Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter Agree to Australia's Misinformation-Fighting Code (zdnet.com) 164
ZDNet reports:
A handful of technology giants operating in Australia have agreed on a code of practice that aims to stem disinformation on their respective platforms. All signatories — Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Redbubble, TikTok, and Twitter — have committed to the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. They have also committed to releasing an annual transparency report about their efforts under the code...
[The Code] provides seven guiding principles, with the first aimed at protecting freedom of expression. "Signatories should not be compelled by governments or other parties to remove content solely on the basis of its alleged falsity if the content would not otherwise be unlawful," the code said. Another is centred on protecting user privacy and notes that any actions taken by digital platforms to address the propagation of disinformation and misinformation should not contravene commitments they have made to respect the privacy of Australian users...
"Empowering users" is another principle, that is to enable users to make informed choices about digital media content that purports to be a source of authoritative current news or of factual information. Signatories also commited to supporting independent researchers and having policies and processes concerning advertising placements implemented.
[The Code] provides seven guiding principles, with the first aimed at protecting freedom of expression. "Signatories should not be compelled by governments or other parties to remove content solely on the basis of its alleged falsity if the content would not otherwise be unlawful," the code said. Another is centred on protecting user privacy and notes that any actions taken by digital platforms to address the propagation of disinformation and misinformation should not contravene commitments they have made to respect the privacy of Australian users...
"Empowering users" is another principle, that is to enable users to make informed choices about digital media content that purports to be a source of authoritative current news or of factual information. Signatories also commited to supporting independent researchers and having policies and processes concerning advertising placements implemented.
Crocodiles promise (Score:5, Funny)
to investigate mysterious disappearances of swimmers; report expected "soon".
Re: (Score:2)
"to investigate mysterious disappearances of swimmers;"
Is this a reference to Harold Holt ?
Re: (Score:3)
They probably will try to solve the problem (Score:2)
That said, it'll come down to how profitable the misinformation is. While the ESRB worked (more or less) it didn't stop or slow video game sales, it just meant they couldn't do much more sex/violence then you see on late night TV (or else they couldn't sell their games in Walmart, which is more or less a deat
Re: (Score:2)
You are looking at what is going on with micro-transactions, not what is actually possible.
When I was a child, people routinely put nickles and dimes into machines to do micro transactions. Typically for a phone call (before cell phones), a piece of gum, or a small toy.
Even today, some apps cost $2.00. If that is all they ever charge, it is a valid micro-transaction, in my opinion. It is clearly possible for people to make non-abusive micro-transactions.
The problem is in part due to Apple and Google.
Re: (Score:2)
However it does effectively shift power from the courts to decide the truth, to a cabal of agreeing corporations to define the truth. It allows that cabal of corporations to punish as nobodies in what ever fiscal way they choose and then we have to PROVE OUR INNOCENCE to end that financial harm how ever many years it takes. Corporate defined guilt, until the citizen proves their innocence.
I prefer a system where ONLY THE COURTS define the truth. Where evidence is public presented and judged for it's worth.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to sell my Ministry of Truth shares
Ah, a tyranny reference ... yeah, you are badly misinformed about the way a dystopian tyranny works.
I think we have a new market leader, working together for the common good! You better believe it!!
Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to sell my Ministry of Truth shares
Ah, a tyranny reference ... yeah, you are badly misinformed about the way a dystopian tyranny works.
Why are you picking on transvestites? Ohh, sorry - I read that as a "dystopian tranny".
never mind
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Who gets to decide what misinformation is?
At the moment? Anti-vaxx, anti-science, QAnon, alt-right.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
- ASK the QAnon crowd how they still believe in QAnon when Trump lost the election (they said he would win)
- SHOW the alt-right why the white European population isn't falling to minority levels in every one of their countries and that "13-50" is a fake statistic.
- EXPLAIN to the anti-vaxx crowd that for every auto-immune fatality from the various covid vaccinoes, dozens of lives are saved
Besides, in the future, the government can turn evil, and then no one will able to discuss potential truths. We rely on the first amendment here in the US to protect us from that.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Well SHOW them why they're wrong. Hiding their information will make their resolve stronger.
