Search the Community

If BJP's Amit Malviya Reports Your Post, Instagram Will Take it Down – No Questions Asked Summary Seven posts by satirical account @cringearchivist were removed without any verification because the head of the BJP's IT Cell falls under Meta's controversial 'XCheck' programme. Quotes My thoughts Meta is now colluding with the Ruling Right-wing party in India and removing posts flagged by the party's IT Cell chief (a non-government post ). The ruling party runs an army of bots on social media to spread fake news and hate against the minorities, while any posts critical of them is flagged and taken down citing bizarre reasons with the help of these shameless corporations who just want to keep the Rulers happy and get their share of this huge market without any introspection. I would also like to point out that Twitter has gone to court against some takedown orders by the Indian Government. Seems like atleast someone's batting for Free Speech. Sources https://thewire.in/tech/amit-malviya-instagram-meta-xcheck https://thewire.in/tech/meta-xcheck-internal-email-watchlist https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/information-tech/twitter-pursues-judicial-review-of-indian-govts-content-takedown-orders/articleshow/92675694.cms https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353?mod=article_inline

Thursday in an apology to users, CEO of Reddit Steve Huffman openly admitted to altering comments that were critical of him. He made the admission, where he posts under the username Spez. The "r/pizzagate stuff" Huffman referenced concerns a conspiracy theory about a secret pedophile group, a pizza parlor in the nation's capital, and Hillary Clinton's campaign chief, John Podesta. Reddit banned the "Pizzagate" conspiracy board from the site because of a Reddit policy about posting personal information of others. The move ushered in a wave of criticism against Huffman on Wednesday, and he responded by editing the comments. -ARS TECHNICA Regardless of whether you're on the left, right, or somewhere between, this is not something that I would quickly dismiss. I'm glad that he admitted to wrongdoing but is this kind of action immediately forgivable? If an incident like this can just occur with limited scrutiny, how many other incidents like this go unnoticed and if not unnoticed unpunished? I'm not an avid user of Reddit but for a site that seems to be a champion for freedom of speech, this kind of incident sure does seem bring down the sites integrity. What do you think? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/reddit-chief-admits-to-editing-comments-that-were-critical-of-him/ https://www.cnet.com/news/reddit-ceo-admits-to-editing-user-comments-amid-pizzagate-malarkey/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/11/23/reddit-ceo-apologizes-for-editing-comments-critical-of-him-following-pizzagate-ban/ http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-modifies-donald-trump-the-donald-2016-11 http://mashable.com/2016/11/30/reddit-spez-pizzagate/#v.kos92vf5qV http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13739026/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-edit-comments https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/23/reddit-huffman-trump/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/24/reddit-ceo-confesses-to-editing-comments-that-insulted-him/ http://mashable.com/2016/11/24/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-pizzagate-trolls/#Gp4OJUaGZmq0 http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/reddit-huffman-apology/ http://gizmodo.com/reddit-ceo-caught-secretly-editing-user-comments-chatl-1789342358 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/25/reddit-ceo-admits-editing-posts-directing-obscene-/

I'm hoping this might get discussed on The WAN show at some point. Dissenter allows you to comment on any web page, anywhere, anytime, regardless. So if you think turning off comments on your YouTube video is effective, it's not. This follows closely behind the WAN Show topic of pedos commenting timestamps on videos of kids. Now, I'm no fan of this practice (understatement of the year), but free speech just got a shot in the arm, for better or worse. Dissenter is made by Gab.com, which is known for their right-leaning libertarian political stance. However, unlike Twitter, they won't ban you for your political views. They don't care if you offend someone. They just want free speech protected, something other big platforms don't seem too concerned with. Illegal content is not allowed, for obvious reasons, but that's it. Main site: https://dissenter.com/ I personally trust Tim Pool to cover this kind of thing: "When I was on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey, he mentioned that there was a woman from the Westborough Baptist Church who was de-radicalized because she was on twitter and was exposed to other people. [W]hen you have comments sections people can communicate with each other. Someone might be a Trump supporter and someone might say they hate Trump, but then they interact and they realize the other person's not that bad." https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/12/dissenter-app-lets-users-comment-freely/ “Dissenter launches at a time when comment sections are no longer available on every mainstream news site and blog, YouTube is shutting down comment sections while also demonetizing channels over their comment sections and social media censorship is the worst it has ever been”

