Trump Wants To Regulate Google

[Magox]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Personally, I think disinformation should be combated and this is a good method because it doesn't even censor the statement. Opinion is one thing, calculated lying is another. Try focusing on the mechanism. It could become a wiki sort of thing or something else. We'll see, but this idea is overdue. Wait till deepfake videos become the norm. Social media need this.

 

The internet has been fine, is fine and will be fine. It's the biggest thing in the world and there's not much anyone can do but see where it goes and try to help shape it. Kind of like a free market.

 

I wonder what the next wave of unregulated social media giants will be called?

 

I'm all for the free market.   

 

The problem Gene is that most people get their information online, whether it's Google, Youtube, Twitter, FB etc.

 

And when content is being controlled via Fact checks, censorship, algorithmic searches and display functionalities by these mediums then there has to be some oversight.

 

Did you read Twitter's explanation?  It was fact checked by CNN and WAPO.     And did you see who provided the explanation?  It was some left wing nut job.

 

The fact checkers are just as egregious because not only do they often time use sources that support a verdict that has an inherent bias to justify their decisions it's the things they decide to fact check.  Right wing views are fact checked much more often than left wing ones. 

 

They need to have an independent body that is made up of some sort of non partisan makeup, people from left and right where people can actually trust who censors and fact checks the content.  To allow a company which clearly has employees that have a particular worldview to determine outcomes that are very impacting without hardly any oversight is crazy.  

 

They either just become a platform provider and allow the "free market" of speech to go on, 

 

or if they insist on getting into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of truth, then there has to be checks and balances so that the integrity of this decision making process can be trusted by it's users.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

How do you rationalize supporting the same candidate as Russia? Not an attack at all, just a question.

 

I never believed they wanted Trump and have realized why.  They only wanted to sow discord, which they did, thanks to the unwitting Dems.

[Magox]

10 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

As an impartial non-user of social media, fact-checking highly influential users seems like the correct slope to me. I wonder if there is a way to make an exception for that code, which could have more oversight from outside stake-holders.

 

Yep, I made a suggestion but if I'm understanding you correctly I think we are in spirit thinking of something similar.

 

They went down this path, they can either pull back from it or allow an independent body that can be trusted by the public to oversee this decision making process.

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I never believed they wanted Trump and have realized why.  They only wanted to sow discord, which they did, thanks to the unwitting Dems.

 

This 100%

 

They spent less than $30,000 on "electing" Trump.  This was all a practice in sowing social discord.   The DNC establishment and media played right into it.

 

That is exactly what happened.

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Magox said:

This 100%

 

They spent less than $30,000 on "electing" Trump.  This was all a practice in sowing social discord.   The DNC establishment and media played right into it.

 

That is exactly what happened.

 

The notion that a couple million (what I heard), much less $30,000, was enough to overcome the $1.2 BILLION (or more) that Hilly spent is another laughable notion.  And points out that it was Hilly and Hilly alone that lost the election.

[B-Man]

 

 

Critics of Twitter’s move were skeptical that they’d apply the same standards to everyone.

 

After all, Twitter’s powers that be don’t seem to have a problem with Democratic politicians making unsubstantiated claims.

 

Or Chinese government officials.

 

 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I never believed they wanted Trump and have realized why.  They only wanted to sow discord, which they did, thanks to the unwitting Dems.

 

I guess. Maybe. You really think they didn't have a preference?

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 I guess. Maybe. You really think they didn't have a preference?

 

No, I think they wanted Hilly. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I guess. Maybe. You really think they didn't have a preference?

 

They had a preference -- for chaos 1, and Clinton 2. 

 

Think it through. Why would they prefer Trump (we know for a fact now there was no collusion/blackmail reasons to want him) who was a complete wildcard and unknown over Clinton, a person they already worked well with for many years? 

