Facebook

Social Media Immunity – Section 230

by Dave

“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” Section 230.

I began my last blog with a quote from Donald Trump on how the 1996 Communications Decency Act gave rights to social media companies, which are not enjoyed by others in the electronic communications business, such as television and radio. It was a recognition of the immense difficulty these companies have in monitoring content. I added the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as I felt it provided a simple explanation of why the social media platforms are protected by Section 230.

I wanted to make it clear that when Republicans go after Section 230 of this act, they are attacking the foundations of Donald Trump’s new foray into social media, by making his website vulnerable to legal action. There is an enormous list of websites, which depend on Section 230 protection, including Youtube, Vimeo, Amazon, Yelp, craigslist and WordPress. Yes, WordPress which hosts this website.

My prior post was not particularly kind to our former president. I want to make it clear that Facebook and Twitter are also a platform hosting a ton of political propaganda garbage. I don’t look for news/commentary on Facebook or any other social media site. I consider these sites to cluttered with personal attacks and often void of any real news.

If someone posts information on how to fix my bicycle or dishwasher, that’s great. I guess I too much of a news snob to look for news commentary on Facebook. Still, if they provide bad information a bicycle, there’s Section 230 immunity. Plus, it’s likely they did not provide this bad information intentionally.

A public forum is any place open to the general public where ideas can be freely exchanged. We have evolved from people making public speeches in the town square and newspapers to radio, television, cable and satellite networks, and now to worldwide internet social networks. Our First Amendment right to freedom of speech and press, came about before radio was invented. It is not an absolute right to expression. Disrobing in public can still get you arrested on indecent exposure charges.

How far does one go in protecting the free exchange of ideas or expression? Go too far, and you will likely get sued. Lou Dobbs comes to mind right away. He was a master at righteous indignation, with comments like “What are they thinking?” in referring to various policies on immigration, climate change, China policy (yes, he supported bombing China), etc. His show ended when Smartmatic sued him for defamation of their voting machines. Alex Jones is another case, as he was sued based on commentary on the Sandy Hook shootings. It happened nine years ago, and hopefully next year, he’ll have to pay up.

So, Lou Dobbs or Alex Jones won’t be posting on Facebook anytime soon. Telling people that Covid vaccines will alter your DNA so in two years you will die, is exactly what will get you censored and ultimately thrown off of Facebook. You will be thrown off because you violated the terms of posting to the site. Well, you are in violation in the opinion of the site’s owners. But will Trump’s site allow them to spread their garbage propaganda. I’m afraid of this. Asks National Enquirer, garbage sells. And Section 230 will protect them. In fact, both the First Amendment and Section 230 makes it very difficult to censor someone because there is always some place on social media which will allow outrageous ideas to be broadcasted.

The real power of social media is targeted marketing. Quite apparent, where you go on the internet, as indicated by the searches you do, can define you to others. So, in the old days, you could glance at a newspaper, and decide if the headline story interests you before buying the paper. Now, with social media, the news/commentary often piled high with falsehoods, will find you. So, if you want to believe that Biden is plotting to take away your guns, you will get “breaking news” sent to your cell phone in agreement with your beliefs.

There’s a certain appeal with the claim, that “only here can you find the real truth” of what is going on. It is particularly appealing to conspiracy prone folks, who believe big government and business are hiding the real news.

How to fix things? I don’t see this as a problem with the system (freedoms, privileges, the internet), or “them” (big government, big tech). The problem is with us and our own laziness to get the facts straight. I’m hoping the next generation understands that honesty counts.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Wikipedia: Lou Dobbs

Cornell Law, Section 230

Supreme Court on Section 230 (Thomas’ opinion mischaracterized. No justice joined with Thomas. I consider his comments “pure dictum.” Trump won the right to block followers on Twitter, limiting what could be discussed.)

Final debate: October 22, 9:00 pm EST

by Dave

It should be a bit more controlled event. As each candidate is given 2 minutes to respond to a question, the opposing candidate’s microphone will be turned off.

Six topics were selected: Fighting Covid-19, American Family, Race in America, Climate Change, National Security and Leadership. This could change. See BBC link below. The basic format will not change.

Trump has already begun an attack on the selected moderator of the debate, Kristen Welker. In Arizona, Trump called her a “radical Democrat” , backed up by the New York Post and numerous Facebook postings, all completely baseless.

The “radical Dems” at this point covers about half all Americans who don’t favor Donald Trump as their president. At last count, perhaps more than half of all Americans, as noted Republicans are voting against him as well.

NBC News correspondent Kristen Welker, the moderator for the third presidential debate, has not donated money to Democrats, according to contribution data. Welker is currently registered to vote in Washington, D.C., with no party affiliation, according to the District of Columbia Board of Elections. A photo of Welker with Barack and Michelle Obama is from a 2012 White House reception for the press.

Fortunately, there are a lot better places to get your news, than the trashy New York Post, One American News or a lot of highly biased commentators on cable networks.

For those still undecided about who should be the next president, I suggest watching the debate, and checking the fact checker sites the next day to get a better understanding of who is telling the truth. Factcheck.org and politifact.com are my two favorites.

Last minute accusations of corruption, simple chants (ie: “lock her up”) or name calling are favorite tactics of Trump. The latest attack on the “Biden’s” is also baseless, and comes after a complete investigation by the Republican controlled Senate vindicated any wrong doing by Joe Biden, while Vice President. It is Rudy Guiliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, who is currently under investigation as two of his close associates have been arrested.