- ASK the QAnon crowd how they still believe in QAnon when Trump lost the election (they said he would win)
- SHOW the alt-right why the white European population isn't falling to minority levels in every one of their countries and that "13-50" is a fake statistic.
- EXPLAIN to the anti-vaxx crowd that for every auto-immune fatality from the various covid vaccinoes, dozens of lives are saved
Besides, in the future, the government can turn evil, and then no one will able to discuss potential truths. We rely on the first amendment here in the US to protect us from that.
You can't argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
-- Mark Twain
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Well SHOW them why they're wrong.
That's already been tried, and plenty of people still trying. But all it has shown is that it doesn't work. I don't understand how people like you exist that thinks no one has tried to take them on - as though everyone just sit on their hands and let them go uncontested.
- ASK the QAnon crowd how they still believe in QAnon when Trump lost the election (they said he would win)
People still believe in the rapture despite numerous predictions failing. JWs is a poster-child for a religious offshoot that came out of a failed rapture prediction.
- SHOW the alt-right why the white European population isn't falling to minority levels in every one of their countries and that "13-50" is a fake statistic
- EXPLAIN to the anti-vaxx crowd that for every auto-immune fatality from the various covid vaccinoes, dozens of lives are saved
The fact that you think that's possible shows you haven't even tried. I've tried. And it's just made my anger issues even worse, because there is no reasoning someone out of believing something they didn't get to with reasoning in the first place. You're obviously living in a bubble and never had to deal with the constant goal-post shifting, the red herring arguments, the "you're angry so you must be wrong" and other logical fallacies, and the forgetting of their own arguments such that they always talk you around in circles. AND they take the sign of talking you around in circles as a victory, because they simply don't hold to any standards of truth, other than whatever they think must be true and everyone else who disagrees is wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
That's already been tried, and plenty of people still trying. But all it has shown is that it doesn't work. I don't understand how people like you exist that thinks no one has tried to take them on - as though everyone just sit on their hands and let them go uncontested.
Those aren't necessarily the people you're trying to convince. The ONLOOKERS who are watching the conversation are. They need both sides for balance.
People still believe in the rapture despite numerous predictions failing.
The people who don't believe anymore in Q won't necessarily say as such. They'll just silently leave the movement. Why do you think you need to get an acknowledgement from the person you're debating to leave a lasting impression?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Those aren't necessarily the people you're trying to convince. The ONLOOKERS who are watching the conversation are. They need both sides for balance.
This - a thousand times this.
I often get into discussions with people about things like global warming. Or as I prefer to call it, energy retention by radiative forcing.
And I could really not give a rat's ass about convincing the person I'm "arguing" with. I'm using their stupidity as a platform to hopefully lead others to some physical laws that govern life. If nothing else, to allow sensible people to understand that physics is not something that congress can vote on to make true or false.
The asshat that thinks AGW is a Chinese plot is just providing me with a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and that's working out so well.
A society gets too stupid, and they tend to drop out of the picture.
Re: Wow (Score:3)
And don't get mad, this indeed gives many people the idea that you're frustrated because
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Well SHOW them why they're wrong. Hiding their information will make their resolve stronger.
Actually studies have found that people who believe conspiracy theories, the more evidence you show them that their theory is wrong, the more resolute they become in their belief.
The "true believers" in conspiracy theories are just that, true believers of a religion and for them their faith in their religion outweighs any factual evidence to the contrary. They believe because they want to believe and for them disbelieving would unmake their entire world and, to them, make their entire lives into lies where they were gullible fools.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Actually studies have found that people who believe conspiracy theories, the more evidence you show them that their theory is wrong, the more resolute they become in their belief.
Two Trump supporters die, and go to heaven.
When they meet with God, they ask him:
"Tell us God - Trump really won the 2020 presidential election, didn't he."
God replied:
"No my sons, Joe Biden won by over 7 million votes in a closely watched election that was the most fair and lawful election ever."
The Trumpers narrow their eyes, scowl, and the one whispers to the other:
"This goes even deeper than we thought!"
Re: (Score:2)
that was the most fair and lawful election ever."
This sort of language doesn't fill me with confidence. How do you measure such a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
that was the most fair and lawful election ever."
