Leaked Draft Shows potential Internet Censorship in the US.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Cora_Lie said:

  Reveal hidden contents

That is not defining what is considered a "political or religious debate".

 

It has to fit technology. It can't be a political article dressed up as tech, i.e. "NN under attack" vs "Patriot Act tapping into your Comms". 

[Guest]

Just now, OlympicAssEater said:

This thread is going to get locked very fast. 

You're late on the boat! Count down already started! ^o^

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

Do you have proof?

Spoiler

Center left guy, so don't try the "ALT RIGHT!!!1!!1 smear tactic with me.

 

2 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

  Hide contents

That is not defining what is considered a "political or religious debate".

 

Any debate over religion or politics. Rather obvious.

 

Which calls into question why these threads are ever allowed. Any meaningful discussion violates the rule, and these threads are made to prompt discussion.

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

This thread is going to get locked very fast. 

Probably, especially since the original sources are pretty sensationalist. Without any text to go along with this, this could just be some interpretation changes that prevent Shadowbanning. That's actually the major tool that they use. Doesn't matter how big of an account you have, if you run afoul of the political alignment of the hive of social media companies, you get airbrushed out of the platform without any real warning. 

 

For now, the only thing we know is that CNN is spooked. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Center left guy, so don't try the "ALT RIGHT!!!1!!1 smear tactic with me.

 

Any debate over religion or politics. Rather obvious.

 

Which calls into question why these threads are ever allowed. Any meaningful discussion violates the rule, and these threads are made to prompt discussion.

Your video is not proof. It is a partisan politically oriented video posted on the very platform accused of censorship against members of cited political party.

 

Project Veritas?  Pleeeeaaassseeee! Spare me! 

[Drak3]

Just now, Cora_Lie said:

Project Veritas?  Pleeeeaaassseeee! Spare me!

You going to raise a counterpoint?

 

Or are you just going to blow off a source because it's inconvenient for you?

Here's an MSM outlet covering Ted Cruz's confronting Google over censorship using Google's own internal material, to which Google confirmed that it was real.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/16/ted-cruz-confronts-google-with-internal-presentation-on-censorship.html

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

You going to raise a counterpoint?

 

Or are you just going to blow off a source because it's inconvenient for you?

Here's an MSM outlet covering Ted Cruz's confronting Google over censorship using Google's own internal material, to which Google confirmed that it was real.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/16/ted-cruz-confronts-google-with-internal-presentation-on-censorship.html

 

Quote

 

--> https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/6/27/18760463/project-veritas-youtube-sting-james-okeefe

 

Project Veritas’ YouTube sting was deeply misleading — and successful

James O’Keefe’s stunt playbook keeps giving conservative lawmakers ammunition, even if the evidence is all phony.

My esteemed colleague Russell Brandom leads our policy team. He was struck by the disingenuous response from conservative lawmakers to the most recent video sting from Project Veritas, which presented YouTube employees in an unfair light. Russell asked if he could take over the column today, and I was happy to oblige. I’ll be back tomorrow with thoughts on Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance at the Aspen Ideas festival.

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has been on a tear against Google lately, with the most recent salvo coming this Monday. Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it’s deceptively edited and doesn’t add up to much, but he managed to catch one executive in a pretty poor choice of words. In a hidden camera conversation with Jen Gennai, Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation, the executive is caught saying the following:

Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.

If you substitute “Cambridge Analytica” for “Trump Situation,” it’s more or less the argument Facebook and Google have been using to fend off antitrust proposals all year. But if you’re inclined to think the whole media is biased against the president, it was exactly what you’d been waiting to hear. When the video was pulled off YouTube for “privacy violations” the next day, it only fueled the paranoia.

The whole situation would probably have stayed quiet if it weren’t for Ted Cruz, who called out the video in an uncomfortable moment at the Senate Commerce hearing the following day. Cruz was questioning Google UX Director Maggie Stanphill, who was nominally there to speak about dark patterns in interface design. Cruz took her to task for the quote in the video, and then again when he realized she hadn’t actually read the report.

“I would recommend people interested in political bias at Google watch the entire report and judge for yourself,” Cruz said. The clip was then circulated on the usual right wing outlets (Town Hall, Breitbart, PJ Media), and got a minor replay from the Homeland Security Committee the next day. After that last hearing, the scandal grew big enough that YouTube decided to issue an official denial, saying simply “we apply our policies fairly and without political bias.”

