America - The Official Thread

[TexRex]

I found multiple sources when I looked up the story but this was the only one which mentioned the party guests up top so I could quote it in the unfurl box.

Google Search

I gave NY Post a scan in the Media Bias site before posting and all they said was "leans right" and that their political news avoided hyperbole so I figured it'd be okay.

New York Post (News) Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of New York Post (News). AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Since when was it required to post multiple sources for a story, anyway?

No requirement. I was just asking. I rarely rely solely on even sources I prefer, much less solely on the ****-eating Murdoch tabloid that concocted the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, and so I searched for more information, initially without success because there was no mention in the first several paragraphs of any article I found.

 

[UKMikey]

No requirement. I was just asking. I rarely rely solely on even sources I prefer, much less solely on the ****-eating Murdoch tabloid that concocted the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, and so I searched for more information, initially without success because there was no mention in the first several paragraphs of any article I found.

Guess I could have just answered "no", then, since I'd already been through the diligence checks prior to posting.

 

[TexRex]

Guess I could have just answered "no", then, since I'd already been through he diligence checks.

Yes.

 

[Keef]

When Donald's wife said she wasn't getting wet enough he decided to work on his head game. Shower heads. More water equals more wet, right? But Biden is a real man and knew what she was talking about which is why he's undoing Trump's misguided declaration. Time to get gud, Trump.

Biden hates getting wet in the shower.

 

[Danoff]

Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says

The Biden administration is playing an active role in flagging Facebook posts it considers to be “problematic” or “disinformation,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

news.yahoo.com

“In terms of actions we are taking or that we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general’s office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," she said.

This is a blunder and a half. Leaving misinformation alone on facebook would have been better than giving credence to the notion that the government is censoring through facebook.

 

[Pupik]

“In terms of actions we are taking or that we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general’s office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," she said.

Sure, when your computers down, needs an update, or someone's at your desk, might as well do some moderating at the Surgeon General's office.

...but use a coaster, it's the classy thing to do.

 

[TexRex]

I didn't know what prompted it, but Ken White had a great reaction to this.

Here’s how the Biden Administration could handle the plague of deadly disinformation in a way that wouldn’t play into the Trumpist censorship narrative:

1. “The First Amendment and Section 230 let private companies like Twitter and Facebook choose how to moderate their sites.”

2. “American free speech rights are exceptional and protect a very large amount of speech many of us would agree is dangerous or harmful. That broad protection helps insulate speech from political and ideological urges to censor.”

3. “But the government has a leadership function as well as a governing one. Part of leadership is praising good behavior and condemning bad behavior, in hopes that people will do the right thing, without the coercion of law.”

4. “Facebook has a right to make money off of this alarming and deadly disinformation. But that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Just as Americans have the right to say poisonous and ugly things to each other, that doesn’t make it right.”

5. “When Facebook is exercising its right to profit off of deadly propaganda about COVID, it’s doing the wrong moral thing. It’s being a bad citizen. The First Amendment protects it from coercion, but not from criticism — yours and ours.”

6. “We call on Facebook to reconsider its stance. We’ve identified common anti-scientific propaganda that puts lives at risk. Facebook can continue to profit off of it. But it can choose not to. We call on Facebook to do the right thing - for Americans and their lives.”

The right would undoubtedly still attack it, but doing so would be transparently irrational.

 

[Danoff]

How did nobody stop and say... wait a minute, by telling facebook who is spreading misinformation, we're getting the government involved in checking the validity of information, and maybe we shouldn't do that because the right-wingers are already going nuts on this exact topic? I mean, this seems like a no-brainer. I want more details on what was done.

 

[TexRex]

Basically...where was this guy?

 

[Keef]

Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says

The Biden administration is playing an active role in flagging Facebook posts it considers to be “problematic” or “disinformation,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

news.yahoo.com

“In terms of actions we are taking or that we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general’s office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," she said.

