Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[uuuhname]

Great, it doesn't. So, why do you think the government could properly run those sites?

because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to run a website???? also it doesn't rely on ad revenue to stay operational? that's what tax dollars are for.

[Elegiac]

- A requirement to make their search and recommendation algorithms available to both the government and the public. That would be difficult, as it is proprietary information. It would set a huge change in precedent, and would involve privacy issues.

Okay, and? Do you not understand that reform involves change by definition? Rofl.

- A ban on excluding people from content based on protected classes. - Who is banning protected classes?

I find it funny you act as if you're operating from an informed position when you repeatedly admit you're not familiar with the issue.

- Limiting the use of targeted advertisements - This is not a good idea at all, it's simply using your preferences for you. Otherwise, they'd spam random shit, and people would hate it.

Making it far less likely for advertisements to lead people down extremist rabbit holes. Working as intended.

- Limiting how many times something can be forwarded en masse - This is a direct limitation of the First Amendment.

Not in the slightest. You're still able to contact every one of these people individually.

- Requirements that users be informed why they have been recommended a thing - You mean... like when they sign a usage agreement?

No, like when it pops up in your feed, and the information is on a per-ad basis rather than shoving it in a contract clause to avoid having to moderate your website.

- Requiring social media to limit how quickly information can go viral until it's been adequately fact checked - This is also a limitation on the First Amendment.

- Limiting the amount of times a user can be recommended the same subject matter in a search engine or feed within a given period _ Also a limitation on the First Amendment.

Nah. You're entitled to free speech; there's nothing that says it has to be made convenient or quick.

- - - Updated - - -

The government breaking up Facebook is not an act of the free markets, and it does not leave one with a free market.

Man it's almost as if free markets aren't really a thing and it's really just a function of which set of elites are pulling the strings.

[Endus]

Once again, you are trying to compare someone speaking a verifiably true sentence, to raping a fucking child, and filming. it. If that's your precedent, then no court will listen to you.

If you want to talk about the truth of the speech, then that's a valid comparison.

It's obvious that the "truth" of child porn is no protection. Because "truth" is not a factor in most forms of unprotected speech. That's literally the point. That you are using a useless standard that has no relevance.

In the case of California law, t specifically states that slander is a false statement. Therefore, your attempt to link such a thing to child pornography is absurd.

No, you're shifting goalposts again, that's all. Because you don't want to admit that "truth" simply isn't a factor outside of defamation.

Meanwhile, that burden of intent, malice, and the statement being false are on you. So, if you think you can prove it, why have you not tried?

Because it's not illegal (yet). That doesn't mean that said burden can't be met. Also, as a Canadian, I wouldn't have standing. Standing kinda matters, y'know. Canada already has some limited disinformation legislation, particularly around electoral proceedings. So that's not a fight I have to try and win, here. Already won and making further progress.

Also, ignorantiam juris non excusat; ignorance of the law is no excuse. The standards that would be applied are that of a reasonable person. If your "defense" is that you're an unreasonably ignorant moron, that's an admission of culpability, not a defense.

[Edge-]

The government breaking up Facebook is not an act of the free markets, and it does not leave one with a free market.

You're conflating two different points, but I'll humor you.

It does, in the same way that the government breaking up Carnegie's steel monopoly did. It allows for actual competition and not a rigged game where whatever company gets the most money first more or less automatically wins everything by virtue of having said money.

Fuckin hell, folks need to open some god-damned history books.

[Shadowferal]

Fuckin hell, folks need to open some god-damned history books.

Libertarians and history books? We know that never happens.

[Elegiac]

Libertarians and history books? We know that never happens.

Knowing about things from before the most recent electoral cycle means you hate freedom, clearly.

[jonnysensible]

Libertarians and history books? We know that never happens.

they only have one book in their library

[Shadowferal]

Knowing about things from before the most recent electoral cycle means you hate freedom, clearly.

*sigh*

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

Among so many reasins why FDR was among the greatest.

[Machismo]

because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to run a website???? also it doesn't rely on ad revenue to stay operational? that's what tax dollars are for.

So, billions of dollars added to the budget... all while people will just pick a different service.

People don't trust the government with their data, or their videos. The government also has a poor track record of protecting that data. OPM is a prime example of that. So, if the government started a social media site, you would use it over all the others?

I know I wouldn't.

[Elegiac]

People don't trust the government with their data, or their videos.

Nah, they just trust private corporations that are even less accountable to the public and even less transparent.

The thinkery. It's almost as if "government bad" is an irrational position.

[Machismo]

Okay, and? Do you not understand that reform involves change by definition? Rofl.



I find it funny you act as if you're operating from an informed position when you repeatedly admit you're not familiar with the issue.