 

Then there's the record while in office. Everything Trump's done since being elected has been against Russia's geopolitical goals both long term and short. He cratered their economy by making the US energy independent, he literally ordered the destruction of 200+ Russian mercenaries in Syria, and he's re-armed NATO and the US military. 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

(we know for a fact now there was no collusion/blackmail reasons to want him

 

Not until the full Mueller report is released

[Gene Frenkle]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No, I think they wanted Hilly. 

 

Of course you do.

[B-Man]

        

[B-Man]

 

Or switch to another service.

 

 

 

I see it simply.

The big social media companies have become the de facto public square, which is where political speech and debate happens. Thus, I have no problem with simply enacting legislation expanding the First Amendment and relevant caselaw to the new public square

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by B-Man

[Gene Frenkle]

40 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

I'm all for the free market.   

 

The problem Gene is that most people get their information online, whether it's Google, Youtube, Twitter, FB etc.

 

And when content is being controlled via Fact checks, censorship, algorithmic searches and display functionalities by these mediums then there has to be some oversight.

 

Did you read Twitter's explanation?  It was fact checked by CNN and WAPO.     And did you see who provided the explanation?  It was some left wing nut job.

 

The fact checkers are just as egregious because not only do they often time use sources that support a verdict that has an inherent bias to justify their decisions it's the things they decide to fact check.  Right wing views are fact checked much more often than left wing ones. 

 

They need to have an independent body that is made up of some sort of non partisan makeup, people from left and right where people can actually trust who censors and fact checks the content.  To allow a company which clearly has employees that have a particular worldview to determine outcomes that are very impacting without hardly any oversight is crazy.  

 

They either just become a platform provider and allow the "free market" of speech to go on, 

 

or if they insist on getting into the editorial business of becoming the arbiter of truth, then there has to be checks and balances so that the integrity of this decision making process can be trusted by it's users.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying.  I don't know if you're going to have an independent body, per se, but maybe.  I hope it's not heavily regulated by government.  It will definitely be peoples' jobs.

 

The "truer" the internet is, the better for all.  Lies pollute it.  I applaud the technology and am hopeful about where it might go, but I'm a sucker for technical solutions.  It is a free market and in the end, it will reflect the will of the people of the world, which I personally think is cool.

[Buffalo_Gal]

This thread rips apart twitter "fact checks." Added bonus is  the CNN talking-head interrupting the AL SoS because she doesn't like what he's saying.
 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Wow, even little Marco pointed out the obvious:
 

 

[GG]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Wow, even little Marco pointed out the obvious:
 

 

 

The little dilemma that Gene has been ignoring in this thread.

[Gene Frenkle]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The little dilemma that Gene has been ignoring in this thread.

 

I think it's fine if you want to hold them accountable for the fact checks.

 

I wouldn't want to see those be lies as well.

[Gene Frenkle]

You could even have a ratings system on the fact checks like reddit uses.  I don't know.

 

The thing is, this schitt keeps changing faster than laws can be written to control it.  You get that part, right?

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

You could even have a ratings system on the fact checks like reddit uses.  I don't know.

 

The thing is, this schitt keeps changing faster than laws can be written to control it.  You get that part, right?

Yes, and no. There are already laws on  the books that deal with this. Enforcing those laws is another matter.

 

[GG]

25 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I think it's fine if you want to hold them accountable for the fact checks.

 

I wouldn't want to see those be lies as well.

 

Who's checking the lies?

 

They can't have it both ways, either they are information platforms or content providers.  They're being cute by straddling the existing regulations governing online services & media.   They've just invited themselves to more regulation to address that pesky middle ground.

[Gene Frenkle]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Yes, and no. There are already laws on  the books that deal with this. Enforcing those laws is another matter.

 

 

And just like that, a slightly different iteration of the technology pops up to circumvent your control. Or the company moves somewhere outside of your control. Or an entirely different thing you never could have dreamed of pops up to replace it.

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Who's checking the lies?