This is a blunder and a half. Leaving misinformation alone on facebook would have been better than giving credence to the notion that the government is censoring through facebook.

All of my conservative friends are way up in arms about censorship.

In my opinion, I see this as a necessary step to gain control of a phenomenon which has effectively been hijacked by most likely foreign groups or governments, the extent of which is still a mystery to we civilians.

I personally don’t see addressing false information as censorship. If that were the case, students providing wrong answers or lawyers defending open-and-shut cases would be getting “censored” by their teachers or juries. And that’s just as obviously ridiculous as allowing illicit groups to spread plainly false propaganda without consequences.

As for what right-wingers think, they’re already gone. They’re so far gone, so far beyond reality, that probably half of Democratic congresspeople no longer want to attempt compromising. At this point, worrying about what conservatives think - people who tried to overthrow the government - is a waste of time. They do not “negotiate” in good faith. They’re gone, they’re a lost cause. There are problems which need addressed and they are not interested in doing that, and there are mountains of evidence that they actually want to cause more problems, plain and simple.

 

[Joey D]

Biden administration ‘flagging problematic posts for Facebook,’ Psaki says

The Biden administration is playing an active role in flagging Facebook posts it considers to be “problematic” or “disinformation,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki.

news.yahoo.com

“In terms of actions we are taking or that we’re working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general’s office. We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation," she said.

This is a blunder and a half. Leaving misinformation alone on facebook would have been better than giving credence to the notion that the government is censoring through facebook.

I can't imagine this holds up to a legal challenge. This seems like a pretty cut and dry First Amendment violation. While what people are saying on Facebook is utter tripe, they still have the right to say it.

If the government wants to do something, they should probably put pressure on Facebook to police their platform by taking away their corporate welfare.

Or people could just ditch Facebook because it's a cesspit and it would effectively turn it into an echo chamber for boomers.

 

[Danoff]

I can't imagine this holds up to a legal challenge. This seems like a pretty cut and dry First Amendment violation. While what people are saying on Facebook is utter tripe, they still have the right to say it.

If the government wants to do something, they should probably put pressure on Facebook to police their platform by taking away their corporate welfare.

Or people could just ditch Facebook because it's a cesspit and it would effectively turn it into an echo chamber for boomers.

It depends on what was done, I don't think we know enough yet about it to know whether it was a 1st amendment violation. What has been described does seem to include the possibility though. Regardless, even if it was above board (which is possible), it looks bad.

 

[Keef]

This seems like a pretty cut and dry First Amendment violation.

Do our enemies have a first amendment right to spread disinformation on American soil? The government has a responsibility to defend the country and the disinformation is hurting the country. Weirdly, the information itself in digital form seems to be more tangible than the actual sources of it. I feel like you guys aren't connecting the dots of what digital warfare looks like. This isn't about some hillbillies saying dumb crap on Facebook, this is about why they started saying dumb crap and how its related to their tangible actions against the government. At the extreme, even things like aiding and abetting terrorism needs to be considered.

I hope moves like this demonstrate to other corporations that they do in fact have moral obligations, not just shareholder obligations.

 

[TexRex]

Do our enemies have a first amendment right to spread disinformation on American soil?

That depends on who you consider to be an enemy. Supposed enemies within, subject to the laws of the United States, are also beneficiaries of constitutional protections. Those protections are robust because they need to be robust, and they need to be robust for all lest they be robust for none.

 

[Keef]

Supposed enemies within

I added some points to my post, but who says the enemies are within? I mean yeah there was a scuffle in DC and those people are getting in trouble but where did they get their information from? I personally think we've got bigger problems on our hands than y'all are considering, problems that are way beyond "first amendment". People have been discussing the implications of digital warfare for years now and none of us really know what that means except that it will happen eventually. Conditions have been ripe since before Trump took office.

Edit: For example:

Two California men disgruntled by Donald Trump's election loss have been charged by the Justice Department for attempting to blow up the California Democratic Party's headquarters in Sacramento.