This sort of language doesn't fill me with confidence. How do you measure such a thing?
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually studies have found that people who believe conspiracy theories, the more evidence you show them that their theory is wrong, the more resolute they become in their belief.
Are you sure it isn't because they feel as if they're being attacked, rather than politely refuting their views? Do you have a source to the study?
Not agreeing with a conspiracy theorist is always seen by them as an attack.
The paranoid nature of people who believe conspiracy theories causes them to distrust everyone, including people who they once treated as allies.
This is all rooted in the paranoid's practice of deciding the outcome, then discarding all evidence that does not support that outcome. So they often discard each other's new evidence.
But when whatever they thought was going to happen, didn't happen, they come up with a new thing - then if people don't accept it, they have new enemies.
An example is the QAnon people's shifting stories of how Trump was going to seize power on the 6th of January, then at the inauguration, and now they apparently believe it will happen in early March. Many have turned against each other in the meantime as the conspiracies don't line up.
Bullshit about the earth being round (Score:2)
Lots of people have spouted those lies. Tried to convince me that the earth is not flat. All lies and distortions.
They show me a picture that they say is of the earth from space. Did they take the picture? No! It is just a picture.
They show a map of Antarctica. Have they been there? No. Do they know anyone who has been there? No. Maybe they new someone that took a trip to south America and were told it was Antarctica but did they use a sextant? no.
Just look out the window. It is obvious. The ear
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not and yes, there are studies. It is known as the Backfire Effect [effectiviology.com]. In short, when a person's beliefs are challenged with facts, that person chooses to ignore the facts in place of their beliefs. Here are two articles which lay out the bias [psychologytoday.com] we all have when it comes to facts [scientificamerican.com].
This long article [youarenotsosmart.com] gives a good description of how and why it works u
Re: (Score:3)
That is the problem that Australia wants these social media platforms to do something about when it affects their democratic institutions and public health. But you'd know that if you'd read the link to what they were opting into.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
>> They may seem like bots (on both sides of the political spectrum to be fair)
(Emphasis mine.) I don't think the consensus is that that's actually the case. There's a direct geopolitical profit motive in disinformation campaigns that doesn't exist with the act of trying to educate a citizenship with the goal of shielding or inoculating them from believing things they're repeatedly exposed to - hence the legisltative approach. It's hardly out of line with historical approaches to the same problem, so the notion that this is some kind of new slide into Orwellian territory is eye rolling.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work. It's been known for a long time. Read this article at Science:
The spread of true and false news online [sciencemag.org]
As Mark Twain wrote, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Re: (Score:2)
Well SHOW them why they're wrong. Hiding their information will make their resolve stronger.
It's pointless. The paragraph below is paraphrased from Jean-Paul Sartre's 1946 essay on anti-semitism, replacing 'antisemites' with QAnon cultists. See if it rings any bells for you.
"The [QAnon cultist] has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devalue words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result... Never believe that [Qanon cultists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But th
Re: (Score:2)
EXPLAIN to the anti-vaxx crowd that for every auto-immune fatality from the various covid vaccinoes, dozens of lives are saved
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I have plenty of them thanks to my military family and will continue to do so when prudent. But this doesn't mean I blindly accept any medicine that the government decides I have to put into my body.
1 death to potentially save 'dozens' of lives isn't a great solution if you're the person marked for death.
Besides, in the future, the government can turn evil, and then no one will able to discuss potential truths. We rely on the first amendment here in the US to protect us from that.
Which is why a lot of people supported the most pro-1st amendment President we've had in years.
Re: (Score:2)
From those who are anti-biology?
Re: (Score:2)
contrived nonsense vs actually referencing history.
it's no surprise some people see this as a good thing.
just glad i am not leaving any children to deal with the mess the idiots of my generation are creating.
Re: (Score:2)
The NYT story was corroborated by claims (that were determined to be wrong) that were passed on to everyone, including criminal investigators.
The official stance of the department was even that he died as a result of injuries sustained during the riot.
The article in question was also updated on Feb 12, specifying that criminal investigators have been unable to find evidence of actual trauma sustained by the officer.
