Clinton: Mark Zuckerberg Has ‘Authoritarian’ Views on Misinformation

[dukkha]

Now that Clinton gets it, she’s horrified—and she’s specifically alarmed by what she views as Mark Zuckerberg’s unwillingness to battle the spread of disinformation and propaganda on his own platform.
There was the time, last spring, when a slowed-down video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caught fire online.
The distorted speed, which made Pelosi appear as though she was slurring her words, seemed designed to make her appear cognitively impaired. “Google took it off YouTube … so I contacted Facebook,” Clinton said. “I said, Why are you guys keeping this up? This is blatantly false. Your competitors have taken it down. And their response was, We think our users can make up their own minds.”
More Stories

Listening to Clinton, I was struck by how remarkably similar her account was to something Zuckerberg had once told me.
Facts, Zuckerberg had suggested, are best derived from foraging many opinions, ideally from the billions of humans who use his publishing platform, so that each individual might cherry-pick what to believe. (Cherry-pick is my word, not his.)
If journalism’s mantra is “Seek truth and report it,” Facebook’s might be “Seek opinions and react to them.”

“It’s not about saying, Here’s one view; here’s the other side,” Zuckerberg had said when I’d asked him to reconcile the apparent contradiction between fact and opinion. “You should decide where you want to be.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...kerberg-is-trumpian-and-authoritarian/605485/
more Clinton apologies at link

 

[dukkha]

Social media is the new "soapbox" - it's how we now use the public square.

Do we want to even try to say "well this is fake and this is not?"
or "this is mostly truthful,but it's spun so it's not?"

American has a history of free speech,and political speech is the 'most protected speech'

I don't want google deciding that this is political (ex.)and can't be posted ( Twitter bans political ad)

A democracy requires an informed citizenry.
Even ads that are questionable,even speech that might not be correct.
Because the only other choice is censorship -allowing platforms to decide what you see.

sadly there is this drift towards true authoritarianism( not Clinton's mischaracterization )
Free speech isn't free speech if someone else decides on the truthiness of what you hear

 

[dukkha]

Facebook is, in a sense, the world’s first technocratic nation-state—a real-time experiment in connecting humans at massive and unprecedented scale, with a population of users that eclipses any actual nation, nearly as big as China and India combined.
It’s also an institution with gigantic levers at its disposal to affect the lives of its user-citizens. Facebook knows this. It has played with manipulating people’s emotions. It has trumpeted its ability to affect the outcome of an election.

There’s good reason to believe, Clinton said, that Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend to reelect Trump.” We know for sure, at least, that Zuckerberg doesn’t want Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to be the president. In leaked audio of an internal Facebook meeting that emerged last fall, he referenced Warren’s interest in regulating Facebook and said he would “go to the mat and … fight” her.

Clinton seems to find the whole thing deeply unnerving. Zuckerberg has been “somehow persuaded,” she said, “that it’s to his and Facebook’s advantage not to cross Trump. That’s what I believe. And it just gives me a pit in my stomach.”

 

[dukkha]

article is a spin job on how dangerous it is not to regulate political speech.
Clinton must be compensated in the annals of history for her loss -cuz' dammit she should have won!

 

[Walt]

Putin has an interesting new misinformation strategy. A Stalin or a Hitler would try to shutdown all decent, and then broadcast a single point of view. We are seeing the failure of that in places like Iran today. It is very difficult to shutdown all other sources. And if you do shutdown all other sources, like North Korea, that is also shutting down access to the modern marketplace, thereby making your nation much poorer.

Putin does a little shutting down of other sources, but he mostly drowns them in fake news. And it is not the single source of fake news that past dictators used, it is many, many different fake news stories. It allows the public to decide what fake news story feels most true to them. So there is the story of the young Russian au pair in Berlin who was raped and murdered by Muslims who were smuggled into Germany by Israelis. Literally no part of the story is true, but most Russians feel it is true.

Putin's has tried his propaganda in the USA against both the liberals and conservatives. His posters have especially tried to rile up blacks. They only have had success with the Alt Right. Blacks, liberals, etc. all want facts, not emotional stories.

Facebook's algorithm tries to deliver what people want. It tries to deliver what will excite people. It tries to deliver what will interest people. With the Alt Right that is Putin style emotional fake news stories.

 

[tsuke]

This is exactly why I think Democrats are dangerous. They dont seek freedom they seek control.

Take this issue. Republicans say just let everyone speak and it will be ok. Democrats say only people we deem worthy will be given free speech.

Even on something as basic as racism. Republicans say let everyone be equal. Democrats say racism is fine as long as it discriminates against groups we think deserve it.

 

[dukkha]

Putin has an interesting new misinformation strategy. A Stalin or a Hitler would try to shutdown all decent, and then broadcast a single point of view. We are seeing the failure of that in places like Iran today. It is very difficult to shutdown all other sources. And if you do shutdown all other sources, like North Korea, that is also shutting down access to the modern marketplace, thereby making your nation much poorer.

NK and Russia to an extent, and China control their internet scope to their peoples.
This "Hitler" crap - how can anyone "shut down info to the USA?
The point I wrote in the OP is that letting the Social Media Platforms control content is a clear and present danger - not some weird future dictatorship

Putin does a little shutting down of other sources, but he mostly drowns them in fake news. And it is not the single source of fake news that past dictators used, it is many, many different fake news stories. It allows the public to decide what fake news story feels most true to them. So there is the story of the young Russian au pair in Berlin who was raped and murdered by Muslims who were smuggled into Germany by Israelis. Literally no part of the story is true, but most Russians feel it is true.

