social media

Fake News

by Dave

Honestly, I did not know Elon Musk had 200 million followers on Twitter (now X). He and others are extreme irresponsible in disseminating false information about hurricane recovery efforts.

FEMA, FAA are “blocking” delivery of Starlink devices and supplies to North Carolina’s hurricane-hit areas.

Somehow all this BS is supposed to help Trump. Similar, irresponsible claims from Trump, that Harris stole FEMA funds for other purposes, which is a lie. From Politifact:

• Former President Donald Trump attacked his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, by arguing that she cares more about immigrants in the U.S. illegally than Americans. “Well, for one thing, $1 billion was stolen from FEMA to use it for illegal migrants,” Trump said Oct. 4. “And FEMA is now busted. They don’t have any money.” This gross mischaracterization of FEMA funding programs is Pants on Fire! No one “stole” FEMA money intended for natural disaster victims; Congress funded another program for immigrant services that started under Trump. FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund is expected to face a deficit, but the agency is not out of money. Congress can step in and provide more funding for FEMA, as it has done nearly every year since 2017.

There are so many good sources of information. But it seems many Americans are real suckers for Trump and Musk lies, and the assorted nonsense they can get from social media (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram).

Stay tuned,

Dave

Fox vs. CNN

by Dave

The news reporting is frequently the same on both networks. If there is some big event, like a plane crash, the content on both networks will be pretty much the same.

The difference is in commentary. Fox News supports conservatives, including Donald Trump. CNN supports Kamala Harris but will report on news damaging to her campaign. The difference is apparent on their websites.

Fox Example

Today on the FOX News website is the headline “Melania Trump releases new video with warning to all Americans ahead of a 100 million dollar lawsuit.” This is a teaser headline. The key words are “ahead of.” Trump hasn’t filed a lawsuit.

Seriously, who is he going to sue? The FBI? Filing a frivolous lawsuit can backfire. If search is illegal, then all evidence is thrown out. This is the case law since the 1961 “Mapp” Case by the US Supreme Court. Note, that the three more conservative justices did not want to extend the protection to searches by state and local authorities.

Fox News headline https://www.foxnews.com/us/melania-trump-blasts-fbis-mar-a-lago-raid-serves-warning-all-americans

The news of a pending lawsuit, was posted on Twitter (I know it is now called “X”).

CNN critical of Pro-Harris Twitter account (@HarrisHQ).

Today CNN reports on news damaging to Kamala Harris campaign on their website.

Fact check: Harris campaign social media account has repeatedly deceived with misleading edits and captions

This is a case of more false information on Twitter, but this time, in support of Kamala Harris. There is a second Twitter account which is uncovering all the lies this Twitter account.

Video clips of Trump or JD Vance have been edited to make them deceptive or false. As stated in the CNN article, this was done recently. They cite eight different examples including one where the post infers that Trump was confused on the name of the state of the rally was occurring. It is a complete lie. CNN calls these hacked videos misleading. I would call them a complete lie.

My take

Fox News is more likely to post misleading “news stories” which are really commentary. Fox News headlines of a 100 million dollar lawsuit, which does not exist. And if Trump’s lawyers say they will sue Biden, they are forgetting they just won in the Supreme Court on presidential immunity.

CNN commentary is often biased, but they are doing a better job with fact checking. This includes fact checking pro-Harris twitter posts.

Don’t go to Youtube, Twitter, Facebook or any other social media. It is mostly political entertainment. It is not reliable information.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Johnny Depp v. Amanda Heard

by Dave

I will make this simple- both Depp and Heard will lose. The only winners in this mess are the lawyers and television networks. I guess the lawyers, unless they work on a contingency basis. Amanda Heard wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, claiming she had been abused in the past. She never specifically accused Depp. However, Depp claims this article caused him to lose film contracts. He claims he never once hit her or was abusive to her. Her counter suit claims Depp intended to harass her by organizing an online petition and create fake Twitter accounts hoping to get her fired from movie roles and L’Oreal spokesperson. With these lawsuits, it is necessary to prove intent, the actual events, and monetary loss.

Depp’s drug and alcohol use makes his re-collection of events doubtful. It sure appears that Depp was abusive to Amanda, likely both physically and mentally. With drugs, he gets out of control.

I suspect that Heard’s counter suit will also fall apart, because a weak link between cause and effect. An online petition did not get her fired from the filming of Aquaman 2.

While there are exceptions to free speech, it’s tough to prevail in court. The problem is the internet is filled with hateful and untrue messages. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is the First Amendment rights. If you are going to lie, do it on social media, and be careful of the evidence you bring to support your claim. There are websites perfect for lying.

Now you know. Case dismissed. The TV drama will play out for about 10 days.

Stay tuned,

Dave

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.)