In short, who's wor
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot used to be incredibly free speech 10 years ago. What happened?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody hasn't read 1984 or understands its themes.
No, he is simply labouring under the delusion that while government is always dishonest and corrupt, private corporations are without exception the wellspring of all honesty and morality in the universe.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot used to be incredibly free speech 10 years ago. What happened?
The left was free speech when it was out of power. Now that it is in power not so much. I guess it isn't too surprising when you think about it. Aside from simply common sense schoolyard aphorisms about power and corruption and the deceptiveness of many idealistic people, this is just the latest example in a very welltrod path in history of leftwingers cutting lose in a matter of speaking whenever they take on the reins. From the French, to turn of the century Mexico, to Russia its absolutely uncanny how often its happened...it must be like some weird psychogenetic thing.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
The left is in power? News to me. Democrats are wholly owned by corporate america, same as Republicans. They are anything *but* left wing. Look at how they've acted and voted. Never mind their words. When Clinton deregulated everything he could, was that a left-wing stance? When Obama bailed out Wall St and left everyone else twisting in the wind, that was a left wing position? How come the Republicans didn't fight those moves tooth and nail? Why haven't they done everything possible to reverse those things?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Actual conservatives would have let the big three go under along with the big banks. The free market showed their business plans didn't work. Foreign auto makers and smaller banks had zero problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me help you with some definitions:
Right: Extreme right election overthrowing corrupt government hell bent on selling out America to anyone who will buy.
Left: Election winning corrupt government willing to sell out America to those with big checkbooks and offering more jobs (or economy, or whatever the word du jour is). Also slightly left on the political spectrum compared to the right, and they're coming for your guns.
Bernie: Actually slightly left, otherwise known as a dangerous socialist, hell bent on
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats are wholly owned by corporate america, same as Republicans.
They are establishment, certainly. There is a real left wing in America, in academia most prominently, and they abandoned free speech a lot more than 10 years ago. (cancel culture, safe spaces etc.) But while their ideology may be often far from evidence-based, they do not seem to be guilty of the outright lies and conspiracy theories that are flooding the internet. They sort-of see unfounded conspiracies against blacks or women, but at least they have some historical basis in reality. You can draw
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The left was free speech when it was out of power. Now that it is in power not so much.
The left barely exists and has only notional influence in our government today. Biden is a centrist, not a leftist, and is already backing off from all of his leftist campaign promises. He ran on getting "stimulus" (read: relief) checks out "immediately" but that hasn't happened, has it? But he's made sure to get pork moving to Raytheon, one of his donors. He's backed off from the $15 minimum wage and from meaningful student loan forgiveness as well.
Historically, when Democrats control congress they dick around and accomplish very little. When Republicans control it they link arms and march in lock step, and run right over freedoms. But both are parties of corporate whoredom. They both represent corporations, not us. There are only a few senators and reps who behave otherwise. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to examine voting records and decide who's who.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, when Democrats control congress they dick around and accomplish very little.
My observation is that Conservatives tend to share a lot more common values, eg God, Country, Constitution, individual rights etc. Whereas Liberals are a loose collective of special interest groups that all want different things eg Socialists, Hippies, LGBT, Immigrants etc. So when Liberals are in opposition they all gang up on Conservatives. When Liberals are in power they all split back into their special interest factions and never achieve anything.
When Republicans control it they link arms and march in lock step, and run right over freedoms.
The idea that Conservatives run over freedoms is at odds
Re: (Score:3)
No, you just think the current political left is not left enough for you, even though they are one step away from outright communism.
Really? One step away from abolishing the class system and also doing away with our currency system? It would probably help if you knew what Communism was.
Re: (Score:2)
We're nowhere close to communism (as if thats a bad thing)
The right wing has metastasized under Reagan and proceeded to wreck what used to be a first-world country. For fun and profit. America has been dragged so far to the right in the last 40 years, that Nixon couldn't get elected today -- too far to the left. So I hope the Right is proud of how they've turned this whole country into something like Texas -- an ignorant 3rd world shithole with only 2 classes: the Lords and the Peasants. Fukkin profiteering
Re: (Score:2)
The left was free speech when it was out of power. Now that it is in power not so much. I guess it isn't too surprising when you think about it.