A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes-
said back when there was only print and TV /radio media.
It's still true, but the reason is that media (like the Berlin ex.) can decide when to cover the truth,
Occupation hazard. But internet access is the antidote

Putin's has tried his propaganda in the USA against both the liberals and conservatives. His posters have especially tried to rile up blacks. They only have had success with the Alt Right. Blacks, liberals, etc. all want facts, not emotional stories.

Facebook's algorithm tries to deliver what people want. It tries to deliver what will excite people. It tries to deliver what will interest people. With the Alt Right that is Putin style emotional fake news stories.

FB is a main source of news as well for many.
The point of this discussion is do you want FB to decide what to see and what to censor?
Because if you support this -then that is true fascism

 

[Walt]

how can anyone "shut down info to the USA?

That is the whole point. Putin's propaganda system does not depend on shutting down info. In fact, he wants more false info being distributed. Even getting caught is good for him, because then he claims all information is lies. When people believe every source lies, they only believe the stories they want to believe.

Lets use an American example. trump saw that Obama had driven down unemployment numbers to record low rates. So trump and his supporters claimed that the unemployment numbers were all faked. Then when trump took office, and the unemployment numbers stayed low, suddenly the unemployment numbers all became real in the minds of the Alt Right. No matter that if they were lies before, they would either need a massive upwards adjustment, or would be lies now too. The Alt Right wants to believe the unemployment numbers for trump, but not for Obama.

 

[countryboy]

Now that Clinton gets it, she’s horrified—and she’s specifically alarmed by what she views as Mark Zuckerberg’s unwillingness to battle the spread of disinformation and propaganda on his own platform.
There was the time, last spring, when a slowed-down video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caught fire online.
The distorted speed, which made Pelosi appear as though she was slurring her words, seemed designed to make her appear cognitively impaired. “Google took it off YouTube … so I contacted Facebook,” Clinton said. “I said, Why are you guys keeping this up? This is blatantly false. Your competitors have taken it down. And their response was, We think our users can make up their own minds.”
More Stories

Listening to Clinton, I was struck by how remarkably similar her account was to something Zuckerberg had once told me.
Facts, Zuckerberg had suggested, are best derived from foraging many opinions, ideally from the billions of humans who use his publishing platform, so that each individual might cherry-pick what to believe. (Cherry-pick is my word, not his.)
If journalism’s mantra is “Seek truth and report it,” Facebook’s might be “Seek opinions and react to them.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...kerberg-is-trumpian-and-authoritarian/605485/
more Clinton apologies at link

Pelosi does slur her words. Watch any video of her speaking just a few years ago, and compare it to now. She can't even pronounce "Constitution", she says "Con-sitution".

 

[dukkha]

That is the whole point. Putin's propaganda system does not depend on shutting down info. In fact, he wants more false info being distributed. Even getting caught is good for him, because then he claims all information is lies. When people believe every source lies, they only believe the stories they want to believe.

he claims non-interference in the 2016 election.
But im sure he had trolls -big deal -we do a lot worse meddling in elections.
However even Mueller can;t back up claims if the InterNet research Agency being a Kremlin Op

Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ndercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

Lets use an American example. trump saw that Obama had driven down unemployment numbers to record low rates. So trump and his supporters claimed that the unemployment numbers were all faked. Then when trump took office, and the unemployment numbers stayed low, suddenly the unemployment numbers all became real in the minds of the Alt Right. No matter that if they were lies before, they would either need a massive upwards adjustment, or would be lies now too. The Alt Right wants to believe the unemployment numbers for trump, but not for Obama.

source the bolded.
Unemployment didn't just "stay low" - it hit record lows under Trump while wages rose(unlike Obama)
Whatever Trump "said" as a candidate was political anyhow. the numbers don't lie

 

[Walt]

Pelosi does slur her words. Watch any video of her speaking just a few years ago, and compare it to now. She can't even pronounce "Constitution", she says "Con-sitution".

If anything Pelosi over punctuates her words. Many people of her generation and before were taught an over pronouncement, trans Atlantic accent. Every syllable is spoken in detail, so it is more like "CONST-TI-TU-TION!" I cannot imagine her dropping the full "st" for a "s".

It was taught that way, because the Oxford English accent was still a prestige accent back then, and because they had not adjusted to the new amplifiers.

But you continue to underestimate Pelosi, I am sure that will end well... Well for someone.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Facebook is, in a sense, the world’s first technocratic nation-state—a real-time experiment in connecting humans at massive and unprecedented scale, with a population of users that eclipses any actual nation, nearly as big as China and India combined.
It’s also an institution with gigantic levers at its disposal to affect the lives of its user-citizens. Facebook knows this. It has played with manipulating people’s emotions. It has trumpeted its ability to affect the outcome of an election.
Clinton seems to find the whole thing deeply unnerving. Zuckerberg has been “somehow persuaded,” she said, “that it’s to his and Facebook’s advantage not to cross Trump. That’s what I believe. And it just gives me a pit in my stomach.”[/B]

When I meet people and we hit it off the first thing they ask is what is your Facebook page. My retired GI friends and family seem to live by Facebook. I rarely ever go there unless someone alerts me to something.

 

[dukkha]

When I meet people and we hit it off the first thing they ask is what is your Facebook page. My retired GI friends and family seem to live by Facebook. I rarely ever go there unless someone alerts me to something.

I have friends/online friends only/and a combination of both.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I have friends/online friends only/and a combination of both.

So do I, And we converse using e-mail or text. It's amazing what personal information people put on Facebook. As to friends here we use PM's for stuff we don't want made public.