The Facebook Papers leak.

[FourWheelDrift]

https://knowtechie.com/the-facebook-papers-here-ar...

"Frances Haugen, a former employee at the company, leaked over 10,000 pages of internal Facebook documents to the media and the SEC. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Haugen revealed many details about Facebook that show the company in a very bad light.

Haugen revealed all kinds of details about how the company conducts business, from claims that say the platform intentionally favors controversial content as a way to keep users on the platform to European political parties being forced to change their political strategies as a response to the platform’s algorithms."

[Murph7355]

FourWheelDrift said:

https://knowtechie.com/the-facebook-papers-here-ar...

"Frances Haugen, a former employee at the company, leaked over 10,000 pages of internal Facebook documents to the media and the SEC. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Haugen revealed many details about Facebook that show the company in a very bad light.

Haugen revealed all kinds of details about how the company conducts business, from claims that say the platform intentionally favors controversial content as a way to keep users on the platform to European political parties being forced to change their political strategies as a response to the platform’s algorithms."

Been running for a while I think.

Nowt will happen. Though the govt declaring them a publisher might shake things up a touch if they were brave enough to do so

[chemistry]

Murph7355 said:

Been running for a while I think.

Nowt will happen. Though the govt declaring them a publisher might shake things up a touch if they were brave enough to do so

I agree, governments SHOULD consider them a publisher and can then apply the appropriate legislation.

I can't reconcile these organisation's claiming to merely be platforms when Facebook de-platforms people/groups they don'y approve of, YouTube removes videos they don't like from recommendations/searches, etc. Clearly these social media companies are exercising some sort of editorial control over teh content they host and consequently are publishers.

[AJL308]

chemistry said:

Murph7355 said:

Been running for a while I think.

Nowt will happen. Though the govt declaring them a publisher might shake things up a touch if they were brave enough to do so

I agree, governments SHOULD consider them a publisher and can then apply the appropriate legislation.

I can't reconcile these organisation's claiming to merely be platforms when Facebook de-platforms people/groups they don'y approve of, YouTube removes videos they don't like from recommendations/searches, etc. Clearly these social media companies are exercising some sort of editorial control over teh content they host and consequently are publishers.

Yep, they are certainly publishers. They are not the equivalent of "speakers corner" if they are moderating what is said on their system.

[Ian Geary]

If you'd said 10 years ago (when I first got a smartphone) that a media company would decide behind closed doors whether the us president could send messages to their supporters, I'd have said you were crazy.

Facebook/Twitter / YouTube have a lot of power. Much as we moan about politicians they at least have some transparency and accountability

[rodericb]

I think this is the democrat party trying to take control over the strongest media outlet. Any side of the political spectrum is going to say Facebook leans too far towards "the other side". I don't think the NSA and so on are going to like any political party trying to take control over such a bountiful source of information.

I see on my google news feed that the CNN has written an article saying that "Wall Street has sent a message to Facebook" and then they go on to slag off Facebook themselves for a few paragraphs. It's amazing how this whistle blower managed to get in front of congress so quickly and be lauded as a hero, to be 'questioned' by senators in the form of being told that they're a modern day hero and that her actions are saving said senators teenage daughter from possibly having body-image sensitivities. Not many whistle blowers get that sort of treatment - they sometimes kill themselves by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head inside a suitcase zipped from the outside, or just decide to drive off a bridge.

[Randy Winkman]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This is why it winds me up a bit when people talk of "re-writing history". Who wrote down the history in the first place and was it an accurate account?

[hyphen]

So I'm clear, just how many millions does the honourable Nick Clegg get paid to sell his soul?

[geeks]

AJL308 said:

chemistry said:

Murph7355 said:

Been running for a while I think.

Nowt will happen. Though the govt declaring them a publisher might shake things up a touch if they were brave enough to do so

I agree, governments SHOULD consider them a publisher and can then apply the appropriate legislation.

I can't reconcile these organisation's claiming to merely be platforms when Facebook de-platforms people/groups they don'y approve of, YouTube removes videos they don't like from recommendations/searches, etc. Clearly these social media companies are exercising some sort of editorial control over teh content they host and consequently are publishers.

Yep, they are certainly publishers. They are not the equivalent of "speakers corner" if they are moderating what is said on their system.

The public "Social media should do more to moderate its content, my child can watch terrorist/republican/democrat/tory/labour/communist/social/[insert thing here] propaganda on their platforms"
Social media "We really don't want to do this we are just the content host and have no say over what is published on our platforms"
The public "But, but, but think of the children!"
Social media "Ok fine we'll do it, but don't say we didn't warn you!"
..
..
The public "How dare you moderate the content on your platform? You are now a publisher and thus should be held accountable"
Social media "FFS we warned you this would happen!"