It’s embarrassing that Congress took this so seriously, and no one wants to give it any more attention than it deserves. But O’Keefe has played this trick over and over, so it’s worth breaking down exactly what’s happening here.

To start with, there’s a fairly straightforward reason why the Veritas video was banned. YouTube’s privacy guidelines ban videos that identify people who don’t want to be identified. There are exceptions for newsworthiness and public figures, but the Veritas video is clearly on the wrong side of the rule. The offending footage is the hidden-camera video of Gennai, who is no one’s idea of a public figure, and obviously didn’t consent to be in the video.

Even if you see Veritas as making a newsworthy point about platform bias, it’s hard to argue that including Gennai’s name and face was necessary to make that point. (Hidden camera footage used on broadcast news typically blurs out faces for exactly this reason.) Given the general temperament of Veritas subscribers, one can only imagine the kind of abuse that’s been pointed at Gennai in the days since the video went live.

This sort of takedown happens often enough that we can assume most YouTubers are aware of them, to say nothing of reporters covering YouTube moderation issues. It’s hard to believe O’Keefe was walking into this blind — just like it’s hard to believe he wasn’t aware that YouTube was scheduled for a run of congressional hearings in the days after the video posted. He was daring YouTube to ban him, knowing that it would elevate a mediocre scoop into two days of congressional berating.

The point wasn’t to force YouTube into better policies or more consistent enforcement. It was simply brute force, letting executives know that every time someone in the conservative clique has trouble with YouTube, there will be a lawmaker ready to sweat them over it. Each time it happens, Google gets a little more gun-shy dealing with high-profile policy violations, whether it’s Alex Jones or Steven Crowder. And as long as the trick keeps working, O’Keefe and Cruz will keep doing it.

 

Is that enough for you?

 

Project Veritas... Really... Kill me now!

At least do your search properly! I'm not the one dismissing information because it's inconvenient! It's called biased!

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Cora_Lie said:

Is that enough for you?

No, provide actual evidence that Veritas' email was fake. Not a Verge hit piece that is void of sources for their claims.

 

Because Cruz's time with Google supports that Veritas' email is likely legitimate. They openly admitted to Congress that the internal workings of Google view themselves as being obligated censors.

[Nowak]

this thread's gonna be locked fast lmao

[Guest]

I won't AGAIN go into a no ending discussion like last time with someone who is going to try again and again to spin fact around the bobin of lies.

 

It's more than 2 am, I'm tired, I work in a few hours and this discussion with someone so full of phony ideas of world peace à la mode of Adam Sutler, is just not my cup of tea at this time of the day.

You have all the information available, here and on the internet, perhaps it's time for you to change your "critical thinking" chip. It obviously has fried!

 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Cora_Lie said:

You have all the information available

Not my job to source your claims.

 

1 minute ago, Cora_Lie said:

I won't AGAIN go into a no ending discussion like last time with someone who is going to try again and again to spin fact around the bobin of lies.

 

It's more than 2 am, I'm tired, I work in a few hours and this discussion with someone so full of phony ideas of world peace à la mode of Adam Sutler, is just not my cup of tea at this time of the day.

Ad Hominem, after using an article that doesn't back up its claims with sources.

[ARikozuM]

Alright, get back on topic. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

Alright, get back on topic. 

It is on topic. That was a part of the series of events that directly lead to this.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It is on topic. That was a part of the series of events that directly lead to this.

Wasn't talking about you. 

[Trik'Stari]

Considering that the media companies in question, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc., are already trying to censor the internet to prevent the spread or communication of ideology opposite that of the people comprising these companies.... I'm calling horse shit on this article.

 

"alleged but unproven bias" my fucking ass. You can go and see people on Twitter saying blatantly racist things about white people, but a republican posts video of leftist people protesting outside his house and making threats gets taken down?

 

Fuck that and fuck manners. The left are already trying to censor the internet and the news via their control of large tech companies. They already largely control our major educational facilities. How far are we gonna let this go? Sooner or later it's going to come to bloody conflict.

 

I'd prefer that not happen. I'd prefer harsh punishments for any organization that is blatantly suppressing the views of their opposition. Up to and including life in prison, for being an enemy of the state. Which I define as anyone trying to subvert or destroy democracy (representative republic, what the fuck ever you want to call it. People have a fucking right to disagree with the state. Anyone attempting to prevent that should be locked up and the key destroyed, as a warning).