 

They can't have it both ways, either they are information platforms or content providers.  They're being cute by straddling the existing regulations governing online services & media.   They've just invited themselves to more regulation to address that pesky middle ground.

 

I don't know. It's unfolding before our eyes.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

And just like that, a slightly different iteration of the technology pops up to circumvent your control. Or the company moves somewhere outside of your control. Or an entirely different thing you never could have dreamed of pops up to replace it.

 

I don't know. It's unfolding before our eyes.

 

It is, and they brought this upon themselves.   Once they started picking sides in the political arena, they opened themselves up for more severe actions.

[B-Man]

COLLUSION: 

 

Twitter’s Trump ‘Fact Check’ Does Not Disclose Company Partnered with Groups Pushing Mail-In Ballots.

 

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Of course you do.

 

Yup.  I don't see why they'd want Trump over a patsy like Hilly.  That "reset" button (that really said "recharge") stunt made her look like a fool.

[Gene Frenkle]

6 minutes ago, GG said:

 

It is, and they brought this upon themselves.   Once they started picking sides in the political arena, they opened themselves up for more severe actions.

 

I'd say it's necessary and inevitable and it has little to do with Twitter specifically.

[GG]

2 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I'd say it's necessary and inevitable and it has little to do with Twitter specifically.

 

I don't know why you would say that.  They are the dominant provider of short form text dissemination, like Google is dominant is search & related apps and Facebook in social media.   All turned from information aggregators into gatekeepers & editors.   The rules put in place in the '90s & early '00s no longer apply.

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Of course you do.

 

Which DR did a good job explaining why which you conveniently ignored. 

[B-Man]

Media Becomes Triggered After Kayleigh McEnany Fact Checks Twitter Over Mail-In Ballot Fraud Claims

 

 

 

More at the link: https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/05/27/media-becomes-triggered-after-kayleigh-mcenany-fact-checks-twitter-over-mail-in-ballot-fraud-claims/

[B-Man]

Kellyanne Conway Zeroes in on Why Voters Shouldn’t Trust Twitter’s Fact Checks on Anyone

 

Twitter’s pathetic attempt at “fact checking” President Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballot voting being ripe for fraud has sparked major backlash among conservatives who, in turn, have fact checked Twitter’s erroneous claim that Trump’s remarks were “unsubstantiated.”

 

Trump himself has pushed back, promising “big action to follow!” after alleging that “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct.”

 

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss the developing situation, and during the interview, she got to the heart of the matter as to why conservatives and independent voters don’t trust and should not trust Twitter to fact check anyone – not just because Twitter’s own so-called “head of integrity” has frequently bashed Trump, but also because of who they rely on for their fact checks:

 

“These people have got nothing important right over the last three years, beginning with the very election where they were relying on their own data.”

 

“I have a treasure trove of peoples’ articles of how Hillary Clinton wasn’t even saying Donald Trump’s name, Barack Obama has hardly [uttered] Hillary Clinton’s name because they all thought that the election was decided long before that,” Conway continued. “Why? Because there’s very little respect for democracy.”

[…]

Conway said that the president has given a voice to the voiceless on his social media accounts.

 

“Fact-check: Over 90 percent of mainstream media reportedly vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. So many conservatives and many non-liberals and many non-voters feel like they have a platform on social media that allows them, for free, to express themselves,” she argued.

 

“I mean, they are relying upon the same people who attack him all day long to ‘fact-check’ him,” Conway added.

 

[B-Man]

 

Twitter Fact Checks Trump’s Mail-In Ballots Tweet, Gets Fact-Checked Back

 

The biggest problem with Twitter's fact check, aside from the fact that it singles out Trump,

is the fact that there is indeed evidence that mail-in ballots can lead to voter fraud.

 

 

Twitter Official In Charge of Fact Checking ‘Site Integrity’ Has a History of Anti-Trump, Anti-GOP Posts

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Which DR did a good job explaining why which you conveniently ignored. 