I am not defending them but it is pretty obvious how all this has come about. We put these platforms into the position of becoming publishers, something they had little interest in being for these exact reasons.

rodericb said:

I think this is the democrat party trying to take control over the strongest media outlet. Any side of the political spectrum is going to say Facebook leans too far towards "the other side". I don't think the NSA and so on are going to like any political party trying to take control over such a bountiful source of information.

I see on my google news feed that the CNN has written an article saying that "Wall Street has sent a message to Facebook" and then they go on to slag off Facebook themselves for a few paragraphs. It's amazing how this whistle blower managed to get in front of congress so quickly and be lauded as a hero, to be 'questioned' by senators in the form of being told that they're a modern day hero and that her actions are saving said senators teenage daughter from possibly having body-image sensitivities. Not many whistle blowers get that sort of treatment - they sometimes kill themselves by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head inside a suitcase zipped from the outside, or just decide to drive off a bridge.

This is a wind up right?

[Byker28i]

geeks said:

This is a wind up right?

Probably not - some are indoctrinated.

Mark Zuckerberg personally decided it was okay for the algorithm to push covid disinformation despite knowing it could reduce it by 38%
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/...


MSI=Meaningful Social Interactions

hyphen said:

So I'm clear, just how many millions does the honourable Nick Clegg get paid to sell his soul?

worth every peny to come up with “the top-down controls of the past” obviously

Lets not even get into Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, just the tiny £500K fine in the UK
https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/20/22736476/mark-...

[Derek Smith]

geeks said:

[

rodericb said:

I think this is the democrat party trying to take control over the strongest media outlet. Any side of the political spectrum is going to say Facebook leans too far towards "the other side". I don't think the NSA and so on are going to like any political party trying to take control over such a bountiful source of information.

I see on my google news feed that the CNN has written an article saying that "Wall Street has sent a message to Facebook" and then they go on to slag off Facebook themselves for a few paragraphs. It's amazing how this whistle blower managed to get in front of congress so quickly and be lauded as a hero, to be 'questioned' by senators in the form of being told that they're a modern day hero and that her actions are saving said senators teenage daughter from possibly having body-image sensitivities. Not many whistle blowers get that sort of treatment - they sometimes kill themselves by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head inside a suitcase zipped from the outside, or just decide to drive off a bridge.

This is a wind up right?

Do you want the scary, honest answer or the one that will make everyone feel safe?

I'm generally against limitations on access to information, however published. The newspapers in the 19th and 20thC were largely controlled by those on the right, with statements and policies decided behind closed doors, To a great extent, the history of the inter-war years are still largely based on their output. Even so, to restrict them to the extent that news outlets are limited today would have been wrong in my mind.

As regards FB and other internet sites that are, in effect, a place for people to paste what they want to say; they too should be allowed freedom to do what they think necessary, with the caveat that if any of the posts break the law, they should be prosecuted, just like the terrestrial news outlets would be.

Trump used FB. If he did not break laws, then he should be allowed access to the sites. If he says something which breaks the law, then he is seen, largely and practically, above normal responsibility, but FB remains culpable. They have their rules. If Trump breaks them, he should also be subject to the same processes as a general punter.

Good on the whistleblower. She's merely provided confirmation of what we've all thought about the management of FB, and probably other social media sites (except PH of course).

My understanding is that if I publish illegal content on one of my websites, I commit the offence as the person who wrote it, caused it to be published, and continued to leave it up. The host to my website is also culpable if they fail to take steps to block the content once they are aware of it. What's sauce for the host I use should be that for TB.

[Byker28i]

The problem becomes when people get their news, information from social media sites and that information is easily susceptible to disinformation, especially when the site owner puts profits in front of truth.

Media has to follow specific rules about truth, yet these have not been updated for social media, podcasts etc.

In the case of trump, we know that Zuckerberg had meetings anytime there was talk of clampdowns, how Bannons Briebart was whitelisted as part of the deal...

For me whats been really interesting over the last 5 years has been the use of social media as a weapon, of which the Russians and Isralies seem to be streets ahead. Easy and cheap to push disinformation, sow discontent for a long time using unregulated social media, provided the adverts are paid for.....

[bigandclever]

AJL308 said:

Yep, they are certainly publishers. They are not the equivalent of "speakers corner" if they are moderating what is said on their system.

Just being miserable, Speakers Corner is moderated, in a way, by the Royal Parks Police. It's not uncommon they remove people for overstepping the line, usually on a 'prevent a breach of the peace' tack because someone's got a bit incite-y.

[drmotorsport]

I'm intrigued as to how/why this "Whistleblower" is so public. I would have thought the usual process would be to hand over inciminating evidence to regulators/journalists in return for immunity/anonyminity, but she seems to be on a jolly around the globe having meetings with politicians, pressure groups and TV time. Is this just enjoying some 15mins of fame, or is there some other string pulling going on in the background?