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31020415 My opinion: (Please excuse the font color; automatic text color was not working so I made it a grey that is good on both themes) From article: Francois Hollande called for a legal framework and sanctions to make them "face up to their responsibilities". The French Interior Minister said he was due to discuss combating terrorist propaganda with US tech companies. But a French free speech group said it amounted to asking the firms to act as privatised police. Mr Hollande said: "We must act on a European and even an international level so that a legal framework can be defined, and that the online platforms that run the social networks are made to face up to their responsibilities, and that sanctions are imposed when they do not." 'Plan of action' He added that he wanted the French government to draw up a "global plan of action" to deal with racism and anti-Semitism by the end of February. And, speaking at a service marking 70 years since the liberation of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz on Tuesday, he said he would ask other world leaders for their support when he met them later that day.The BBC's Paris Correspondent Lucy Williamson said: "The Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve has confirmed that he will travel to the United States to meet major internet operators like Google and Facebook, to talk about new ways of combating what he called 'terrorist propaganda' on the internet." 'Complicit' Mr Hollande said that France supported an appeal from the Union of Former Deportees and the Union of French Jewish Students, against online Holocaust denial. "It is aimed at the big operators - we know who they are. They can no longer close their eyes, otherwise they will be considered complicit in what is spread," he said. The President added that he wanted the country's government to present "between now and the end of February, a global plan of action against racism and anti-Semitism". Jeremie Zimmermann of French online freedom group La Quadrature du Net told the BBC: "Removing the judiciary from the equation by asking private companies based in the US to surveil and sanction their users - like an automated, privatised police force - goes contrary to the most fundamental principles of our democracies, and against fundamental freedoms. "Destroying our own democracy and freedom is playing the terrorists' game - and letting them win it - a very dangerous and counterproductive trend. " 'Concerns' In the aftermath of the three days of attacks in Paris, which began on 7 January, the French government has moved to tackle extremism online. In a cabinet meeting a week after the attacks, ministers said that the intelligence services' ability to deal with the "terrorist menace" online, and particularly on social networks, had diminished in recent years. They said that they would be given extra resources to be used specifically to counter the threat online. And they said that a partnership with the technology giants would be "indispensable" as they sought to create the "conditions for rapid reporting of content inciting racial hatred and terror". The French government also launched a video campaign on social media to try to dissuade would-be jihadists under the headline "you will die alone, far from home". The video, which is visually similar to some Islamic State propaganda films, seeks to counter the arguments put forward by extremist groups. 'Committed' Social networks such as Facebook are known to meet regularly with government officials in order to address various concerns, and particularly those around terrorism, since the Paris attacks. A Google spokesman said the firm was "committed to assisting the French and other governments in their fight against terrorism and crime, both in times of emergency and at other times." He added: "We have clear policies banning incitement to violence or promotion of hatred on our platforms, and we remove such content whenever our users or law enforcement flag them to us. We are always at the French Government's disposal if they want to meet us to discuss this topic." A spokesman for Facebook refused to comment. This is not good at all. While hate speech and terrorism and all that is awful and needs to be gotten rid of, bypassing the judiciary system and forcing companies to remove anything that a nation deems to be hate speech and terrorism can lead to governments really overstepping their bounds as far as free speech is concerned. The best way to get rid of all of this stuff is through educating people that hate speech is wrong and causing the public view of the organizations that perpetuate hate to be crushed so that this stuff is ignored. Part of free speech is allowing people to say anything they want to even if what they say is offensive and hate-filled. Also, holding companies themselves accountable for the actions of their users is just plain dumb too.

Customer agreements shall no more impose (or demand) legal constraints on the free expression of "honest" product and service reviews/opinions from users and consumers alike. US law would safeguard free-speech rights to criticize business online