Please note this site accepts viewpoints to the contrary. Your comment may not be immediately posted, but I am making a real effort to check and approve every comment that isn’t offensive, spam or off topic.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Controversy on Kristen Welker (Tagged as a radical Dem by Trump. Note that Trump congratulated her in January when she became NBC weekend anchor)

BBC News: US election 2020: Trump and Biden feud over debate topics

Reporting Fake News

by Dave

Facebook is asking help in removing false postings.  A false or fake posting is one that is presenting information or content, which one can prove to be false.  Particularly alarming are images or videos, which have been altered.  How do you find out if a Facebook post is false?   The easiest way is to search the fact checking sites on the Internet.

See Facebook help link: 

There are many comments made everyday that many might disagree with, but are nevertheless, can not be considered false.  It is not helpful to Facebook to report comments which one finds to be disagreeable.

I have said in the past, I never reference any news story from social media.  This is my first link to Facebook, and very likely will be my only one.   I watch cable news, and my favorite at the moment is the BBC news.

I am working on a longer post on the impeachment proceedings.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

Fake News and Facebook

by Dave

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes,” A nice quote, but it wasn’t said by Mark Twain.

Thanks to the internet, we have lies spreading at the speed of light.  I don’t use Facebook to obtain news.  It is filled with tabloid junk.  I have never bought a tabloid at a grocery store checkout.

Here are a sample of truly false stories:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/facebook-posts/statements/by/

This is from Politifact.com.   They don’t identify who made up the lie, as this just gives some individuals the free publicity they are seeking.  Facebook is being responsible by banning a very select group who stream out massive numbers of  false allegations faster at incredible speed, so they can profit from the sale of videos and books.

I support what Mark Zuckerberg is trying to do, by permanently banning the worst of the bloggers from Facebook.   He will be criticized no matter what he does, usually based on the idea of curbing free speech.  However, it’s completely legal and pretty routine as every  media outlet will screen out  advertisers for violation of their policies.   Infowars doesn’t care about the truth – only publicity and fortunately they have been taken to court a number of times as follows (see Wikipedia link):

  • In February 2017, the lawyers of James Alefantis, owner of Comet Ping Pong pizzeria, sent Jones a letter demanding an apology and retraction for his role in pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Under Texas law, Jones was given a month to comply or be subject to a libel suit.[141] In March 2017, Jones apologized to Alefantis for promulgating the conspiracy theory and retracted his allegations.[142]
  • In April 2017, the Chobani yogurt company filed a lawsuit against Jones for his article that claims that the company’s factory in Idaho, which employs refugees, was connected to a 2016 child sexual assault and a rise in tuberculosis cases.[143] As a result of the lawsuit, Jones issued an apology and retraction of his allegations in May 2017.[144]
  • In March 2018, Brennan Gilmore, who shared a video he captured of a car hitting anti-racism protesters at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a lawsuit[145] against Jones and six others. According to the lawsuit, Jones said that Gilmore was acting as part of a false flag operation conducted by disgruntled government “deep state” employees in promotion of a coup against President Trump.[146] Gilmore alleges he has been receiving death threats from Jones’ audience.[146]
  • Leonard Pozner, father of a Sandy Hook shooting victim who has been forced to move several times to avoid harassment and death threats accusing him of being a crisis actor, has filed a defamation suit against Jones in Texas.[147]

I feel sorry for these individuals.    They had to go to court and suffer with Infowar’s attack for over a year.  The victims of Jones’ attack  certainly did not deserve this and it looks like all they got was a retraction.     When you  allow Alex Jones to use the Facebook platform to make libelous and hurtful statement about Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, you give him the right to attack anyone.   And his history says he will.

I don’t buy into the “slippery slope” idea. I believe Facebook will use a lot of discretion in banning individuals, because they are the beneficiaries of a free flow of new ideas, even some very radical ones.

Facebook is working with fact checkers to block false information, see link below:

How is Facebook addressing false news through third-party fact-checkers?

I’ll end with a great quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

So,  go out buy a real newspaper or reliable internet sources,  support fact checking organizations  and stay away from the tabloid world.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Wikipedia Alex Jones 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/03/trump-jr-accuses-facebook-silencing-conservatives-day-after-it-bans-some-far-right-users/?utm_term=.97fc760b8479

A bit more on Facebook

by Dave

My blog on HUD and Facebook went a bit long but there were a few things missing.   I’ve included the lawsuit filing and the original HUD complaint.   Guess where I found the HUD filing – on HUD’s Facebook page!

In response, Facebook stated the following:

We’re surprised by HUD’s decision, as we’ve been working with them to address their concerns and have taken significant steps to prevent ads discrimination. Last year we eliminated thousands of targeting options that could potentially be misused, and just last week we reached historic agreements with the National Fair Housing Alliance, ACLU, and others that change the way housing, credit, and employment ads can be run on Facebook. While we were eager to find a solution, HUD insisted on access to sensitive information — like user data — without adequate safeguards. We’re disappointed by today’s developments, but we’ll continue working with civil rights experts on these issues.”

I’m curious exactly  this sensitive user information that HUD was seeking.

One final point.  What really stops “redlining” practices these day (beyond the fact that it is illegal) is Zillow and other competitors who provide maps showing available homes and rentals in a general area  with listed prices and extensive information which can be screened by the buyer.   Interestingly,  this is an area which Facebook is likely to enter.   It is a strike against discriminatory practices, at least on the information concerning availability.   See link:

Facebook sets its sights on housing. Should Zillow be worried?

As I said in the prior post, Facebook stock has actually risen after being sued.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Why HUD’s lawsuit against Facebook came as a surprise

HUD_v_Facebook

HUD_01-18-0323_Complaint