Internet companies are destroying society

Except that BBC1 is broadcast and regulated in Britain. How could regulating Facebook work in the same way? If there are more lax laws in America for example what would prevent someone setting up a vpn pretending they are from Florida and then sending out so called "hate speech" to their hearts content.

 

Exactly. in some parts of the states, it is legal to post what we consider abhorrently racist views, online. How do you moderate / block that?

 

It is nigh on impossible to block premier league games online, let alone comments posted live on twitter etc

Edited 26 November, 2019 by Batman

These companies make billions and at the forefront of the technology, they should be able to moderate themselves - if they can't they can be blocked like other websites are.

That's a non-answer. In reality we know that even with billions in revenue it is currently impossible to manually review the amount of content on something like twitter and remove content deemed hateful in the almost immediate timeframe that some are asking for. The easiest and cheapest way to do this is to use machine learning and bots to do the moderation for them rather than employing thousands of employees solely to moderate twitter content. Machine learning will obviously include the in-built biases of the programmers who created them and will by design be overly cautious to prevent trouble for the big tech companies.

 

So you're saying you want to hand big tech the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable across different countries and the power to use bots and machine learning to go on a mass censorship drive? Sounds awful.

That's a non-answer. In reality we know that even with billions in revenue it is currently impossible to manually review the amount of content on something like twitter and remove content deemed hateful in the almost immediate timeframe that some are asking for. The easiest and cheapest way to do this is to use machine learning and bots to do the moderation for them rather than employing thousands of employees solely to moderate twitter content. Machine learning will obviously include the in-built biases of the programmers who created them and will by design be overly cautious to prevent trouble for the big tech companies.

 

So you're saying you want to hand big tech the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable across different countries and the power to use bots and machine learning to go on a mass censorship drive? Sounds awful.

 

And these bots will be either American or Chinese made/configured. Wait till their governments get involved!

These companies make billions and at the forefront of the technology, they should be able to moderate themselves - if they can't they can be blocked like other websites are.

What standards would these companies use to moderate content? Are you suggesting that a social media company should be banned if it fails to recognise a user in Manchester using a Vpn to appear as if they are in texas and then writing something racist? How could they possibly manage that?

In conclusion, it's easy to wag your finger about naughty words said on the Internet but I'm yet to hear from anyone an idea for how to moderate information that doesn't lead to mass censorship and an unprecedented amount of power being handed to either tech companies or governments.

How is that any different to being in some grotty pub and having to listen to a group blokes going on about how Muslamics and immigrants are giving everyone cancer? People have been perverting the truth and flooding the population with tsunamis on misinformation since the beginning of time. How do you think religion got started thousands of years ago.

 

If anything were better off now because the internet is impossible to suppress. 50 years ago stories like Andrew/Epstein would have been hushed up, swept under the rug and the victims kept quiet. I don’t believe most of the bullsh*t I read on line but as long as I continue to see post for AND against all of our politicians, I’m fairly happy.

So do you not think FB etc suppress news/posts when it suits them?

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

So do you not think FB etc suppress news/posts when it suits them?

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Yep and it's a concern when companies become so big that they become akin to the public square. If you get kicked off twitter, YouTube and Facebook then essentially you've become unpersoned and much harder to communicate with and that should be a cause for concern for everyone if they value freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

So do you not think FB etc suppress news/posts when it suits them?

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

It’s impossible to know that for sure because you can’t know that you haven’t seen something, if that makes sense. However I would have to say no. If they were deleting certain posts from individuals or pages word would spread very quickly and it would look very bad on them.

 

The best example of how hard it is to cover up a story is the whole Ryan Giggs - Imogen Thomas super injunction story from a few years. Despite a high court ruling that it should be kept quiet and not mentioned by anyone, let alone a major news network, over 75,000 people had mentioned it on twitter and basically everyone knew.

 

The only time I’ve seen content removed, everyone knows it has been removed because it contravenes the site rules (pornographic images, sales of dangerous weapons etc.)

It’s impossible to know that for sure because you can’t know that you haven’t seen something, if that makes sense. However I would have to say no. If they were deleting certain posts from individuals or pages word would spread very quickly and it would look very bad on them.

 

The best example of how hard it is to cover up a story is the whole Ryan Giggs - Imogen Thomas super injunction story from a few years. Despite a high court ruling that it should be kept quiet and not mentioned by anyone, let alone a major news network, over 75,000 people had mentioned it on twitter and basically everyone knew.

 

The only time I’ve seen content removed, everyone knows it has been removed because it contravenes the site rules (pornographic images, sales of dangerous weapons etc.)

I've had many posts making political comment become virtually invisible very shortly after posting. Not removed: more subtle use of algorithms to push content way down.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I've had many posts making political comment become virtually invisible very shortly after posting. Not removed: more subtle use of algorithms to push content way down.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That definitely happens and shadow banning on twitter for example is used routinely (and they have them on camera admitting it.)