It's astonishing how quickly the turnaround happened. I would respond by voting Republican every time, but the Republicans unfortunately haven't really changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot used to be incredibly free speech 10 years ago. What happened?
Because there are different levels of what constitutes "free speech"
Some of those people who were incredibly free speech supported things like death threats, threats of violence or deliberate falsehoods, any thing that promotes harm as free speech.
Certainly, the First amendment does not say anything of the sort:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people pe
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty simple. No official religion. No prohibition of free exercise of religion. No laws against the freedom of speech. This means the government cant arrest you for what you say. No laws against the free press, or assembly, and allowing complaints to be made against the government.
It just means no statutory (legislated) laws against speech, the press and religion, by the Federal legislature. It left it to the individual States whether they wanted to allow removal of those rights, most all did have similar in their Constitutions.
More importantly, it left it to the courts to be able to ban speech, regulate the press, and even religions, under the common law, including a Judge being able to order your imprisonment for breaking their order, eg contempt.
This meant you could ask a Judge to
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
If the censorship is designed to suppress ideas (rather than a particular expression of the idea), then it's absolutely bad.
Re: (Score:3)
If the censorship is designed to suppress ideas (rather than a particular expression of the idea), then it's absolutely bad.
That's a pretty good metric.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
In fact in Orwell's world the social media platforms would be the good guys here. What he was afraid of was fascists putting out false information and lies, with no means to combat them. A major theme in Nineteen Eighty Four is that misinformation goes unchallenged, and is practically impossible to challenge.
A lot of people mistakenly think that the book is about censorship. It's not, it's about how persistent lies and misinformation are a tool of fascism. Orwell was an anti-fascist, he fought them voluntarily and even got shot in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the law does specifically say that just having the government object to something or claim it is false is not enough of a reason to remove it, so...
I think generally speaking Orwell would approve of platforms like Twitter, because for the most part they give ordinary people a voice and make it harder for governments and corporations to control the narrative. Remember that he used to work for various newspapers, he was well aware of how the traditional publishing industry acted as a gatekeeper. The smal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway I'm not sure what the hell he'd make of social media. He was in favour of a free press and free expression and would not doubt embrace the idea of that. But I doubt he would have anything positive to say about the crap that bots push which is essentially just gray / black propaganda.
1984 wasn't about Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of left-leaning people today seem to think the book was about Fascism, when it was a directed attack on Soviet Communism--particularly the Stalinist variety. This should be obvious since Animal Farm was also an in-your-face indictment of the hypocrisy of Communism in practice in a way that would be easily understood by children.
Yes, Orwell was anti-Fascist, but he was an anti-Communist Socialist even more so. That's why he was so passionately hated by the hard left. He was a Democratic Socialist and saw the hard left for the completely-fungible-with-Fascism that it was and still is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was never about YOU and YOUR ideas. Orwell was never a communist, where do you get this misinformation? He attended a communist meeting once, but he absolutely hated the ideas it espoused.
Here are quotes from Orwell himself:
After he attended a communist meeting:
"his speech the usual claptrap—The blame for everything was put upon mysterious international gangs of Jews"
On Animal Farm:
"Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian revolution. But I did mean it to have a wider appli
Re: (Score:2)
Read it again, more carefully. I didn't say Orwell was a communist, I said he worked with them at times, when their goals aligned.
Again, Animal Farm is not about communism. It was about the revolution and how in the end the people were betrayed and the former royalty replaced by similarly dictatorial leaders. Orwell was a democratic socialist, so obviously he disagreed with communism, but that wasn't the point he was making in that book.
The quote you use - "his speech the usual claptrapâ"The blame for
Re: (Score:2)
You should read his autobiography. He went to Spain to fight Fascists, loved the way Socialism was being implemented in parts of Spain, and then the Stalinist's showed up and fucked everything up with authoritarianism, including attacking him and his having to sneak out of the country.
He was anti-authoritarian. There's the left-right political axis and there is also the authoritarian-libertarian political axis. Libertarian-ism itself was originally a socialist movement.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people mistakenly think that the book is about censorship. It's not, it's about how persistent lies and misinformation are a tool of fascism.
