Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.

Google launches platform in Australia with news it has paid for
The News Showcase platform offers news that Google has paid for through its own content agreements with publishers, as part of its campaign to show that legislation to force it to pay news outlets for content is unnecessary.

I have no understanding of local politics in Oz, so I take RaymondR's cynical response as likely accurate. But from the very early days of the World Wide Web this problem of treating online material as "free" has plagued all levels of content providers. Aggregators and search tools stole/steal from publishers who then stole/steal from authors and other creators. It's a problem that is now endemic to the online eco-system, and has caused uncountable harm to some, while greatly enriching others.

So as a principle, I applaud Australia for taking some measures to make users pay for the content they obviously value. Whether this is a political ploy by Murdoch I can't say. No doubt his interests would be better served with this kind of change. This, btw, also means publishers should pay for the rights they want from authors ... something many also refuse to do.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Just because there isn't now doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Regardless, it is a simple fact that "free speech" specifically applies to speech in the public sectors of our world. It is not something that is applied to the private sector. Private sector actors can of course adopt free speech rights if they choose, but it is not a state-enforced right.

Extending this right to the private sector may, or it may not, be a good thing. I think the implications are wide and not necessarily easy to see. My gut reaction is to agree with you, but I'm wary of unforeseen consequences. A perfect example is when the US Supreme Court removed any limitations on Corporate "people" with regard to speech during elections (Citizens United case). Look what that has got us .

Corporate persons have similar rights and responsibilities as natural persons in law in most western countries. It's core to what it means to be a corporation, and has been around since the concept's inception. The mistake is to treat them identically, which is where the US Supreme Court erred (IMHO).

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Agree that might be a good first step, but whether they directly pay for it, make a profit-sharing agreement or otherwise provide recompense, I fail to see how that will ensure against misinformation and/or the stifling of thought. Think we're talking 'Brave New World' territory here.

I've already said I don't have a good idea as to how to address this problem. My proposal would, at least, address the reality that these companies now treat their raw material as basically free. And their raw material is us. Making them pay would at least reflect the real value, and cost, of this content.

As for entering 'Brave New World' territory, as you say, my view is we're already up to our necks in this world. Except it's worse. Right now too many of us happily hand over our privacy and personal information, all for the promise of keeping in touch with digital "friends" or using free services like gmail or docs. Of course, none of this is free. We pay the price every time we use it.

Make no mistake, we are already deep into a Huxlian world.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Believe we've arrived at the slipperiest part of the slope that the adoption of Adam Smith's Sharia (law)-inspired economic philosophy has embarked us on.

Where we are now in the socio-economic-technological-geopolitical cycle is unprecedented, and as such the future is commensurately opaque. (haha)

To state the obvious...

Yes, agreed.

[GordMay]

268 million people had their internet shut off by government-imposed blackouts in 2020, up 49% from 2019

Last year, there were 93 major internet shutdowns, in 21 countries, according to research group Top10VPN*.

The list doesn't include places like China and North Korea, where the government tightly controls or restricts the internet.
Shutdowns can range from all-encompassing internet blackouts, to blocking social media platforms, or severely throttling internet speeds, the report said.
Around the world, shutting down the internet has become an increasingly popular tactic of repressive and authoritarian regimes, and some illiberal democracies. Digital rights groups say governments use it to stifle dissent, silence opposition voices, or cover up human rights abuses, raising concerns about restricting freedom of speech.

* “The Global Cost of Internet Shutdowns in 2020" ~ TOP10VPN
Key Findings:
- $4.01BN: economic cost of internet shutdowns globally in 2020, down by 50% from 2019. The report's authors noted that longer shutdowns were concentrated in poorer countries, resulting in a lower global economic impact (than 2019).
- 93 major shutdowns took place in 21 countries in 2020
- 27,165 hours: total duration of major disruptions around the world, up 49% from the previous year.
- Internet blackouts: 10,693 hours
- Internet throttling: 10,920 hours
- Social media shutdowns: 5,552 hours
- 268M people affected by major disruptions in 2020, up 3% year-on-year
- India most economically-impacted nation, at a cost of $2.8BN
- Human rights impact: 42% of shutdowns were associated with additional abuses
- 29% of all disruptions associated with restrictions on freedom of assembly
- 15% with election interference
- 12% with infringements on freedom of the press
2020 Report ➥ https://www.top10vpn.com/cost-of-internet-shutdowns/

“The Global Cost of Internet Shutdowns in 2019" ➥ https://www.top10vpn.com/cost-of-int...hutdowns-2019/

See also:
Internet and Human Rights Resource Center (Internet Society)
➥ https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/humanrights/?gclid=CjwKCAiA65iBBhB-EiwAW253W9_mYV45akbjaRK8KP1t5sW17eTQyU3A4WCqQjr1cx EMHjVGhwdH9RoCWL0QAvD_BwE

