Facebook, Twitter, and Google Still Aren't Doing Enough About Disinformation, EU Says (theverge.com) 110
Facebook, Twitter, and Google still aren't doing enough to battle disinformation on their platforms, European Union officials said in a statement released this week. "As part of a plan to fight disinformation on social media, the companies signed on to a voluntary proposal to crack down on the problem last year, which included making plans to increase transparency and fight fake accounts," reports The Verge. "The European Commission is now publicizing monthly progress reports on the topic, and has released the first, covering January." From the report: In the statement, the officials criticized the companies' responses, saying "we need to see more progress." "Platforms have not provided enough details showing that new policies and tools are being deployed in a timely manner and with sufficient resources across all EU Member States," the statement said. "The reports provide too little information on the actual results of the measures already taken."
Facebook, Twitter, and Google were each singled out for not providing enough information in their reports to officials, who said in today's statement that they remain "concerned by the situation." The statement pressed the platforms to move faster ahead of European Parliament elections in May. In an accompanying op-ed in The Guardian this week, EU commissioners said, "if we do not see sufficient long-term progress, we reserve the right to reconsider our policy options -- including possible regulation."
Facebook, Twitter, and Google were each singled out for not providing enough information in their reports to officials, who said in today's statement that they remain "concerned by the situation." The statement pressed the platforms to move faster ahead of European Parliament elections in May. In an accompanying op-ed in The Guardian this week, EU commissioners said, "if we do not see sufficient long-term progress, we reserve the right to reconsider our policy options -- including possible regulation."
Censorship by any other name (Score:1, Insightful)
Battle disinformation = conduct censorship. No difference.
Re:Censorship by any other name (Score:5, Interesting)
"Censorship" is not what it is when a TOS is enforced on a private website.
It is when it is compelled by the government, which is what the EU is doing.
Censorship in China works the same way. It is not done directly by the government. They outsource it to tech companies, who do what they are told so they can stay in business.
So what's the difference?
Re: Censorship by any other name (Score:1)
Pity you're a moron. Censorship is censorship and requires no government.
The concept of freedom of speech existed and exists outside of the US's first amendment and the barely comparable apings of Eurotrash.
Re: Censorship by any other name (Score:1)
They ARE the disinformation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Battle disinformation = conduct censorship. No difference.
Exactly.
Much like the long list of other parallels that exist between the EU and the former USSR.
The EU is well on the path to becoming a "kinder, gentler" USSR-style super-State. No surprise the EU is resorting to similar authoritarian measures against "wrong-think" and for suppressing dissenting voices.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they wanted to block disinformation -- and they don't -- they are incapable of knowing disinformation from the other kind.
Not just because of normal human limitations, but also because of their inherent (and by now obvious) biases.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not wrong.
Twitter and Facebook have been the flagship champions of empty-calorie non-information from their inception. How anyone even cares about 'dis' information there is beyond me.
Anyone who uses Twitter or Facebook for "information" in the first place deserves to be the victim of disimformation.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who uses Twitter or Facebook for "information" in the first place deserves to be the victim of disimformation.
The problem is that these people can vote, so their delusions become everyone's problem.
Robotic Filtering (Score:5, Funny)
Using automated content filtering is how you get cases like Marvin the paranoid android. Please, think of the androids!
Re: (Score:3)
More simple still: put a flag of the country of origin of the IP address and the user. Both of these are known values, easily placed. Add TOR exit nodes with an exclamation point. Easy.
That pesky 1st amendment (Score:1, Insightful)
Disinformation is that which displeases the strongest and most violent.
Re: (Score:2)
The far more likely context is the upcoming EU parliament elections, where it seems that pro-EU parties are going to get a serious beating as the anti-EU sentiment is rapidly climbing across most of the member states. One way to curb this would be to sensor any news painting EU in a negative light as "disinformation" and anyone spreading it as "bad people with bad agenda".
