are private corporations. They can run their "services" how they want.

To those people who want to try to call them "public utilities - which they are not - you can't "force"Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc to"Stay on". If they want they can shut down at will and end their business. Forcing them to keep those services on would effectively be "government overreach" at best and "slavery" at worst.

#2 "Congress Shall Make No Law".

Trump's executive order is worthless. He can't "legislate" from the Oval Office and the Congress itself- or SCOTUS will overrule him.

The appropriate regulation for social media is supposed to be "the free market" (which is never wrong).

If the free market doesn't like a social media, they'll stop using it. We left Myspace for Facebook. I'm awaiting the day when we leave Facebook for whatever comes next.

The problem I see however is that Facebook is a data mining operation intent on limiting, marginalizing or buying out other social medias. And in cases of Tik Tok or anything they can't control, they can just label it a "Chinese spy tool" and have it banned or futher marginalized.

I wish conservatives and right wingers would stop whining and build an alternative to Facebook and Youtube. If they wanna post hate, rhetoric, gun videos, etc...without left wing censorship then that's what they should do.

I personally HATE Facebook and Zuckerberg. I'm only still there because my friends and family are, but I don't give their spies anything beyond dank memes and off-color comments.


#3 The social medias must do due diligence to ensure harmful, dangerous or illegal information is not being spread on their servers to ensure they are never liable for a lawsuit.

Let's just understand what happened. Trump has been using Twitter with impunity to "cyberbully" others because a sociopathic personality enjoys a system where his dissent can't be measured. There's a "like button" but no "dislike button". Emojis are vague.

I knew "conservatives" and "right wingers" would get exactly like this when I saw Youtube and other social medias take a stand against "information contrary to the WHO" in regards to coronavirus, using the death of an Arizona man from Chloroquine as a pretext.


The icing on the cake was watching Twitter add the "fact checker" to Trump's tweets.

Trump is a ‘public servant’ in political office using a verified account in a professional capacity and should be fact checked if he's openly lying to voters. Private companies also have the right to refuse service, especially if somebody violates the terms of service.

This is the reason "social media" should never be used for these purposes.

How would Techspot feel if he decided to make Techspot his propaganda arm and then use it to make threatening comments and edicts that would normally get deleted if said by anyone else?

This is not how my government is supposed to be professionally run.
Literally everything you posted is either self-contradictory, completely false, ignores established precedent or is just ignorant - so much so that I don't even need to post rebuttals. Anyone who's even marginally intelligent and informed understands how far off the reservation you are.
 

eafshar

Posts: 85   +24
Literally everything you posted is either self-contradictory, completely false, ignores established precedent or is just ignorant - so much so that I don't even need to post rebuttals. Anyone who's even marginally intelligent and informed understands how far off the reservation you are.
I donno, he has some good points

his post was neuanced perhaps. not contradictory.
 

jackal2687

Posts: 105   +30
TechSpot Elite
Literally everything you posted is either self-contradictory, completely false, ignores established precedent or is just ignorant - so much so that I don't even need to post rebuttals. Anyone who's even marginally intelligent and informed understands how far off the reservation you are.
I logged in just to like your comment.... Time to ghost for another 6 months. Maybe by then Biden will have accidentally sold a nuclear missile to some random country.
 

treetops

Posts: 2,986   +747
Lol remember when Fox news bought MySpace? Then everyone went to Facebook. Fox news called themselves MyFox for over 2 decades. And this is electoral interference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuantumPhysics

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,072   +2,895
Facebook could check the facts of all the postings on the White House page.
I personally can’t trust anything coming out of the White House right now.

If they suddenly claimed Aliens exist, I’d have to meet one before I believed them.

I never imagined this government could get this disorganized and untrustworthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfatawi Mendel

Digitalzone

Posts: 127   +64
#1 Social Medias are private corporations.
Then, they are not social sites but blogs or platform for elected with the right opinions. Contrary to how they market themselves. Maybe they should change to non-political social sites when all politics related topics would be under censorship. But this way it's corporate censorship. But we are in a state when ISP can put down your web-hosting cause whatever reason.
Cause ISP is corporate. There is definitely a need to define how to enforce freedom of speech in digital area. Just because I say something over the phone, does it give a right to phone provider to cut my line?


#2 "Congress Shall Make No Law". The appropriate regulation for social media is supposed to be "the free market" (which is never wrong).
Well, self-regulatory free market is a theory which never worked. Financial crisis cause by not regulated financial sector, aka Privatizing profits and socializing losses, or tobacco industry which was manipulating facts and circumventing any regulations of advertisements for decades are good examples to begin with. Social sites will do anything to keep you hooked.

#3 The social medias must do due diligence to ensure harmful, dangerous or illegal information is not being spread on their servers to ensure they are never liable for a lawsuit.
I think, the individuals not the providers should be liable. This way we avoid censorship, which is otherwise unavoidable. But I think that's the original reason of putting liability to corporate cause genuine freedom of speech has always been threat for governments and elites.

Dislikes were originally removed to took away people's ability to demonstrate rejection and disagreement with SJW's agenda aka "stop spreading hate you homo/trans/whatever/-phobe".


Trump is a ‘public servant’ in political office using a verified account in a professional capacity and should be fact checked if he's openly lying to voters. Private companies also have the right to refuse service, especially if somebody violates the terms of service.
I call you having agenda cause this is completely some 1984 non-sense. I think it should be targeted audience, not some intermediate, who will fact-check Trump or anyone else.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,072   +2,895
I call you having agenda cause this is completely some 1984 non-sense. I think it should be targeted audience, not some intermediate, who will fact-check Trump or anyone else.