[sagablu]

An effective government can be had with polarized point of views. The problem as I see it that the US political mood has gone from " I disapprove of what you say but defend to the death you're right to say it " to quote we should shoot, hang, or imprison those who disagree. Polite discourse has been replaced by near violent tribalism. Literally makes me sad

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sagablu

An effective government can be had with polarized point of views. The problem as I see it that the US political mood has gone from " I disapprove of what you say but defend to the death you're right to say it " to quote we should shoot, hang, or imprison those who disagree. Polite discourse has been replaced by near violent tribalism. Literally makes me sad

There will always be some partisans and polarization, no matter how many parties, but a system like that in the US that's so fiercely and habitually bipolar.... a person risks loss of friends and family if they publicly change their party allegiance. The US electoral system only recognizes winners, not compromises or agreements. Courtesy is only one of the casualties.

There's enough evidence around which US party has most enthusiastically jacked up the anger and divisiveness of political discourse, but there's no disagreement that social media has amplified the polarization. But the main problems remain - the sources of misinformation and those who exploit the polarization for political advantage.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There will always be some partisans and polarization, no matter how many parties, but a system like that in the US that's so fiercely and habitually bipolar.... a person risks loss of friends and family if they publicly change their party allegiance. The US electoral system only recognizes winners, not compromises or agreements. Courtesy is only one of the casualties.

What's interesting is that this is a relatively recent phenomena. The US has effectively had a two-party system for over a century (maybe longer), but the extreme tribalism and polarization only came into being in the last decades.

I recall during my younger days studying politics that, unlike most parliamentary systems, the USA was an example where strict party loyalty was weak. The overlap of lefty-Republicans with righty-Democrats was quite wide. This made it easier to find common ground and compromise on most issues.

But since the 1990s this overlap has grown thinner and thinner. A Pew study has a lovely GIF graphic that illustrates this trend:

It's a little dated now, although I think it's clear the valley has grown even larger between the two parties. A more recent Pew study (2017) finds the same:

Across 10 political values Pew Research Center has tracked since 1994, there is now an average 36-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1994, it was only 15 points.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...itical-values/

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's enough evidence around which US party has most enthusiastically jacked up the anger and divisiveness of political discourse, but there's no disagreement that social media has amplified the polarization. But the main problems remain - the sources of misinformation and those who exploit the polarization for political advantage.

Agreed. Part of the problem the USA faces is the fact of the two-party system. When all issues are Us vs Them, and when the ideological middle ground has disappeared, it becomes a savage fight to the death. As the above study states:

The partisan gap is much larger than the differences between the opinions of blacks and whites, men and women and other groups in society.

[Midwesterner]

This article by a Jewish mom of a 13 year old boy, who got deeply involved in the Alt-Right movement, shows the power of the social media algorithm. This boy started researching the alt-right movement, and the algorithm began targeting him with more of that content, and then more related content. It did so at the exclusion of alternate viewpoints. The boy began to believe that the alt-right attitudes were more prevalent and main-stream than they were. He was not being led to alternate views. As an impressionable teen, looking to fit in with his peers and society, he felt the need to align his beliefs with what was being fed to him on line.

His mother wisely did some amazing and difficult parenting, by accompanying him to a couple of alt-right rallies, where they gathered with people waving nazi flags and spouting racist and anti-Jewish philosophy. Her son realized, only after meeting, and talking with some of the alt-right people, that they were troubled people, filled with displaced anger and hate, stemming from lots of personal problems.

It's very interesting reading, and illustrates how people can be influenced.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/0...the-alt-right/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Midwesterner

This article by a Jewish mom of a 13 year old boy, who got deeply involved in the Alt-Right movement, shows the power of the social media algorithm.
...
Her son realized, only after meeting, and talking with some of the alt-right people, that they were troubled people, filled with displaced anger and hate, stemming from lots of personal problems.

Interesting story, and a cautionary tale about those algorithms.

Yet there are some, including many on CF, who will imply, or state outright that no, these aren't kooks, this is simply the most extreme representation of some legitimate grievances and resentments, caused by mistreatment from 'elites', 'librul media', nanny-staters, 'soshulists'. Including #45, who has done more than anyone to embrace and embolden the alt-right kooks, and to inject their brand of crazy into the mainstream. Birthers, Pizzagate, "lock her up!", COVID 'hoax', QAnon, 'election fraud'? How do decent, intelligent people buy into this stuff?

[jimbunyard]

By not being "decent, intelligent people"?

[GordMay]

Political scientists have credited Newt [Newton Leroy] Gingrich with playing a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States, and hastening political polarization and hyper- partisanship.
The driving force, behind American politics today, is not actually partisanship, but negative partisanship. That is, hatred of the other team, more than loyalty to one’s own. Newt Gingrich’s speakership was both a symptom, and an accelerant of that phenomenon.
The way Gingrich saw it, Republicans would never be able to take back the House, as long as they kept compromising with the Democrats, out of some civic desire to keep congressional business humming along. His strategy was to blow up the bipartisan coalitions, that were essential to legislating, and then seize on the resulting dysfunction, to wage a populist crusade against the institution of Congress itself.
And, it worked.