Mainstream media across EU is largely on board with this and has been for many years. So to lock the information down completely, one nee
Re: (Score:2)
We are in agreement. The only thing to add is that this is one of the countless cases where "side product" is more important than the core one.
Re: (Score:1)
Disinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all in favor of suppressing disinformation, but who should decide an information is truth or not?
We all remember Irak's Weapons of Mass Destruction, a government backed information followed up my many medias, which turned to be a huge fake news. It was so fake that US invaders did not even manage to plant fake evidence to support it after they "won" the war.
Re:Disinformation (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you. I thought he was criticising Bush there. You kids know nothing!
A good reason to use Iraq's WMD as an example is because it was many years ago, so long ago that nobody will come up with the tired tropes they do today to deflect from their favourite president. So today, you say "Trump did bad" others will jump up and reply "but Obama did badder", and vice-versa.
with WMD it is now "history" and thus a little past the tribal politics, we can use it to highlight the problem with fake news quite well as it not only stands up as a prime example, but is self-contained and not nearly as mixed up in current politicking.
Re: (Score:2)
A good reason to use Iraq's WMD as an example is because it was many years ago
Indeed, this is exactly why I chose that example, rather than more recent government-backed fake news for which there are remaining supporters.
They learned their lesson after Iraq (Score:2)
The Bush Administration made very specific claims about Iraq that could be falsified, eventually. With Russiagate, it's a bunch of Gish Gallop bullshit that sees it's True Believers hop back and forth between debunked talking points, like climate changers. Put the high priests [youtube.com] of Russiagate on the spot [youtu.be] and they quickly lose their shit when pressed. Adam Schitt loses his shit when asked to look into the camera and say, on the record, that Russia was behind the phishing of the Podesta emails.
Modern examples (Score:4, Interesting)
I am all in favor of suppressing disinformation, but who should decide an information is truth or not?
We all remember Irak's Weapons of Mass Destruction
In modern times, we get the following:
a) Buzzfeed reports that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, which Mueller's office contradicts the next day.
a) Buzzfeed reports on the Covington students, they were lambasted in the media for about a week, then better video evidence was available
b) Jussie Smollett gets attacked in NY by two white, MAGA-hat wearing Trump supporters who put a noose around his neck and splash him with some liquid. And later charged with obstruction for making the whole bit up.
I find it particularly entertaining because Microsoft NewsGuard counts "Drudge Report" as fake news. "Drudge Report" is mostly a story aggregator (as Slashdot is for tech news) and doesn't have many news stories on its own, so it can hardly be considered "fake".
Scott Adams made an interesting suggestion for a fake news filter: if it's on all 4 major networks (Breitbart(*), Fox, CNN, MSNBC) then it's probably not fake. This is an interesting take, because the left-leaning outlets tend to wait for the full story when it's potentially bad for them, and the right-leaning outlets do the same when it's bad for their side. Waiting until both sides agree that the information is available and solid would prevent problems of "instant speculation gets the story wrong" like the Covington students or Jussie Smollett.
If you have an eye for humor, the current MSM is right risible. Some 80% of the population (84%, by a recent poll) now doesn't trust the mainstream media for just about anything spectacular.
By going after conservative outlets as "fake news", the public now labels the MSM as untrustworthy.
That's hilarious!
(*) Yes, Breitbart. Get over it. Breitbart has more readers than the next two networks (Fox and MSNBC) *combined*. CNN is in 4th place.
Re:Modern examples (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like, CNN gets some specific detail of the 2567614th awful thing Trump said/did wrong and issues a correction a day or two later, meanwhile Fox News is spouting 'Look at how the fake news media smeared the honest, upstanding, genius Donald Trump! Now here's our 10-part series on how the caravan of MS-13 and ISIS is a full-scale invasion and will destroy America!'