I want you to replace the word Twitter with Techspot.

I want you to replace the word Facebook with Techspot.

I want you top replace the word Youtube with Techspot.

How much - and the Techspot Admins can chime in - power would Trump have on Techspot if he decided to use Techspot the way Trump uses Twitter/Facebook.

Once you look at that and then compare it to the US Constitution, then you understand that everything I said is completely accurate...regardless what some others here might have claimed.
 

farid28

Posts: 8   +1
Fact-check is one step in the road to limit free speak and open mind thinking and force public to one perspective, next step they will hide delete or limit access to the uncommon opinion or perspective or theory or political statements that goes against their agenda..
any one who have a good insight of the political scene and conflict know why twitter have done this, and it's far from an innocent fact-check initiative it's all coordinated and calculated, I know I sound like a conspiracy (terrorist) sorry theorist but it's a fact-checked from my perspective and opinion that twitter my not agree with,
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlam777

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,072   +2,895
Fact-check is one step in the road to limit free speak and open mind thinking and force public to one perspective, next step they will hide delete or limit access to the uncommon opinion or perspective or theory or political statements that goes against their agenda..
any one who have a good insight of the political scene and conflict know why twitter have done this, and it's far from an innocent fact-check initiative it's all coordinated and calculated, I know I sound like a conspiracy (terrorist) sorry theorist but it's a fact-checked from my perspective and opinion that twitter my not agree with,

“Fact Check” means exactly what it says.

If you tried to tell us that you saved $1 billion but there is a hyperlink under your comment that points to the actual number which is factual and that is actually $799 million then I see nothing wrong.

What I do see wrong is a public official that is allowed to lie publicly on a private company’s website and get away with it because they are flexing power that they don’t really have.

Granted: I don’t want to see the Internet end up like AI in Metal Gear Solid 2 where you have an artificial intelligence erasing everything that the patriots don’t agree with. But so long as social media platforms are private company’s property, that isn’t too far from impossibility
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,562   +2,171
I'm all for social media companies being hands off when it comes to politics... And many other things. That way they won't meddle.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,321   +3,424
If Trump doesn't like being fact-checked. Why doesn't he just delete his twitter account?
Free speech shouldn't mean free-gratis, bare-faced lying.

What has America become, if you can't call out liars?
If one looks at SCOTUS rulings, free speech does not include lying. It also does not include inciting violence. It was meant to promote the fair exchange of ideas. In an exchange of ideas, lying will likely have some underlying fraudulent intent. In some cases, such intent, itself, is considered a crime. The problem comes when people believe lies spouted by someone. Those lies are nothing other than propaganda.

I've said quite a bit about Trump's :poop: claims of "voter fraud" in this post - https://www.techspot.com/community/...ts-with-fact-check.262913/page-4#post-1819665 IMO, it is simply amazing that he keeps repeating this :poop: If he had real evidence of voter fraud, I would have a different opinion, however, there is no evidence of such from sources that are far more reliable than "fact checkers."

I'm all for social media companies being hands off when it comes to politics... And many other things. That way they won't meddle.
As I see it, here's the problem. So it POs people when they do things like flag a post from Trump that is widely known to contain specious information - such as his :poop: claims of voter fraud of any type.

Then after the election, if it was found that social media allowed, because of lack of any fact checking, (which to me includes verifying that an account has a real person behind it), there were thousands of one or more foreign country's bots that acted as influential social media accounts, then they would also be accused of meddling.

So does meddling become OK, then, if the side that one favors wins because their constituents were lied to? Where is the line of truth? Does truth even matter?

I would rather see them at least attempt to point out any post that is attempting to spread misinformation - from anyone than let it be a free fest of lies. If it were a free fest of lies, then IMO it would be useless (IMO social media like fakebook or tweeter is useless anyway).

As I see it, Trump is trying to stir his base with this crap. He knows that the tide for him is not all that favorable. So he is resorting to propaganda to try to win support. For me, the simple fact that he is attempting to win favor with lies is insulting at the least, fraudulent and criminal at the worst.
 

farid28

Posts: 8   +1
“Fact Check” means exactly what it says.
The same exact meaning that Chinese authority used to threaten their citizen persecuted theme over coronavirus related posts on social media if you remember you don't own a category 4 lab to prove it exist then you can't speculate about it on social media this what the power of Fact Check logic that can give government the right to oppress the right of free speak.
We are shifting from totalitarian regimes towards new kind of the totalitarian corporation in a manged democracy if you don't see it happening right now take another look from another perspective and you will see how bad twitter step is for free speak.

"" Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers expressed the following view:[7]

We are living in a time of Inverted Totalitarianism, in which the tools used to maintain the status quo are much more subtle and technologically advanced ... These include propaganda and major media outlets that hide the real news about conditions at home and our activities around the world behind distractions [...] Another tool is to create insecurity in the population so that people are unwilling to speak out and take risks for fear of losing their jobs [...] Changes in college education also silence dissent [...] Adjunct professors [...] are less willing to teach topics that are viewed as controversial. This, combined with massive student debt, are tools to silence the student population, once the center of transformative action.[7]

Chris Hedges has argued that the liberal class is unable to reform itself and that classical liberalism has been reduced to a political charade that is stage-managed within corporate capitalism. Because academic intellectuals and journalists prize access to power rather than truth, political philosophers like Wolin were excluded from publications like The New York Times and New York Review of Books ""