We've dealt with plenty of isolated domestic terrorism in the past, from OKC to Columbine, etc. But none of these things going on today are isolated. They're a movement, and it was started by somebody. We already have a very complex idea of how it started but obviously we civilians are not privy to any intel on the subject. Somebody has waged an information war so effective that it's inspired our own people to attempt actual domestic war. It's unbelievable to me how the government has just now signaled direct action related to this because it's been brewing for several years and it's all sorts of not good.

Edit: It's actually not unbelievable to me - I almost forgot that the previous administration wanted all of this to happen which is why nothing was done. I believe what we are seeing is an official response related to actual digital warfare, and in my opinion it seems pretty pedestrian so far.

 

[TexRex]

...who says the enemies are within?

Certainly somebody somewhere, but I referred to supposed enemies within because if the actors are not within, they are neither subject to our laws nor beneficiaries of our constitutional protections, robust or otherwise.

I realize this isn't an uncomplicated issue and I don't think you have the slightest ****ing clue what others are considering, but the matters being discussed before you jumped in are very much of concern regardless of what other matters are also of concern.

 

[Keef]

Well as far as I can tell the discussion is about optics and nothing more. Maybe they should've said something less spooky, or not said anything at all. Either way they've clearly decided to act. Hell, maybe they should've been more direct - "Facebook has proven itself incapable of governing discourse on its platform, including dangerous speech which has been acted on, and therefore the US government has stepped in protect Americans from hurtful propaganda."

 

[Danoff]

Well as far as I can tell the discussion is about optics and nothing more. Maybe they should've said something less spooky, or not said anything at all. Either way they've clearly decided to act. Hell, maybe they should've been more direct - "Facebook has proven itself incapable of governing discourse on its platform, including dangerous speech which has been acted on, and therefore the US government has stepped in protect Americans from hurtful propaganda."

That would be even more concerning. I'm not sure whether the issue is only about optics, I'm still not entirely sure what has happened. Something tells me more information will come out. All I know is something has happened, and it is concerning at least from the perspective of optics. Whatever your view of optics are, I think this is already in the more harm than good category.

 

[Joey D]

Do our enemies have a first amendment right to spread disinformation on American soil? The government has a responsibility to defend the country and the disinformation is hurting the country. Weirdly, the information itself in digital form seems to be more tangible than the actual sources of it. I feel like you guys aren't connecting the dots of what digital warfare looks like. This isn't about some hillbillies saying dumb crap on Facebook, this is about why they started saying dumb crap and how its related to their tangible actions against the government. At the extreme, even things like aiding and abetting terrorism needs to be considered.

I hope moves like this demonstrate to other corporations that they do in fact have moral obligations, not just shareholder obligations.

I'm not certain it isn't just dumb rednecks saying stuff on Facebook though. You also have to remember many of these people spouting this stuff are uneducated or technologically illiterate, so they likely aren't sure how to research something or be duped on the Internet. These are the people that think a Nigerian prince has millions of dollars and wants to give it to you.

Also, think back to before social media and how ideas spread. Really off the wall stuff was told to you by your stoned-out cousin with who you went on a "walk" with on Thanksgiving. Either that or it looked like someone from the Lone Gunman out of the X-Files. Just really weird dudes with no social life and sat around coming up with how magic bullets killed JFK. They all communicated, but it wasn't like it was easy for them to get their message out. Now with social media, they have an audience and there are enough uneducated people out there that soak it up. Eventually, some of those uneducated people get elected too.

If it really is a foreign influence on all of it, the social media company should know. They know everything and have so much data that they know more about me than I do. Hell, Google even knows what I'm thinking before I think about it.

 

[Keef]

I'm not certain it isn't just dumb rednecks saying stuff on Facebook though. You also have to remember many of these people spouting this stuff are uneducated or technologically illiterate, so they likely aren't sure how to research something or be duped on the Internet. These are the people that think a Nigerian prince has millions of dollars and wants to give it to you.

