Trump and the Press

[BigRedBuster]

 

[commando]

[TGHusker]

Somewhat related.  A couple of articles about Facebook - ranking and censoring news sources in the guise of eliminating the possibility of Russian (or other) interference in future elections.
 

Quote

 

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Tuesday that the company has already begun to implement a system that ranks news organizations based on trustworthiness, and promotes or suppresses its content based on that metric.

Zuckerberg said the company has gathered data on how consumers perceive news brands by asking them to identify whether they have heard of various publications and if they trust them.

“We put [that data] into the system, and it is acting as a boost or a suppression, and we’re going to dial up the intensity of that over time," he said. "We feel like we have a responsibility to further [break] down polarization and find common ground.”

Zuckerberg met with a group of news media executives at the Rosewood Sand Hill hotel in Menlo Park after delivering his keynote speech at Facebook’s annual F8 developer conference Tuesday.

The meeting included representatives from BuzzFeed News, the Information, Quartz, the New York Times, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, NBC, Recode, Univision, Barron’s, the Daily Beast, the Economist, HuffPost, Insider, the Atlantic, the New York Post, and others.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/facebook-has-begun-to-rank-news-organizations-by-trust?utm_term=.yw5lkGqKl#.qy7dVqJ1d

 

Per the 2nd link below, conservative voices are being silenced - including that of the article's website.  While I don't read the affected websites nor do I know their philosophy (their position on the conservative scale from moderately right to alt-right), my concern is: what political philosophy will be used to eliminate these voices on FB?  FB sets itself up as what is politically allowable speech thus taking away the voice of others.  Yes Brietbart is one of the sites who's traffic is being reduced - I'm not crying over that.  My concern is that we have big corporation as the thought police and that concerns me about 1st amendment rights.   The group of news companies that met with Zuckerberg have a left ward tilt.  I think FB is reacting due to how they were 'used' in the last election by foreign companies, Russian agents, and the Trump campaign.

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/zuckerbergs-announcement-means-final-remaining-conservative-voices-on-facebook-will-be-eliminated-by-election-day-2018/

 

[BigRedBuster]

10 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Somewhat related.  A couple of articles about Facebook - ranking and censoring news sources in the guise of eliminating the possibility of Russian (or other) interference in future elections.
 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/facebook-has-begun-to-rank-news-organizations-by-trust?utm_term=.yw5lkGqKl#.qy7dVqJ1d

 

Per the 2nd link below, conservative voices are being silenced - including that of the article's website.  While I don't read the affected websites nor do I know their philosophy (their position on the conservative scale from moderately right to alt-right), my concern is: what political philosophy will be used to eliminate these voices on FB?  FB sets itself up as what is politically allowable speech thus taking away the voice of others.  Yes Brietbart is one of the sites who's traffic is being reduced - I'm not crying over that.  My concern is that we have big corporation as the thought police and that concerns me about 1st amendment rights.   The group of news companies that met with Zuckerberg have a left ward tilt.  I think FB is reacting due to how they were 'used' in the last election by foreign companies, Russian agents, and the Trump campaign.

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/zuckerbergs-announcement-means-final-remaining-conservative-voices-on-facebook-will-be-eliminated-by-election-day-2018/

 

 

It's obviously a concern when you have one corporation having the power to dictate what people see on line.  It would be good if people would stop using Facebook as a news feed all together and go get actual news from good sources.

 

I think it's important for Facebook to work towards cutting down on the app being used to further false news.  I'm not sure how to suggest they go about it differently than what they are.

[TGHusker]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

It's obviously a concern when you have one corporation having the power to dictate what people see on line.  It would be good if people would stop using Facebook as a news feed all together and go get actual news from good sources.

 

I think it's important for Facebook to work towards cutting down on the app being used to further false news.  I'm not sure how to suggest they go about it differently than what they are.

I just came across this link - which is a good step---- I hope

 

https://www.axios.com/scoop-facebook-committing-to-internal-pobias-audit-1525187977-160aaa3a-3d10-4b28-a4bb-b81947bd03e4.html

 

 

Quote

 

To address allegations of bias, Facebook is bringing in two outside advisors — one to conduct a legal audit of its impact on underrepresented communities and communities of color, and another to advise the company on potential bias against conservative voices.

Why it matters: The efforts are happening in response to allegations that the tech giant censors conservative voices and discriminates against minority groups. Facebook hopes the independent audit and formal advising partnership will show it takes these issues very seriously

 

Quote

The civil rights audit will be guided by Laura Murphy, a national civil liberties and civil rights leader who serves as the Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. Murphy will take feedback from civil rights groups, like The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and advise Facebook on the best path forward.