CNN: Trump told 18 lies today. Fox News: The Fake News CNN called one of those 18 "lies" a lie because the number was 14,000 and not 15,000! Now here's our piece about how Trump and Huckabee-Sanders were truthful and sending the right message when he said thousands of terrorists were caught trying to cross the Mexico-US border even though the "actual" number was just 6, who were on a watchlist and not confirmed terrorists.'
Yes, it was bad fact-checking bias to call 15k instead of 14k a lie, but then Fox News/Breitbart immediately followup their 'caught the liberal media being biased again!' with overt hostility towards the truth, blind worship of Trump, and bias so severe it makes whatever they were calling out seem like a paragon of neutrality.
Fox News: "MSNBC lied when said the middle class didn't benefit from Trump's tax cuts!" (Because they got a few hundred in pay or tax benefits) "This proves Trump was truthful and correct in saying that the tax cuts hurt the rich and him and his friends personally and was a massive giveaway to the working man!" (Even though 90% of benefits went to the top 1% and Trump&friends substantially benefited.) Then they'll proceed to repeat Trump's lies about how megacorps using all their tax savings on stock buybacks and virtually nothing on wages actually benefits the middle class and not the wealthy too. But those liberal liars can't be trusted because we caught them lying about the middle class actually receiving a pittance instead of nothing! So them lying proves we're not!
That they've convinced 80% of everyone that the false info, deliberate misleading, and overt bias is so pervasive even outside of Fox News/Breitbart that mainstream news in general can't be trusted is the ultimate 'fake news'.
PS: I went on a tear about SJWs and their 'white men are all racist/sexist!' schtick earlier today, so when you conservatives give me a '-1 The Truth Makes Me Angry!' mod on this post, how's about balancing out the '-1 The Truth Makes Me Angry!' mod the liberals will be giving me for that one
Now I'm off to look for a thread talking about "centrists" to see if I can hit the trifecta of pissing off the entire political spectrum in one day.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you fucking kidding me? Breitbart has an intention to lead, they are very biased, but their misleading is accidental because they don't have a good editor. The other news outlets lie their asses off every single day as a matter of
Re: (Score:2)
"Liberal" Bias? No. They're just more centrist.
It's like calling Hillary Clinton "Liberal", where she is clearly Authoritarian: https://www.politicalcompass.o... [politicalcompass.org]
Re:Modern examples (Score:4, Interesting)
Automatically believing something that the left-wing AND right-wing biased outlets report on is still unwise, as it just means that outlets that lack critical reporting and are willing to publish regardless of truth merely have to agree to prioritize profits. It's commonplace that a white house press release will happen and all the publishers across the spectrum will report on it, even if it's blatant disinformation. Reporting "person X says Y" is technically factual, even if the reporter knows the content is bullshit. I expect newswires to do that, but any news outlet that editorializes should be more skeptical, and I'd only factor in the ones that are.
How about if, say, The Atlantic, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Christian Science Monitor all agree on something?
Good point, and testable (Score:3)
Automatically believing something that the left-wing AND right-wing biased outlets report on is still unwise, as it just means that outlets that lack critical reporting and are willing to publish regardless of truth merely have to agree to prioritize profits.[...]
How about if, say, The Atlantic, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Christian Science Monitor all agree on something?
That's a very good point.
It would seem that Scott's idea is testable. Perhaps instead of using the top 4 networks, the idea should be studied over the course of a few months using all the major networks, and see if a combination - *any* combination - works as a fake news filter.
It shouldn't be too hard to find, in retrospect, blatant mistakes like the Covington students, and then see which outlets got it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% of mainstream media outlets in the United States have a right wing bias. Yes, that includes MSDNC and National Pentagon Radio.
Re: (Score:1)
There was a 2 hour video of the Covington kids available SAME DAY
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
if it's on all 4 major networks (Breitbart(*), Fox, CNN, MSNBC) then it's probably not fake.
