Sacha Baron Cohen trashes Facebook & Social Media at ADL Awards. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15057145
The ADL wants these companies to be declared as publishers so they can be sued if they host anything that the ADL deems unacceptable.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online. In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996.

CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments.

The legal protections provided by CDA 230 are unique to U.S. law; European nations, Canada, Japan, and the vast majority of other countries do not have similar statutes on the books. While these countries have high levels of Internet access, most prominent online services are based in the United States. This is in part because CDA 230 makes the U.S. a safe haven for websites that want to provide a platform for controversial or political speech and a legal environment favorable to free expression.

#15057148
Drlee wrote:
What a pleasant surprise that we have Code Rood to illustrate all of Cohen's points.

I have posted here before how surprised I am at the Anti-Semitism posted here.



I'm not.

A few years ago, I went looking for an intellectual forum. I found one in Europe, and it was great, for a while.

But they were bigots, just smarter and subtler than the American version.

If you know history, this isn't surprising. Depressing, sure, but not at all surprising.
#15057149
maz wrote:
The ADL wants these companies to be declared as publishers so they can be sued if they host anything that the ADL deems unacceptable.



Actually, they want it both ways. When it benefits them, they want to act as publishers, but if there is a problem, they say they are not.

It's a thorny legal problem, but I imagine the courts will work through it eventually.
#15057157
@Code Rood I'm sorry if I don't support censorship, guy. Well, I'm not really sorry actually.


Obviously you did not view the film.

We are not talking about censorship really. Inciting people to commit acts of violence is a felony. Tampering with elections is a felony.

I have no problem with Facebook allowing whatever they want under two conditions. The first is that no one under 18 is allowed to view it or post to it. And the other is that they can be sued for the effects of things they are publishing.

Cohen's best point was that Facebook is a publishing company and like any other publishing company must be responsible for what they publish. So if someone posts about an untrue allegation about me that I abuse my wife, and facebook publishes it, I should be allowed to sue them for libel. If they sell advertising for publishing a foreign country's tampering with our election then they ought to go to jail.

And, by the way, you do not believe in free speech. I can list several forms of speech which you would favor banning.
#15057165
Facebook does not have a decent moderation policy because its moderators are underpaid contractors working for Cognizant which received a $200 million contract from Facebook to do the work. What constitutes racism varies from person to person and Facebook moderators can use their own discretion in moderating reported posts. For Jewish people, pro-Palestinian groups are anti-Semitic and unacceptable, while Korean activist groups keep going after Imperial Japan's colonial crimes. Both cases are somewhat motivated by racism toward their neighboring peoples with whom they have historical grievances.

Image


Utley worked the overnight shift at a Facebook content moderation site in Tampa, FL, operated by a professional services vendor named Cognizant. The 800 or so workers there face relentless pressure from their bosses to better enforce the social network’s community standards, which receive near-daily updates that leave its contractor workforce in a perpetual state of uncertainty. The Tampa site has routinely failed to meet the 98 percent “accuracy” target set by Facebook.

The Cognizant site in Tampa is set back from the main road in an office park, and between the dim nighttime lighting and discreet exterior signage, the ambulance appears to have had trouble finding the building. Paramedics arrived 13 minutes after the first call, one worker told me, and when they did, Utley had already begun to turn blue.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/1868 ... zant-tampa
#15057189
late wrote:Actually, they want it both ways. When it benefits them, they want to act as publishers, but if there is a problem, they say they are not.

It's a thorny legal problem, but I imagine the courts will work through it eventually.


It is true that these social media platforms want to be both publishers and platforms when it is convenient to them, but the law is the law, at least for now.

The ADL is actually a legal group that masquerades as a human rights organization, so they are well aware of section 230. They want censorship no matter if the government does it or if they can coerce social media companies to do it themselves. The ADL has controlled YouTube since 2009, and even with a Jewish CEO and an army of Israeli cyber warriors, they still can't get YouTube to silence all dissent or affect public opinion with regards to politics and social issues. Even with the censorship, alternative and dissident media outlets are skyrocketing while liberal outlets like ThinkProgress are either failing outright or seeing sharp declines in viewership.

This is why there is a panic over some kid in his mom's basement being able to get hundreds of thousands of views per video on YouTube while outlets like HuffPost can barely get 1000 views per video.