[Murph7355]

drmotorsport said:

I'm intrigued as to how/why this "Whistleblower" is so public. I would have thought the usual process would be to hand over inciminating evidence to regulators/journalists in return for immunity/anonyminity, but she seems to be on a jolly around the globe having meetings with politicians, pressure groups and TV time. Is this just enjoying some 15mins of fame, or is there some other string pulling going on in the background?

It will no doubt suit some to have it very public. And I guess she'll be making $s from it too now.

[Derek Smith]

drmotorsport said:

I'm intrigued as to how/why this "Whistleblower" is so public. I would have thought the usual process would be to hand over inciminating evidence to regulators/journalists in return for immunity/anonyminity, but she seems to be on a jolly around the globe having meetings with politicians, pressure groups and TV time. Is this just enjoying some 15mins of fame, or is there some other string pulling going on in the background?

Why put whistleblower in double quotes? Who should the hearing get the evidence from, rather than the originator? Why are you concentrating on the messenger and not the message? Immunity from what?

[speedy_thrills]

New Zealands Privacy Commissioner had it right when he described Facebook as "Morally bankrupt pathological liars."

[NWTony]

geeks said:

AJL308 said:

chemistry said:

Murph7355 said:

Been running for a while I think.

Nowt will happen. Though the govt declaring them a publisher might shake things up a touch if they were brave enough to do so

I agree, governments SHOULD consider them a publisher and can then apply the appropriate legislation.

I can't reconcile these organisation's claiming to merely be platforms when Facebook de-platforms people/groups they don'y approve of, YouTube removes videos they don't like from recommendations/searches, etc. Clearly these social media companies are exercising some sort of editorial control over teh content they host and consequently are publishers.

Yep, they are certainly publishers. They are not the equivalent of "speakers corner" if they are moderating what is said on their system.

The public "Social media should do more to moderate its content, my child can watch terrorist/republican/democrat/tory/labour/communist/social/[insert thing here] propaganda on their platforms"
Social media "We really don't want to do this we are just the content host and have no say over what is published on our platforms"
The public "But, but, but think of the children!"
Social media "Ok fine we'll do it, but don't say we didn't warn you!"
..
..
The public "How dare you moderate the content on your platform? You are now a publisher and thus should be held accountable"
Social media "FFS we warned you this would happen!"

I am not defending them but it is pretty obvious how all this has come about. We put these platforms into the position of becoming publishers, something they had little interest in being for these exact reasons.

rodericb said:

I think this is the democrat party trying to take control over the strongest media outlet. Any side of the political spectrum is going to say Facebook leans too far towards "the other side". I don't think the NSA and so on are going to like any political party trying to take control over such a bountiful source of information.

I see on my google news feed that the CNN has written an article saying that "Wall Street has sent a message to Facebook" and then they go on to slag off Facebook themselves for a few paragraphs. It's amazing how this whistle blower managed to get in front of congress so quickly and be lauded as a hero, to be 'questioned' by senators in the form of being told that they're a modern day hero and that her actions are saving said senators teenage daughter from possibly having body-image sensitivities. Not many whistle blowers get that sort of treatment - they sometimes kill themselves by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head inside a suitcase zipped from the outside, or just decide to drive off a bridge.

This is a wind up right?

Quite agree. Fb are damned if they do moderate and damned if they don't.

[blackrabbit]

Derek Smith said:

drmotorsport said:

I'm intrigued as to how/why this "Whistleblower" is so public. I would have thought the usual process would be to hand over inciminating evidence to regulators/journalists in return for immunity/anonyminity, but she seems to be on a jolly around the globe having meetings with politicians, pressure groups and TV time. Is this just enjoying some 15mins of fame, or is there some other string pulling going on in the background?

Why put whistleblower in double quotes? Who should the hearing get the evidence from, rather than the originator? Why are you concentrating on the messenger and not the message? Immunity from what?

She (the whistle blower) is apparently being funded by Pierre Omidyar founder of Ebay who is known to have extreme left wing views and want censorship of conservative outlets. One could possibly think this fast track "scandal" is being engineered and aimed at justifying Big Tech shutting down even more of any view disagreeing with liberals.

I know Breibart is contentious with some but this link is very interesting in the way that Facebook algorithms suppressed certain news stories last year. NYT provided some of the evidence and it seems clear Facebook manipulated Conservative News sources and promoted Liberal ones.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/10/24/facebook...

[C G]

Ian Geary said:

If you'd said 10 years ago (when I first got a smartphone) that a media company would decide behind closed doors whether the us president could send messages to their supporters, I'd have said you were crazy.

You'd still be crazy, because that hasn't happened (yet).