Also, think back to before social media and how ideas spread. Really off the wall stuff was told to you by your stoned-out cousin with who you went on a "walk" with on Thanksgiving. Either that or it looked like someone from the Lone Gunman out of the X-Files. Just really weird dudes with no social life and sat around coming up with how magic bullets killed JFK. They all communicated, but it wasn't like it was easy for them to get their message out. Now with social media, they have an audience and there are enough uneducated people out there that soak it up. Eventually, some of those uneducated people get elected too.

If it really is a foreign influence on all of it, the social media company should know. They know everything and have so much data that they know more about me than I do. Hell, Google even knows what I'm thinking before I think about it.

The cool think about being undereducated though is that they are easily influenced and therefor are perfect targets for disinformation. You just mentioned that once the ideas are given a voice they spread like wildfire in the digital age. If someone smart had an agenda to push, all they’d have to do is plant a seed and watch it grow. Among other things, the Q thing definitely matches such a strategy. This is why things like clearance background checks are so thorough and why they ask questions like “is this person influenced by peer pressure” and whatnot.

I doubt we’ll know for sure where these ideas truly came from but you’re right that the perfect storm existed for their spread. I’m of the opinion that the spreaders didn’t come up with the idea on their own. They can’t see that far down the line - they can barely type up a resume much less strategize political movements.

 

[Famine]

I personally don’t see addressing false information as censorship.

There's... so many problems here it's difficult to know where to start. Let's go with who decides what's false, and to what extent does it need to be addressed?


This is really the core of it. Which branch of government is the one that looks at communication and says "this piece of information is false"? What types of information does it look at? Is it restricted to "Biden stole the election" and "vaccines cause Chinese Space Nazis", or would "Epstein didn't kill himself" (which is, in legal terms, a falsehood) or "Breonna Taylor was murdered by cops" (also legally not true) also qualify for government scrutiny?

What types of communication does it look at? Newspapers, factual television, social media, memes, jokes, gossip? If an anti-vaxxer tells me in person (in the USA, obviously) that the COVID jab contains a 5G chip, can I report them to the government, or is it only a problem if they do it on GTPlanet, or on Twitter, or if Tucker Carlson says it to his "Friends"? Could the people I saw at a Trump event wearing "Trump Kennedy 2021" shirts, telling people John F Kennedy Jr isn't dead and will be Vice-President to Trump's President this year when the election is overturned and he's reinstated (of which literally no part is true) be cited for falsehoods, or would it only apply if they said it on Facebook?


Of course, the intentions here are good. We don't want enemies - domestic or foreign - feeding lies to the gullible to destabilise the country, and they use social media to do it. However I can't draw any kind of picture that starts with "a branch of government can decide what is true and what is false on private communications platforms" which doesn't end with "government can decide what you may and may not say". I can't think of a single occasion where a government has granted itself powers that it then hasn't tried to expand.

It seems pretty clear that, under 1A, no branch of government can decide that a social media post is a lie and censor it. It also seems relatively clear that it can approach social media companies with concerns over the promotion of lies.

 

[Keef]

It seems pretty clear that, under 1A, no branch of government can decide that a social media post is a lie and censor it. It also seems relatively clear that it can approach social media companies with concerns over the promotion of lies.

I understand everything you guys are saying. I've been railing about the same thing for a long time as well. I know the implications, I've considered them, I know the historical examples, etc.

My question is, if all the government can do to combat enemy propaganda is "approach" the platforms on which they're hosted, how exactly is the government supposed to respond to those enemies? Surely they can't just let it happen. If their job is to defend the country, and the weapon is false information, then... Obviously the decision can't be that simple but you get my point. Enemies causing social chaos might be a bigger deal than our people's freedom to say whatever they say after they've been influenced by that chaos. Perhaps the government knows more about these sources of information than we civilians ever will.