Consensus is a shitty way of determining if news is fake or not. For a start it's not like all four of them will send a journalist to report on every story, for the most part they all pick up the AP or Reuters story and add their own spin.
A better option is to weight sources. The BBC is mostly reliable and can be relied on to publish corrections. If it's on Brietbart it's probably false. Then WAIT, don't leap to conclusions and start shit-posting instantly, and if it's important maybe do some research to be
Your free speech is not disinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is saying what disinformation is?
The user has the ability to publish and link to any information they want. Its their comment.
Why should an NGO, think tank, mil, any nation, European Union official say thats not approved speech?
Spain on a comment about Catalonia?
Germany on history?
Germany on its open migration policy?
China on Taiwan?
Big agriculture wants some Ag-gag laws?
France wants to ban funny comments about politicians and all news about protests?
No comments on DRM?
No comments on political movies not selling well?
No right to talk about repairing brand name products with imported parts?
Weak junk crypto is a banned topic?
No linking to published whistleblower news about the mil and security services?
No funny memes about NATO?
No comments on EU nation arms exports to really bad nations?
No funny memes about EU nation censorship attempts?
A computer company on what needs to be curated and what speech is a sin?
Social media on what politics it will allow?
Will the EU has a blasphemy test for questions of faith? Can any faith, cult, theocracy tell the EU what they think disinformation is?
Can a Communist party demand the removal of information on democracy, faith, history, freedom by nations in the EU?
No saying Taiwan is the real China?
Do European Union officials have books, movies, plays, publications that want to ban due to "disinformation"?
Why stop with reporting and removing content online?
Go full German BfV on all EU publishers and online comments?
The US freedom to publish and the to stay free after publication is looking great after the views of EU nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anti-vaxx stuff protected by freedom of speech?
If you shout "fire" in a theatre and people are injured or killed trying to escape the non-existent conflagration, you may be liable for that. If you convince parents not to get their kids vaccinated and they suffer illness, life long poor heath or death as a result, "free speech" doesn't seem like a very good defence.
"Oh but I just told him where the money was, how to get in after hours and what the combination of the safe was! That's just information, I wa
Re: (Score:3)
On the example of the theatre, you can easily consider the shout something that is not speech, as well, you're screaming.
And on the case of not vaccinating, its not the speech itself causing the trouble, but not vaccinating.
And its way easier to just make illegal to not vaccinate your kids and keep tabs on what they took or not than creating a 1984 hell where all speech is monitored by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the "but I said it at normal volume therefore free speech" defence is likely to stand up in court. You can also imagine scenarios where shouting is not necessary.
The more fundamental problem here is people conflating freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. There would be no need to ban people from saying certain things, only to punish them for the consequences. And that has been happening forever, e.g. fraud, true threats, masterminding crimes, leaking classified information etc.
Re: (Score:2)
What the tech companies, EU etc want is to ban people from saying certain things.
Re: (Score:2)
No talking about crypto and DRM? Who gets to set what "material" is to be removed?
What speech is a sin?
What will be curated and who can lobby for all other sinful material to be removed?
A movie company what wants the negative "political" reviews of their new movie to stop and all past comments and links to be removed?
A hardware company that has a lot of failed product on the market but wants people to stop having the freedom to report on defects?
A faith group that wants to stop peo
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the EU it's always the judge who decides whether or not you broke the law by speaking. Never the government or the legislative branch. You see, we have separation of powers since the enlightenment period.
The legislative branch creates the laws. The judge interpretes and executes the law (makes it happen, judges). The executive branch ensures that the law is applied (policing, imprisonment, etc).
So who decides? The judge after the legislative branch has creates the laws that the judge needs in order
Who decides? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a pretty fine line between "preventing disinformation" and quashing free speech and dissent.
Is UKIP saying "Britain will be better off after Brexit" disinformation? Is Trump saying "some illegal immigrants commit heinous crimes in the USA" disinformation? Are directed wikileaks exposures disinformation? Is truth a defense?