Making it far less likely for advertisements to lead people down extremist rabbit holes. Working as intended.



Not in the slightest. You're still able to contact every one of these people individually.



No, like when it pops up in your feed, and the information is on a per-ad basis rather than shoving it in a contract clause to avoid having to moderate your website.



Nah. You're entitled to free speech; there's nothing that says it has to be made convenient or quick.

- - - Updated - - -



Man it's almost as if free markets aren't really a thing and it's really just a function of which set of elites are pulling the strings.

Thisnis a limitation on the First Amendmrnt rights of Facebook itself. They also have rights.

[uuuhname]

So, billions of dollars added to the budget... all while people will just pick a different service.

People don't trust the government with their data, or their videos. The government also has a poor track record of protecting that data. OPM is a prime example of that. So, if the government started a social media site, you would use it over all the others?

I know I wouldn't.

hey, slash the military's budget by 20% and that would off set the cost instantly.

if it doesn't have ads on it I can see it being a run away success based on that alone.

ok? speaking for yourself isn't indicative of anything beyond your opinion on the matter...

[Shadowferal]

Our social security...number and all that, medical privacy enshrined into law...but we're supposed to trust a private company not to sell our info...lmao!

[uuuhname]

Nah, they just trust private corporations that are even less accountable to the public and even less transparent.

The thinkery. It's almost as if "government bad" is an irrational position.

hey now it's a strawman to point out he vehemently distrusts the government to do anything.

[Elegiac]

Thisnis a limitation on the First Amendmrnt rights of Facebook itself. They also have rights.

1) Facebook is not a person and should not have rights. I don't believe in corporate personhood.
2) You do not have a right to have your voice artificially amplified by technology, point in fact. Freedom of speech is not entitlement to reach.

[Machismo]

If you want to talk about the truth of the speech, then that's a valid comparison.

It's obvious that the "truth" of child porn is no protection. Because "truth" is not a factor in most forms of unprotected speech. That's literally the point. That you are using a useless standard that has no relevance.



No, you're shifting goalposts again, that's all. Because you don't want to admit that "truth" simply isn't a factor outside of defamation.



Because it's not illegal (yet). That doesn't mean that said burden can't be met. Also, as a Canadian, I wouldn't have standing. Standing kinda matters, y'know. Canada already has some limited disinformation legislation, particularly around electoral proceedings. So that's not a fight I have to try and win, here. Already won and making further progress.

Also, ignorantiam juris non excusat; ignorance of the law is no excuse. The standards that would be applied are that of a reasonable person. If your "defense" is that you're an unreasonably ignorant moron, that's an admission of culpability, not a defense.

The other poster linked it to slander and libel. I think you and I both agree that what we're discussing wouldn't be covered by such laws.

Yes, that would mean new laws. It would requiremproofnof intent, proof of harm, and likely other criteria that I am not even thinking about right now. But, if the veracity of the statements isn't a determining factor, then I think any possible legislation is a non-starter, and would be a tremendous hit to the First Amendment.

Truth is a factor when it comes to slander and libel. If you don't want it to be a factor for such legislation, then there's very little chance this passes constitutional scrutiny.

It would be political suicide, and for good reason.

[Shadowferal]

hey now it's a strawman to point out he vehemently distrusts the government to do anything.

But a private company is a trusted entity lol

[Machismo]

hey, slash the military's budget by 20% and that would off set the cost instantly.

if it doesn't have ads on it I can see it being a run away success based on that alone.

ok? speaking for yourself isn't indicative of anything beyond your opinion on the matter...

So, let's go back 1 year. We have a social media site, and it is run by the Trump administration. They have moderation powers, as well as censorship authority to restrict misinformation and fake news.

I don't see many liberals wanting to be on such a site.

[Elegiac]

But, if the veracity of the statements isn't a determining factor

It already is not a determining factor as evidenced by the fact you can still be prosecuted for saying things that are untrue but are still believable by a reasonable person.

Nobody believes that Jerry Falwell fucks his granny in the toolshed or that Donald Trump is a literal bastard, but the reasonable layperson is entirely capable of thinking that medical sounding terms like "spike proteins" are legit when they're being used to spread antivaccination propaganda. That is the yardstick for separating free speech from misinformation.

[Machismo]

You're conflating two different points, but I'll humor you.

It does, in the same way that the government breaking up Carnegie's steel monopoly did. It allows for actual competition and not a rigged game where whatever company gets the most money first more or less automatically wins everything by virtue of having said money.

Fuckin hell, folks need to open some god-damned history books.

Once again, that's still not the free market, in either case. At best, you. An say it's a government-forced market reset.