Edit: And I'll go ahead and admit that I've got a bit of a paranoid streak/trust issues, but I don't think I'm crazy in believing that some sort of response is necessary, even if it's slippery. I've seen more slippery things as recently as January.

 

[Famine]

My question is, if all the government can do to combat enemy propaganda is "approach" the platforms on which they're hosted, how exactly is the government supposed to respond to those enemies? Surely they can't just let it happen. If their job is to defend the country, and the weapon is false information, then...

How does the government defend the citizens of the USA from private companies who use false information to promote their physical products and services?

If a soft drinks manufacturer were to say its product can cure Hepatitis B when it doesn't, how would the US government respond to protect its citizens from spending their money on a product that does not perform as advertised?

 

[Keef]

How does the government defend the citizens of the USA from private companies who use false information to promote their physical products and services?

If a soft drinks manufacturer were to say its product can cure Hepatitis B when it doesn't, how would the US government respond to protect its citizens from spending their money on a product that does not perform as advertised?

Laws.

But I can think of a few entities in the world who don't follow American laws, much less their own, likely because they're not in America.

 

[Famine]

Laws.

Okay, but which ones? What laws specifically forbid companies from telling lies about their products?

I ask as I don't know what US regulations cover this kind of false advertising; I assume there would be some, because the alternative is nuts.

But I can think of a few entities in the world who don't follow American laws, much less their own, likely because they're not in America.

Sure thing, but are these companies able to operate within the USA, selling products to the US market? Are they not subject to the same laws about making false claims on their products due to operating within the US market?

Can a Mongolian fish distributor which sells fish into the US market buy an ad spot on CBS during SWAT claiming their mackerel can increase your ejaculatory volume by 40%, even though it doesn't?

 

[Keef]

Okay, but which ones? What laws specifically forbid companies from telling lies about their products?

I ask as I don't know what US regulations cover this kind of false advertising; I assume there would be some, because the alternative is nuts.

In general the FTC, Federal Trade Commission, governs everything from advertising to antitrust, etc. But these are all related to business transactions, not necessarily the share of information. There are hardly any free speech implications to that due to the aspect of commercial activity. In general the US draws a huge line between freedoms when commercial activity is involved and I assume it's similar in other Western countries. Things the FTC would govern would be Facebook's self-marketing, its marketing partners, the ads and advertisers on the platform, and potentially even the Marketplace sales platform though usually the FTC doesn't bother with small-time trade of the Craigslist type. Anything to do with making money basically.

Sure thing, but are these companies able to operate within the USA, selling products to the US market? Are they not subject to the same laws about making false claims on their products due to operating within the US market?

Can a Mongolian fish distributor which sells fish into the US market buy an ad spot on CBS during SWAT claiming their mackerel can increase your ejaculatory volume by 40%, even though it doesn't?

Judging by the ads on Pornhub and all the horny goat weed at gas stations, I'm not sure the FTC bothers enforcing on that small of a scale.

But why are we talking about commercial operations? Maybe I should've used the word institutions, not entities. I'm not talking about companies or commercial activities, I'm talking about governments.

 

[Famine]

But why are we talking about commercial operations?

It gives a mechanism and a precedent that doesn't require the trampling of the First Amendment.


In essence, the problem you have is "private companies making money from deception". There seems to be protections in place to prevent US citizens from being harmed by this.

The difficulty with this particular version of the problem is that the social media companies aren't making money by deceiving consumers into buying products, but by allowing members to deceive other members - and, as you identify, it's an avenue for bad actors to engage in coordinated deception.

However, it would suggest that a solution predicated on protecting consumers from companies that deceive is possible, rather than one that requires significant government over-reach in contravention of a literal cornerstone of your entire society.

 

[Danoff]

The difficulty with this particular version of the problem is that the social media companies aren't making money by deceiving consumers into buying products, but by allowing members to deceive other members - and, as you identify, it's an avenue for bad actors to engage in coordinated deception.