Censorship and oppression of opposition are also a tools of Fascism. .
Orwell was an anti-fascist, he fought them voluntarily and even got shot in the process.
Yes and his literary work was to point out the fascist tendencies of Marxism, an idea completely lost on Antifa idiots who run around wearing hammer and sickle logos, burning down buildings and shutting down opposing voices.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
misinformation goes unchallenged, and is practically impossible to challenge.
How do you propose we do that with legal restrictions on speech, publishing, information sharing? Whose side do you think the censors will take?
Sure, because allowing people to peddle lies, hate and conspiracy theories without consequences is working so well for us. There is a reason we have had libel laws since Roman times. Freedom of speech does not and should not guarantee you immunity from suffering consequences if you use freedom of speech to say stupid shit. Stupid should not be encouraged and rewarded.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
lies, hate and conspiracy theories
Two of those are provable and so should be discussed in the realm of debate, which is only possible to do openly and honestly without censorship. One is an emotion which I'm not sure any authority should be in the business regulating.
immunity from suffering consequence
If someone believes 'lies' or 'hate speech', be it from Marxists, Fascists, Islamists or your local band of football hooligans, and chooses to act on it by harming people or property, we've already laws to deal with that, The consequences of these actions are already known to the perpetrators.
But someone speaking nonsense on the internet? That's not the government's business. We've much more to fear from those who wish to control speech than we do from those with nasty things to say. What kind of person, a would-be censor, presumes so much of himself? How many people do you know who you'd trust with such vast power? We won't be much safer from danger, and we'll be far less safe from the state (an entity much harder to escape).
It is unsettling to read someone argue for his own enslavement. But here we are.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
lies, hate and conspiracy theories
Two of those are provable and so should be discussed in the realm of debate, which is only possible to do openly and honestly without censorship. One is an emotion which I'm not sure any authority should be in the business regulating.
immunity from suffering consequence
If someone believes 'lies' or 'hate speech', be it from Marxists, Fascists, Islamists or your local band of football hooligans, and chooses to act on it by harming people or property, we've already laws to deal with that, The consequences of these actions are already known to the perpetrators. But someone speaking nonsense on the internet? That's not the government's business. We've much more to fear from those who wish to control speech than we do from those with nasty things to say. What kind of person, a would-be censor, presumes so much of himself? How many people do you know who you'd trust with such vast power? We won't be much safer from danger, and we'll be far less safe from the state (an entity much harder to escape). It is unsettling to read someone argue for his own enslavement. But here we are.
When the level of stupid on the internet is resulting in a moron with a semi automatic rifle walking into a pizza resturant looking for a pedophile ring in a cellar that does not exist, that is when stupid becomes a matter of public safety and that is the government's business. When people are being shot over dumb ass conspiracy theories, dumb ass conspiracy theories pass into the realm of what law enforcement is responsible for regulating. You are effectively arguing that in the fever swamp of stupid that is the internet any person is by default guilty of the accusations levelled at them by the stupid and hateful. In your estimation it seems that person accused by a brainless lie peddling conspiracy theorists of something patently ridiculous should be encumbered with the financial burden of constantly defending themselves in court. Most of the time that doesn't even work because of jurisdictional issues. There has to be an accountability mechanism somewhere and if that is forcing Facebook, Google et al. to ban hammer morons who are using anonymity and/or jurisdictional limitations to slander people with impunity then that's fine with me. Hateful stupid idiots will still be able to exercise their freedom of speech to spread slander. That's just how the internet works but denying these bozos the most powerful platforms to disseminate their hateful slander and reducing them to posting their angry tirades of slander and hate from a blog site hosted on a PC standing under a table in their living room next to a potted plant thus reducing by orders of magnitude their ability to communicate their stupid bullshit conspiracy crap is good enough for me. Stupid should not be encouraged and rewarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Notably absent from your examples is any of the damage done by Antifa and BLM, who were just as destructive and very revolutionary in their goals.
a moron with a semi automatic rifle walking into a pizza resturant
We've had insane people do insane things since the dawn of time. Censorship won't stop them, just like how banning violent video games won't stop violence. If you're the type of person who walks into pizza shops armed, you're going to flip out eventually anyway with such a diluted sense of reality. Censorship won't save anyone from crazy people, the reasons they exist and act as they do are much more complicated than 'misinformation'. But no, trust the powers. Let's censor everything that brings the government discomfort. You can't see how that's a threat as well? I wish you luck with your righteous overlords.