 

It's not interesting. Like at all. That's no offense to DR even. I think I care more about some random dude's fantasy football team than I do about the argument as to why Russia wanted Hillary to win. I'm still not convinced that Trump himself even wanted to win in the first place. It just doesn't matter.

[Deranged Rhino]

Hmm... this could be interesting. 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

 

Well, redstate.com has had their say. How about some equal time for realclearpolitics? Sweet fancy Moses!

 

So Trump himself gets his dick slapped by Twitter and his answer, of course, is to use all of his power to protect his pulpit of lies. You literally can't make this stuff up. I've got my popcorn ready!

Edited May 27, 2020 by Gene Frenkle

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

It's not interesting. Like at all. That's no offense to DR even. I think I care more about some random dude's fantasy football team than I do about the argument as to why Russia wanted Hillary to win. I'm still not convinced that Trump himself even wanted to win in the first place. It just doesn't matter.

 

No offense taken, no worries. 

 

But wouldn't you agree that it matters that the bulk of the establishment media lied about Trump/Russia, because the CIA director lied about it to them? That's a fact now, not speculation. Beyond partisanship, shouldn't it matter that there was an active effort, on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency and an outgoing administration, to deceive the American public at large in order to subvert the outcome of an otherwise legal election? 

 

Think of all the division it caused. All the wasted time, money, and effort spent by the entire government on something that was never real. 

[Chef Jim]

35 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

It's not interesting. Like at all. That's no offense to DR even. I think I care more about some random dude's fantasy football team than I do about the argument as to why Russia wanted Hillary to win. I'm still not convinced that Trump himself even wanted to win in the first place. It just doesn't matter.

 

I don't think he wanted to either.  I imagine he went to bed and woke up to....I won???  WTF???

 

 

[B-Man]

Vox: These Democratic Billionaires Are Trying To Help Biden Win The Digital Campaign

 

Today, Vox has an interesting story on a group of four Democratic billionaires who are looking to help the Biden campaign succeed in the 2020 election. The four in question are, “LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, philanthropist and Steve Jobs’s widow Laurene Powell Jobs, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.” But while they have the money and the tech savvy to potentially help Biden, their attempts to outsource this critical part of the campaign isn’t always winning friends inside the existing party structure.

 

“My problem is when Silicon Valley folks think that they know how to do our jobs better. I would never walk into Google or anywhere else and say, ‘Your model sucks,’” Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, told Recode. “I don’t second-guess them, and I’m asking them not to second-guess us.”

Kleeb and others in Democratic politics have been particularly incensed by a political startup that Hoffman has invested about $18 million, his single-biggest bet this cycle, in called Alloy. The startup is attempting to build a warehouse to store the data that various progressive groups collect on voters and use it to try to get them to the polls…

But Alloy, despite all its promises to revitalize the left’s voter file, has had an at-times frosty relationship with party officials like Kleeb, who have their own voter file that they’d prefer to improve rather than circumvent. And some of the party’s most senior digital operatives consider Alloy to be an underachievement, saying that it has produced few tangible accomplishments, no publicly announced clients, and, most importantly, squandered significant time and money as it struggled to figure out its role in Democratic politics.

{snip}

 

Acronym claims their fake newspapers are transparent about their progressive partisanship but as I pointed out last year, that’s not really true. What Acronym is creating and what Hoffman is funding is more accurately termed propaganda. The story closes by noting that Hoffman was a featured guest last week on a conference call set up by the Biden campaign.

 

I wonder how all of the Bernie Sanders fans being asked to vote for Biden feel about having billionaires run their own private Biden campaign.

 

More at the link: https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/05/27/vox-democratic-billionaires-trying-help-biden-win-digital-campaign/

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Hmm... this could be interesting. 

 

 

Good it's about damned time.

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

This will go nowhere, but it is pretty clear that social media wants to be a platform, not a publisher.