[Sand crab]

I am reminded of the relationship between Ronald Reagan and then Speaker Tip O'neill. They were political adversaries but said that they were friends after 6. Tip was frequently at the White House for cocktails despite the differences. Those were the good ole days.

[keelsidedown]

Originally Posted by GordMay

U.S. Senators Introduce Bills to limit Section 230

Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobucharsaid have introduced a bill, that would make online platforms more liable for the content that their users post, particularly if those posts lead to harm. The SAFE TECH Act [1] aims to limit the protections that social media companies are afforded under Section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act 1996, that shields them from accountability for user activity.
If the act becomes law, platforms wouldn't be able to claim Section 230 liability for ads or other paid content.
The provision would not shield companies from complying with court orders or alleged violations of civil rights, antitrust, cyberstalking or human rights laws at state and federal level. Additionally, the bill makes it clear that Section 230 would not protect platforms from civil actions stemming from wrongful deaths.
The bill also aims to limit Section 230, at a broader level, to ensure the provision applies only to speech, and not all online activity, such as the dealing of illicit goods. It would modify the language of Section 230 (currently: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider") by replacing "information" with "speech."
While there's a general consensus among politicians (and even the likes of Facebook and Twitter) that Section 230 should be changed, there are differing opinions on how best to do so.

Other senators have recently introduced proposals* to reform the provision.

[1] ‘‘Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism, and Consumer Harms Act’’ or the ‘‘SAFE TECH Act’’
About ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...rm-section-230
Act ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...ct---final.pdf

* For instance, Senators Joe Manchin John Cornyn have reintroduced their bipartisan "See Something, Say Something Online Act" [2], which would add provisions to Section 230 requiring companies to report suspicious activity to law enforcement through a new clearinghouse within the Justice Department.
Companies must take "reasonable steps" to prevent or address illegal activity, and can be held liable if they fail to report it. The tech industry has said the bill would put companies in the untenable position of trying to figure out what is and isn't evidence of a crime, which could lead to sharing user information with law enforcement to avoid liability.

[2] "See Something, Say Something Online Act"
About ➥ https://www.manchin.senate.gov/imo/m...20Pager.pdf?cb
Act ➥ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/4758/text

My general preference would be to have 100% transparency with respect to who is funding content. Robert Mercer kicked this garbage off with Brexit and then transferred the garbage across the pond to his native country... And then just didn't stop for four yeas straight (primarily because content providers were more than happy to take his money).

[CaptTom]

Any thoughts on this article about the so-called Facebook Supreme Court?

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annal...-supreme-court

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay
U.S. Senators Introduce Bills to limit Section 230

The SAFE TECH Act [1] aims to limit the protections that social media companies are afforded under Section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act 1996, that shields them from accountability for user activity.
If the act becomes law, platforms wouldn't be able to claim Section 230 liability for ads or other paid content.

I missed this aspect Gord. I'm surprised that Sec. 230 currently shields these companies from being responsible for PAID content. That's nuts.

I get the common carrier argument for user-generated content, but PAID content? That makes no sense. They are directly profiting from a conscious choice to publish (yes, publish) this material. That should explicitly not be protected under Sec. 230.

Of course, since these companies benefit financially from ALL content on their sites, whether bought or contributed, it's not a long stretch to say they really are publishers.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Any thoughts on this article about the so-called Facebook Supreme Court?

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annal...-supreme-court

I did not need to get beyond the header on this one.

"The company has created a board that can overrule even Mark Zuckerberg. Soon it will decide whether to allow Trump back on Facebook."

having taken the action, particularly during a presidential election, they have totally screwed up their common carrier and not responsible for the content excuse.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I did not need to get beyond the header on this one.

"The company has created a board that can overrule even Mark Zuckerberg. Soon it will decide whether to allow Trump back on Facebook."

having taken the action, particularly during a presidential election, they have totally screwed up their common carrier and not responsible for the content excuse.

Agreed that this throws a monkey wrench into their common carrier argument.

For the record, it was AFTER the election that they took the action, but I get your point. While I agree it had to be done, I'm not comfortable with Facebook alone making the decision. They tried to play both sides for so long, while their algorithm churned out profit and amplified lies and hatred.

I keep coming back to the old OTA TV broadcast analogy. The social media companies are operating in a public space, and should have a duty to use it in the public interest. That means sticking to the facts, no partisanship, no spin, no emotionally-charged language designed to drive "engagement" over civil discourse. Opinions would be allowed, but would be identified as such, and time (bandwidth) would be made available for opposing views.