However, it would suggest that a solution predicated on protecting consumers from companies that deceive is possible, rather than one that requires significant government over-reach in contravention of a literal cornerstone of your entire society.

Ironically, you're kinda poking at section 230.

 

[TexRex]

Ironically, you're kinda poking at section 230.

Republicans: "Wait, no. Not like that."

 

[TexRex]

Aaaaand Mike Masnick addresses the fumble, even pointing to remarks from Ken White that I've already mentioned.

No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better

Honestly, this is the last thing I wanted to be writing about today. First, let’s make this clear: when I’ve seen political officials — both Democrats and Republicans alike &#8212…

www.techdirt.com

Honestly, this is the last thing I wanted to be writing about today. First, let's make this clear: when I've seen political officials -- both Democrats and Republicans alike -- threatening to punish companies for 1st Amendment protected activities, I call it out. Indeed, I've been highlighting these kinds of issues for years -- and it has nothing to do with politics or ideology or who I like or who I don't like.

It's a simple fact: the US government should not be threatening or coercing private companies into taking down protected speech.

But, over the past few days there's been an absolutely ridiculous **** storm falsely claiming that the White House is, in fact, doing this with Facebook, leading to a whole bunch of nonsense -- mainly from the President's critics. It began on Thursday, when White House press secretary Jen Psaki, in talking about vaccine disinfo, noted that the White House had flagged vaccine disinformation to Facebook. And... critics of the President completely lost their **** claiming that it was a "First Amendment violation" or that it somehow proved Donald Trump's case against the social media companies.

It did none of those things.

On Friday, rather than recognizing how this whole line of argument would be weaponized, the White House doubled down, again highlighting how it was upset about misinformation about vaccines on social media, and then when asked directly about "Facebook" Joe Biden said "they're killing people." This is, of course, wrong. Facebook is not killing people. Some idiots on Facebook are spreading misinformation and disinformation that is likely causing people to die, but we should be putting the blame where it needs to be put. On the people spreading the disinformation.

Either way, the fact that the government might flag to social media companies that certain content is disinformation does not, in any way, reach the level of coercion or demands that would make it a 1st Amendment violation. There was no indication that the companies were told to take it down. There's no indication that anything happened other than the administration saying "Hey, this stuff is dangerous." And, I mean, if you're going to get mad at administrations demanding social media posts get taken down, it certainly looks like the Trump administration went way further than the Biden administration did in demanding such things (like that time with regards to posts advocating for the removal of confederate statues). I don't remember any of the folks now screaming about the Biden administration complaining when Trump actually did demand posts be removed.

Of course, that still doesn't make this necessarily the right approach by the White House -- and frankly, it's astounding that they walked right into this seemingly unaware of how it would all play out. Ken White wrote out the perfect way in which a smart White House would have dealt with this issue:

Here’s how the Biden Administration could handle the plague of deadly disinformation in a way that wouldn’t play into the Trumpist censorship narrative:

"The First Amendment and Section 230 let private companies like Twitter and Facebook choose how to moderate their sites. American free speech rights are exceptional and protect a very large amount of speech many of us would agree is dangerous or harmful. That broad protection helps insulate speech from political and ideological urges to censor. But the government has a leadership function as well as a governing one. Part of leadership is praising good behavior and condemning bad behavior, in hopes that people will do the right thing, without the coercion of law.
Facebook has a right to make money off of this alarming and deadly disinformation. But that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Just as Americans have the right to say poisonous and ugly things to each other, that doesn’t make it right. When Facebook is exercising its right to profit off of deadly propaganda about COVID, it’s doing the wrong moral thing. It’s being a bad citizen. The First Amendment protects it from coercion, but not from criticism — yours and ours.
We call on Facebook to reconsider its stance. We’ve identified common anti-scientific propaganda that puts lives at risk. Facebook can continue to profit off of it. But it can choose not to. We call on Facebook to do the right thing - for Americans and their lives."

Would it really have been so hard to have done something like that?