1 hour ago, ElfenSky said:

I think the past few years have clearly shown a trend in the developed western world towards censorship (of the internet), and I feel it's only going to get worse as they try to pass such bills in more hidden and insidious ways. Be it in the name of copyright, safety or something else.
Both, the US and the EU have shown this with SOPA, PIPA & ACTA, and as the leaders get older and more disconnected from modern technology it's only going to get worse.

(somewhat off-topic: lobbying is such a cancer on society is should be illegal. I wonder what would happen if the internet community got together, gathered money and did some lobbying of their own)
 

Now the narrative on violence is back to video games, and given Cloudflare's reaction to 8chan, I wouldn't be surprised if large internet platforms such as reddit will be next.
Hell, the big social platforms such as facebook, youtube and twitter already do it, deleting, shadowbanning and otherwise removing radical, racist and otherwise "bad" content.
And while in some ways I can agree to it (especially given the prospencity of such content to affect minors) (and I hate myself for using the "oh but think of the children argument", it's as usual a trade off between liberty and security.

-snip

Political parties should be illegal, entirely. Either run for office on your own two feet, or fuck off. No paid help, no "volunteers" just you.

[Fnige]

47 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

This thread is going to get locked very fast. 

2

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Political parties should be illegal, entirely. Either run for office on your own two feet, or fuck off. No paid help, no "volunteers" just you.

Only works on paper. People tend to group together on various bases, ideology being a big one.

[Taf the Ghost]

As for the topic itself, I'd really like to see a first step to be forcing the Social Media companies to inform you when you've had adverse actions taken against you. Twitter's Shadowbanning system absolutely ruined the place. Heaven help you if you happen to have something like a DSA supporter and someone on the Right both in your followers that you interacted with. You got shadowbanned by proxy a couple of years ago. (DSA got semi-approval from the Silicon Valley Overlords, so they got removed from the heavy shadowbanning, but it's still there.)

 

The rest of the social media companies use similar tactics, they're just more competent than Twitter. While no one is quite as incompetent as YouTube's management in the space, the platforms tend to be better in non-English languages. Especially the ideograph ones, as context and implied understanding are so important that the Algo tends to fail pretty badly.

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Political parties should be illegal, entirely. Either run for office on your own two feet, or fuck off. No paid help, no "volunteers" just you.

Time to join the Social Democrats/Progressives. No private money funding elections and making voting count. 

[Master Disaster]

Can't say I'm surprised, every countries government seems to want internet censorship sooner rather than later.

[mr moose]

Quote

to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet

Hahahahahahahahaha,  I am sure the 80odd% of Americans with only two options for Internet are more than happy with the "competitive" nature of the "free" market.

[poochyena]

5 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

being held accountable for censorship

excuse me? What does that mean? You think not only should people's right to their property being taken away, but also punishing them for removing what they don't like?

How would you feel if someone put a bunch of Nazi lawn signs on your property, and then being punished for removing them?

 

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Political parties should be illegal, entirely. Either run for office on your own two feet, or fuck off. No paid help, no "volunteers" just you.

Literally how would anyone run a campaign with no outside help? It would HEAVILY favor people who are rich and famous, since non-rich and famous people would have no way to get their name out there.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

excuse me? What does that mean? You think not only should people's right to their property being taken away, but also punishing them for removing what they don't like?

How would you feel if someone put a bunch of Nazi lawn signs on your property, and then being punished for removing them?

You hardly have the same reach as any of these large platforms. You're comparing apples to oranges. 

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Literally how would anyone run a campaign with no outside help?

The gov't would fund a standard allowance to all candidates and then allow for public financing from each citizen with a cap to how much can be given. 

4 minutes ago, poochyena said:

It would HEAVILY favor people who are rich and famous, since non-rich and famous people would have no way to get their name out there.

See above. It would mean that candidates would be forced to move towards their constituency's desires. Don't like Medicare for All? You get no vote, thus no financial support from the populace. Want to give the middle class a tax cut? You get a vote, and possibly some financial gain from the populace. 

[captain_to_fire]

I miss the days when you can see who is looking at the bottom of the thread especially the mods. Because I'm sure about three or four of them are looking at this before they lock it.

 

 

Just saying

[Eaglerino]

2 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

United States of China

Silicon Valley of China

 

the US needs to force the Bill of Rights onto the internet. If Trump can't block anybody because it violates the first amendment then nobody else should be able to block anyone for that same reason either