I've had many posts making political comment become virtually invisible very shortly after posting. Not removed: more subtle use of algorithms to push content way down.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

How do you know it’s virtually invisible? Without meaning to be rude, there’s a good chance what your posting on Facebook just isn’t that interesting. I have friends on FB posting all sorts of political guff, in support or criticism of most major parties and TBH I’m just not interested. There are plenty of pages out there posting very strong views for and against every political opinion. I can’t see why they would be allowed but your individual posts would be subtly kept quiet.

 

As an example, one friend is very pro-Corbyn and always posting articles about how Boris will destroy the NHS etc. I’m not even saying he’s wrong but when he posts three of these articles per day everyone stops caring. I saw all of the posts (or at least I did until I chose to unfollow him) and without fail they had 0 comments and 1 sympathy like from his husband.

How do you know it’s virtually invisible? Without meaning to be rude, there’s a good chance what your posting on Facebook just isn’t that interesting. I have friends on FB posting all sorts of political guff, in support or criticism of most major parties and TBH I’m just not interested. There are plenty of pages out there posting very strong views for and against every political opinion. I can’t see why they would be allowed but your individual posts would be subtly kept quiet.

 

As an example, one friend is very pro-Corbyn and always posting articles about how Boris will destroy the NHS etc. I’m not even saying he’s wrong but when he posts three of these articles per day everyone stops caring. I saw all of the posts (or at least I did until I chose to unfollow him) and without fail they had 0 comments and 1 sympathy like from his husband.

To be fair, not sure about Facebook but it's provable on twitter- and as I said they've admitted to doing it. If you look at metrics and engagements of tweets and a popular account on twitter has so many hundreds of engagements and comments for every tweet and then suddenly has a big dip for a particular tweet then it's pretty clearly been surpressed or shadow banned.

How do you know it’s virtually invisible? Without meaning to be rude, there’s a good chance what your posting on Facebook just isn’t that interesting. I have friends on FB posting all sorts of political guff, in support or criticism of most major parties and TBH I’m just not interested. There are plenty of pages out there posting very strong views for and against every political opinion. I can’t see why they would be allowed but your individual posts would be subtly kept quiet.

 

As an example, one friend is very pro-Corbyn and always posting articles about how Boris will destroy the NHS etc. I’m not even saying he’s wrong but when he posts three of these articles per day everyone stops caring. I saw all of the posts (or at least I did until I chose to unfollow him) and without fail they had 0 comments and 1 sympathy like from his husband.

 

Who decides it's not very interesting? I occasionally post the most ridiculous stuff but it remains totally in view.

 

 

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Maybe we should take a leaf out of the Australian government's book and create a facial recognition database for those who wabt to access any content that isn't for children:

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/31/australian-government-proposes-facial-recognition-system-verify/

 

Nothing dystopian about that at all!

To be fair, not sure about Facebook but it's provable on twitter- and as I said they've admitted to doing it. If you look at metrics and engagements of tweets and a popular account on twitter has so many hundreds of engagements and comments for every tweet and then suddenly has a big dip for a particular tweet then it's pretty clearly been surpressed or shadow banned.

 

Is that suppressing content or simply not promoting it? I don't use twitter or than to follow certain accounts but you're posting something then surely everyone who chooses to follow yo can see it.

 

If you're talking about the search/hashtag function then that's different. I don't think you can really complain if your posts aren't being promoted to people who don't chose to follow you. What actually is being promoted, by whom and how that content is selected perhaps should be looked at but that's not an issue of censorship.

 

Who decides it's not very interesting? I occasionally post the most ridiculous stuff but it remains totally in view.

 

Your friends who I assume are not liking or commenting on it.

Is that suppressing content or simply not promoting it? I don't use twitter or than to follow certain accounts but you're posting something then surely everyone who chooses to follow yo can see it.

 

If you're talking about the search/hashtag function then that's different. I don't think you can really complain if your posts aren't being promoted to people who don't chose to follow you. What actually is being promoted, by whom and how that content is selected perhaps should be looked at but that's not an issue of censorship.

 

 

 

Your friends who I assume are not liking or commenting on it.

Shadow banning means your post is visible to your account but not to anyone else including your followers so you don't realise its been banned. I'm sure it also happens on Facebook. It's the definition of content suppression.

Shadow banning means your post is visible to your account but not to anyone else including your followers so you don't realise its been banned. I'm sure it also happens on Facebook. It's the definition of content suppression.

Exactly this.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Shadow banning means your post is visible to your account but not to anyone else including your followers so you don't realise its been banned. I'm sure it also happens on Facebook. It's the definition of content suppression.

 

If you’re talking about followers not being able to see your posts then I agree and that is a line which has been crossed. I’m just questioning that this is what’s actually going on, as I’m not entirely convinced. Where is the evidence for this?

 

Shroppie made the assertion that he had posted things which were then deliberately hidden from followers. I think it’s far more likely these posts have been seen (to the extent that people are actually bothering to check FB and Twitter) but simply aren’t triggering much of a reaction. Going back to the friend I mentioned, I think he genuinely believes people will be shocked and outraged when he ‘reveals’ the Tories want to privatise parts of the NHS. Basically our political opinions are nowhere near as interesting as we think they are.

Where is the evidence for this?

 

Good question.

https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html