Yes we have had stupid people do and say stupid things since the beginning of time. What has changed since then is that at the beginning of time, if you said or did something stupid, the the person suffering damage from your stupidity would track you down with a bunch of his/her angry extended family and visit upon you the physical consequences of your stupidity using pitchforks and flaming torches. While primitive, this generally had the beneficial effect of making people think before they spoke. These day
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
I'm just going to use your quotes against each other and not even bother arguing.
In the U.S., the number of whites who are killed by police is DOUBLE the number of blacks killed by police
Blacks are only 13% of the U.S. population
Re: (Score:2)
The writers of the 1st amendment left it to the courts to enforce speech by ordering someone to stop the lies, conspiracy theories or hate if you could convince a Judge (and maybe an appeal court) that it was in the public interest. That is why they only banned Congress from creating new law removing the current speech rights, which never included the right to slander etc.
The 1st could have been written like the 2nd, "the right of the people to speak will not be infringed"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably these laws could result in less censorship and restriction. At the moment each company has its own rules, that are a mixture of what its leadership deems acceptable, what its number crunchers think will maximise engagement, and what advertisers demand. Setting up a legal framework might actually get everyone on the same page and make it easier for people wanting to publish controversial stuff.
Of course it might also go horribly wrong.
Given what happened in the United States recently, the fact that
Re: (Score:2)
These are not laws, this is a voluntary industry code -- although of the form where the Australian government essentially said "create a 'voluntary code' or else we will make laws". And it hardly changes anything that they were already doing. Perhaps the only notable event in the last year that it would recommend handling differently would be Twitter's suspension of the New York Post's account.
Yes, it says "Signatories should not be compelled by Governments or other parties
to remove content solely on the
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the USA thinks it is normal for "free speech" to be unregulated, but that only goes so far as the government is concerned. The FTC regulates broadcast media and freaks out if a nipple is shown. The owners of TV / radio networks dictate what the network chooses to say or not say. Private companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook
Pre-empting one government with another (Score:2)
So this is an attempt to show virtue to Australia, which is otherwise pushing them on news payments, while attempting to pre-empt the Biden administration's focus on social media's role in fanning extremism and untruths. The attempt to make themselves unculpable for spreading obvious untruths is a bit transparent, regardless of what is ethical. Interesting how these companies have become powerful enough to attempt to cherry pick which national government to adhere to while simultaneously suggesting that the
Finally the answers we've all been waiting for (Score:5, Insightful)
The dawn of a new enlightenment beckons! Silence the heretics, no sorry I mean dissenters, actually no I mean disinformation spreaders!
If I post to Twitter saying Miracle X cures COVID (Score:4, Insightful)
And you can at least make the argument that Rogan's just profoundly ignorant. He's a multi-multi-millionaire, there's no excuse, he can hire fact checkers like John Oliver does, but yeah, you can at least make the argument. But I don't think anyone believes Donald Trump, with the resources he has regarding the election results, is arguing in good faith.
People lie. Those lies can and will do harm. I'm fucking tired of pretending that every point of view has merit and deserves equal time. There are ideas that cannot and should not be entertained. And there are sick bastards out there who will do that for profit at the expense of us all.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm fucking tired of pretending that every point of view has merit and deserves equal time.
Believe me, I hate bs too. But the only way we can decide what is and what isn't is with free speech and open debate. Bad ideas can eventually be refuted that way. When there is control over what is said and when, it takes much longer for that to happen. If ever.
Point in case, we're having this discussion now and I think it is very edifying. You chose to participate. Imagine if you couldn't.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Point in case, we're having this discussion now and I think it is very edifying. You chose to participate. Imagine if you couldn't.
For leftists, there is a perpetual state of denial for the consequences of their own demands for censorship and policing other's speech.