Re: (Score:2)
The line is not that fine, this is a broad jump across it.
Of course, the real issue is that they need to figure out a new way to shake down the major US players for more cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is UKIP saying "Britain will be better off after Brexit" disinformation?
Is the claim that GBP350 million a week would go to the NHS disinformation? Yes as it happens. It was a bald-faced lie.
Farage made an almost identical claim (55 million per day) which was also a bald-faced lie.
These are not subjective opinions. You can literally count the net flow of money from the UK to the EU, and it is not those numbers.
So yes it was demonstrably misinformation.
Is Trump saying "some illegal immigrants commit heinous
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that you (deliberately) built strawmen to argue about, made it into a political side-bias point, and attacked the semantics rather than recognizing the point of the comment beyond that...proves that you're precisely part of the problem.
Thanks for making my point. You're EXACTLY the sort of tendentious person who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anyone else's free speech constraints.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
For someone who claims you like freeze peach so much you sure don't like it when someone uses tiers to disagree with you.
Yes UKIP and the Tory party spread misinformation. That's not really up for debate unless you deny reality.
I do like how you spin anyone disagreeing with you as being against free speech. Free speech means you are free to lie. Free speech means I'm free to call you out when you do so.
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you seem to be arguing against what YOU WANTED/EXPECTED me to say, rather than my actual words.
I didn't say shut up. I didn't say you shouldn't speak.
I said that your obvious tendentiousness means you should never be anywhere near the controls of 'what's free speech or not'.
L2read.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty fine line between "preventing disinformation" and quashing free speech and dissent.
You're right to be concerned, but wrong about the problem.
The problem isn't that it's hard to distinguish disinformation from free speech and dissent. Oh, you can find examples of cases where it's hard to make this call, but they're cases where the truth isn't actually all that clear. By and large, it's very easy to distinguish disinformation from honest, thoughtful disagreement, and the exceptions (a) aren't terribly important and (b) tend to clarify in reasonably short order.
No, the problem isn't th
Re: (Score:2)
Reaping what was sown (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, the education system has told a generation (or two now) that evidence doesnâ(TM)t matter. You donâ(TM)t have to be correct, rigorous or diligent in working out what the hell is going on; you just have to express yourself, be confident in your conviction and never let anyone tell you youâ(TM)re wrong. And in this pursuit of self affirmation, itâ(TM)s the worldâ(TM)s responsibility to keep you safe, no matter what you choose to do.
So, now we arrive at a position where pseudoscience is running rampant, people arenâ(TM)t equipped with the critical thinking skills to delve deep and discern fact from fiction and relevance from irrelevance, and thereâ(TM)s an overwhelming attitude of opinion being the gold standard, and if thatâ(TM)s dangerously flawed itâ(TM)s someone elseâ(TM)s job to protect them from any consequences so they donâ(TM)t need to change their opinion.
And now, again, itâ(TM)s âoeoutsourcing critical thinkingâ, conditioning people to believe even more that what they read must be true because an app hasnâ(TM)t flagged it as false.
Critical thinking though be core in education, and everyone should be taught to debate. How to build logical progressions (and just as important, how to build false ones, so you can better spot the tricks others use when trying to manipulate you). How to win and lose gracefully. And how to exercise that marvellous tool we have called a brain, rather than switching it off and just using the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, the education system has told a generation (or two now) that evidence doesna(TM)t matter. You dona(TM)t have to be correct, rigorous or diligent in working out what the hell is going on; you just have to express yourself, be confident in your conviction and never let anyone tell you youa(TM)re wrong.
I think you are looking at history through rose-tinted glasses. It's not like the 1950s, or the Victorian eras were the pinnacles of reason.
The Victorian approach to education for example was to dec
Leave Facebook, Twitter, and Google (Score:3)
So-called 'social media' is CANCEROUS to our society. Get it out of your lives and profit thereby.