 

 

Quote

 

The conservative bias advising partnership will be led by former Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, along with his team at Covington and Burling, a Washington law firm.

• Kyl will examine concerns about alleged liberal bias on Facebook, internally and on its services. They will get feedback directly from conservative groups and advise Facebook on the best way to work with these groups moving forward.
• The Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy think tank, will convene meetings on these issues with Facebook executives. Last week the group brought in tech policy expert Klon Kitchen to host an event with Facebook's head of global policy management, Monika Bickert.

“From what I've heard, it sounds encouraging that Facebook is taking steps to evaluate where things stand in the marketplace and hear concerns.”

— Rob Bluey, VP Communications, Heritage and Editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal

Conservatives have alleged Facebook bias for years, with the narrative building after reports that Facebook's content reviewers were suppressing conservative content via its "Trending Topics" feature led to an inquiry by the Senate Commerce committee in 2016.

 

• Quote

   

  • Most recently, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing featuring two conservative video personalities, Diamond and Silk, who have accused the social platform of limiting the reach of their videos.
  • Minorities, including Jews, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and others have voiced concerns over Facebook's ad tools allowing users to target ads to "Jew Haters" and exclude some minority groups from housing ads.

   

   

[RedDenver]

39 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I just came across this link - which is a good step---- I hope

 

https://www.axios.com/scoop-facebook-committing-to-internal-pobias-audit-1525187977-160aaa3a-3d10-4b28-a4bb-b81947bd03e4.html

 

 

 

•  

Interesting that there's no "liberal bias adviser"

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Interesting that there's no "liberal bias adviser"

Facebook isn't blocking liberal content or at least that is the perception.

[TGHusker]

51 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Facebook isn't blocking liberal content or at least that is the perception.

 

Per the link below, there is a movement of conservatives trying to bring the issue to the forefront. 

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nb-staff/2018/05/01/conservatives-urge-fairer-social-media-policies

 

Quote

 

MRC Founder and President Brent Bozell, MRC Censorship Project Director Allen West, and 61 other conservative leaders issued the following joint statement on Tuesday urging leading social media companies to adopt four key principles in order to ensure that conservatives receive equal treatment on these important platforms:

 

Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s hearings on Capitol Hill only served to draw attention to how widespread this problem has become. Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.

 

Conservatives have encountered problems across platforms — Twitter, Facebook, Google, and its video platform YouTube especially. Social media firms have banned gun videos and rejected pro-life advertisements. They have skewed search results and adjusted trending topics in ways that have harmed the right. Firms have restricted and deleted videos, even academic content. Conservative tech employees have found their speech limited and their careers harmed. And top tech companies have given preferential treatment to anointed legacy media outlets that also lean left. These same tech titans then work with groups openly hostile to conservatives to restrict speech.

Here are four key areas that social media companies must address to begin to rectify their credibility problem:

1) Provide Transparency: We need detailed information so everyone can see if liberal groups and users are being treated the same as those on the right. Social media companies operate in a black-box environment, only releasing anecdotes about reports on content and users when they think it necessary. This needs to change. The companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable, while giving weight to privacy concerns.

2) Provide Clarity on ‘Hate Speech’: “Hate speech” is a common concern among social media companies, but no two firms define it the same way. Their definitions are vague and open to interpretation, and their interpretation often looks like an opportunity to silence thought. Today, hate speech means anything liberals don’t like. Silencing those you disagree with is dangerous. If companies can’t tell users clearly what it is, then they shouldn’t try to regulate it.

3) Provide Equal Footing for Conservatives: Top social media firms, such as Google and YouTube, have chosen to work with dishonest groups that are actively opposed to the conservative movement, including the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those companies need to make equal room for conservative groups as advisers to offset this bias. That same attitude should be applied to employment diversity efforts. Tech companies need to embrace viewpoint diversity.

4) Mirror the First Amendment: Tech giants should afford their users nothing less than the free speech and free exercise of religion embodied in the First Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. That standard, the result of centuries of American jurisprudence, would enable the rightful blocking of content that threatens violence or spews obscenity, without trampling on free speech liberties that have long made the United States a beacon for freedom.

 

Social media companies must address these complaints if they wish to have any credibility with the conservative movement and its tens of millions of supporters. It is our hope they will do so in a positive way. If the social media firms engage the conservative movement with the spirit of cooperation, we will do our best to assist them.

 

The article then goes on to list the people/organizations that put out this statement.