Even despite real world examples, for them there's no possible connection between removing 'covid miracle cures', and having unflattering news about a politician being censored for political reasons.
They will complain bitterly about the corpocracy, and in the next breath demand corporate gatekeepers should be trusted to flex their power for our own good.
Re: (Score:2)
but here on the left we want to use societal pressure to stop the spread of harmful lies.
For anyone wondering what that really means, here's a bookstore being closed due to threats of violence. [koin.com]
Pulled any good fire alarms, lately?
I'm not buying anything written about Ngo (Score:3)
So it says misinformation is fine? (Score:3)
" not be forced to remove content solely on the basis of its alleged falsity "
So misinformation is fine? What am I missing...
Re: (Score:2)
not be forced to remove content solely on the basis of its alleged falsity "
They don't have to pull something down just because someone claims it is false. Some credible proof would be needed it is wrong/false to get the story/paper/study/review taken down.
Otherwise it would be a great way for a corporation to smother an news letter or blog from an environmental web site that reported finding evidence of the corporations illegal dumping of something.
I might be wrong but that is how I read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I see that now.
I also see that any lawyer can use that kind of statement to basically say anything that is not absolutely irrefutable must stay up.
Or people can just say "In my opinion ..." which makes it impossible to say it is false, as they can claim they really believe it.
Hopefully I am just being a cynic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What am I missing."
There is an underlying problem in that fact and opinion are conflated. It is conceivable to agree on the facts of a matter, for examples the efficacy of masks and draw different conclusions (opinion) on whether they are worthwhile (I think they are). In general "I think" is a flag that someone is about to present an opinion as fact.
Similarly, we don't *know* what Mr. Trump's intent was in his speeches and tweets with regard to what became the Jan 6 invasion of Capital Hill. We have opini
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read as: we will provide you with a number of fact checkers that align with our political ideas, they will tell you what is truth.
One of these things is not like the other. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Redbubble sounds like an accessory for a chest wound.
Anti-misinformation & pro-Murdoch? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a bit confused at why they are pushing a policy of preventing "Disinformation and Misinformation" while at the same time fighting for the likes of Rupert Murdoch? Those two are almost completely mutually exclusive.
Currently there is a countrywide ban on posting news publications/stories and my facebook feed appears to have never looked better. Back to cat memes, holiday validation photos and friends new babies. Yay!
Missing from the above discussions (Score:2)
Flat Earthers
The Easter Bunny
Santa Claus
All religions on the planet...
Re: (Score:3)
Not Santa!
Now you've opened up a can of worms, damn you!
Code will not apply to political advertising? (Score:2)
This is a little sus - Code will not apply to government content, political advertising
I understand there are policies in place already that cover some of this. But why bother excluding them?
Suspicious. (Score:2)
"The code [PDF] was prepared by the Digital Industry Group Inc (DiGi), a non-profit industry association advocating for the digital industry in Australia."
https://digi.org.au/about/ [digi.org.au] - Members include... Facebook, Google, Twitter. Though not Microsoft.
So really this headline should be "Facebook, Google and Twitter agree to abide by a misinformation-fighting code they wrote via a proxy organisation."
Ok, so what's in the code itsself? I don't know. I've tried to read it, but it's dense and what little I can fi
Politics filter (Score:2)
All I want is for these companies to flag any posting that's political in nature and allow me to filter out friends' political postings while letting the "look at what I'm eating for lunch" postings through. Is that too much to ask?
What a Concept (Score:2)
Software that blocks usage for not agreeing to the terms of service, what a crazy new concept!
Re: (Score:2)
What the actual? Why would Big Tech companies give two hoots about island nation with a pathetic 26 million inhabitants?
Because it is just the first one in line to kick them in the balls over their policy of profiting off of the cult of crackpottery and stupid. They are hoping to set a precedent for when they start tangling with the 1200 pound gorillas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because based on what you allow your government to get away with - internet censorship, snooping, speech codes, lockdowns, travel restrictions, gun control, etc. - you are a perfect bunch of sniveling crybabies for a pilot program. Like the Chinese, you believe that social cohesion overrides individual liberty.
The rugged Australian bloke is a myth. It's pooftahs all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder your cricket team is so shit.