The ADL appear to be trying to make an in road around section 230, as well as attempting to violate American's free speech. Imagine if we had a white lobbying firm with an ethnic bias attempting to prevent Jews from speaking and organizing on social media.
#15057255
@maz Imagine if we had a white lobbying firm with an ethnic bias attempting to prevent Jews from speaking and organizing on social media.


So tell me Maz. What should be done about Holocaust deniers. Let them go? What should be done about Arab terrorists using social media to call for terror attacks? Ignore them?

We all know you hate Jews. Got that. You should be allowed to say that if you want to. What you should not be allowed is to lie about them or call for their harm. And a private company should not be allowed to give you 1/3 of the people of the earth as a free market for your shit.
#15057309
Drlee wrote:And, by the way, you do not believe in free speech. I can list several forms of speech which you would favor banning.


As a so-called ''anti-Semitic white supremacist'' I don't even want genocidal speech against white folks to be censored, the type of speech that you'll occasionally see from a certain member on this forum or neo-marxist professors. I want it all out in the open, for the world to see.
Last edited by Code Rood on 02 Jan 2020 20:59, edited 2 times in total.
#15057367
Drlee wrote:So tell me Maz. What should be done about Holocaust deniers. Let them go? .


I am not sure how to answer that. Are you saying that they need to be arrested or something?

Obviously I am going to tread lightly if we continue further on this topic but I will not be baited into discussing something that is going to get me banned from the forum.

Zuckerberg's official position is that discussing a certain historical event is not a violation of Facebook's TOS so that is good enough for me.

You have previously said in other threads that Facebook and these other internet platforms should be allowed to determine it's own policy and what content should be allowed, but you also seem to think that Facebook should not allow users to discuss a certain historical event. So you have some internal contradictions that you need to work out there

Drlee wrote:What should be done about Arab terrorists using social media to call for terror attacks? Ignore them?


I am pretty sure that it is already against Facebook's TOS for Arabs, or any other groups to call for terror attacks. I think it's also against TOS for terrorist groups to even exist on Facebook. To be honest I have never seen an Arab terror group on Facebook or anywhere else anyways.

Drlee wrote:We all know you hate Jews. Got that. You should be allowed to say that if you want to. What you should not be allowed is to lie about them or call for their harm. And a private company should not be allowed to give you 1/3 of the people of the earth as a free market for your shit.


I am not doing any of that though. You are confusing being critical of Jews misusing their power with hating Jews on the street. I even gave you a good example of Jews misusing their power when I spoke about the ADL feeding disinformation to the media. Did you even read that post?

Do you know what I saw on Twitter over the holidays DrLee? I saw a video of a young woman who looked like she was trying to do a handstand in the middle of the street for a few seconds before being hit by a speeding car.

Since the video was only a few seconds and there was no context, there was no way to tell exactly what had happened. What it looked like to me was that someone had set up a camera, got some woman high on drugs, challenged her to do a handstand in the street and then had someone intentionally hit her with a car doing about 40 mph. There were people in the comments saying that the woman on had survived and only had a few broken bones but there was no way she survived that hit. It was basically a snuff film that had been up for two days and shared and liked thousands of times.

So yeah, social media has a lot bigger problems than people discussing historical events or criticizing immigration policies.
#15057390
Code Rood wrote:
Question: Do you think it's normal to lock up an 89-year old grandmother because she questioned the official narrative of a certain event?
Depends on whether she had some kind of influence over the mass (like Khomeni), and whether that part of offical narrative is subject to question.

It is dangerous to allow anyone break down the moral framework (for example, although I believe killing is necessary for some social change, anyone who acted on it should still be locked up because it's not something normally should be done), although I do agree that there should be proper debate on the matter before any anti-debate action is even considered.
#15059139
One of the really great things about Facebook and Social media is that they have made banal court jesters like Sacha Baron Cohen disappear off the radar. And rightly so.

Drlee wrote:What should be done about Holocaust deniers. Let them go? What should be done about Arab terrorists using social media to call for terror attacks? Ignore them?

Social media has opened up the dialogue beyond the above quote. Non social media - of which Cohen was a part - is only concerned with a narrow set of very specific in-group interests, and that's harmful for social cohesion and overall quality of life.

In more news... Justin Bieber may have Lyme disease.

(!)

What's wrong with Britain?, A lot is wrong with […]

Trump has been impeached

I still don't get how Trump "abused the power[…]

Occam's Razor is a mass murderer.

@late I disagree. I think the Brits are as[…]