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Per the 2nd link below, conservative voices are being silenced

 

That's their own damn fault for loving false news and spreading lies so much. 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

My concern is that we have big corporation as the thought police and that concerns me about 1st amendment rights. 

 

That's not how the First Amendment works though. The government isn't stifling any free speech, and Facebook isn't stopping anyone from saying what they want either. They're just not going to allow lying voices and companies to use their platform as successfully.

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

That's their own damn fault for loving false news and spreading lies so much. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not how the First Amendment works though. The government isn't stifling any free speech, and Facebook isn't stopping anyone from saying what they want either. They're just not going to allow lying voices and companies to use their platform as successfully.

It will be interesting as to where they draw the line.  I think we all understand where they will stand on a site like Infowars if they start spewing crap about how a mass shooting never happened and was fabricated by the government.

 

However, what if I (as an individual) make a Facebook post saying the same thing?  Will they delete my post?  Delete my account?  What if I create a whole new Facebook page and start posting conspiracy theories?

 

At what point, will Facebook get involved?

[TGHusker]

52 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

That's their own damn fault for loving false news and spreading lies so much. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not how the First Amendment works though. The government isn't stifling any free speech, and Facebook isn't stopping anyone from saying what they want either. They're just not going to allow lying voices and companies to use their platform as successfully.

I agree - this isn't a first amendment issue as FB isn't the govt. - As a private enterprise, FB can deny access to whomever.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I agree - this isn't a first amendment issue as FB isn't the govt. - As a private enterprise, FB can deny access to whomever.

True.  However, this then hits on the questions that the Senate asked Zuckerberg on the monopoly issue.  If Facebook decides that all conservative opinions is banned and they let liberal opinions thrive and grow on the site....AND they have a monopoly on social media.....it causes a problem that the government is uncomfortable about.  If they do not have a monopoly and conservative opinions can be expressed on another social media, then it's much less of a problem.

[Landlord]

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It will be interesting as to where they draw the line.  I think we all understand where they will stand on a site like Infowars if they start spewing crap about how a mass shooting never happened and was fabricated by the government.

 

However, what if I (as an individual) make a Facebook post saying the same thing?  Will they delete my post?  Delete my account?  What if I create a whole new Facebook page and start posting conspiracy theories?

 

At what point, will Facebook get involved?

 

 

 

Facebook isn't really drawing any lines - they're relying on third party fact checking sources, and also a crowdsourcing, to do that.

 

I've seen tons of conservatives over the last month or two start crying about how their posts are getting deleted and Facebook is censoring them. Well... Facebook isn't really doing anything. What's happening is enough other human beings are flagging their posts as false news, and once they hit a certain threshold of citizens calling s#!t out, then they get deleted. I also just recently saw someone share some obviously false conspiracy theory, and when I clicked on it a little section appeared underneath it with a suggested article from snopes, debunking whatever the stupid claim was. 

 

These things are still able to be abused, but the solutions they're coming up with are much, much less heavy-handed and authoritarian than they seem.

[TGHusker]

23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

True.  However, this then hits on the questions that the Senate asked Zuckerberg on the monopoly issue.  If Facebook decides that all conservative opinions is banned and they let liberal opinions thrive and grow on the site....AND they have a monopoly on social media.....it causes a problem that the government is uncomfortable about.  If they do not have a monopoly and conservative opinions can be expressed on another social media, then it's much less of a problem.

Yep----  In someways it would be the same if the Murdock family acquired NBC, ABC, CBS etc   -

[TGHusker]

As Gomer Pyle would say "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise".  A Fox hosts not only takes down Trump but body slams him on fake news and swamp draining.

Good video and article

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-host-neil-cavuto-013439832.html

 

Quote

 

Fox News host Neil Cavuto had some harsh words for Donald Trump on Thursday: Mr. President, you stink. 

The host listed some of Trump’s worst lies and misstatements, including claiming there was widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election and the recent revelation that he repaid his personal lawyer Michael Cohen for $130,000 in hush money given to porn star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, after he’d repeatedly denied knowing about the situation.

“How can you drain the swamp if you’re the one that keeps muddying the water?” Cavuto asked. “You didn’t know about that $130,000 payment to a porn star until you did.” 

Cavuto, one of the few hosts on Fox News who calls out the president, said Trump cannot criticize the press for reporting “fake news” when he repeatedly makes false statements without correction.

“Your base probably might not care,” Cavuto added. “But you should. I guess you’re too busy draining the swamp to ever stop and smell the stink you’re creating. That’s your doing. That’s your stink. Mr. President, that’s your swamp.”