Facebook, Twitter Execs Admit Failures, Warn of 'Overwhelming' Threat To Elections (gizmodo.com) 250
Openly recognizing their companies' past failures in rare displays of modesty, Facebook and Twitter executives touted new efforts to combat state-sponsored propaganda across their platforms before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, acknowledging that the task is often "overwhelming" and proving a massive drain on their resources. Gizmodo: In opening remarks on Wednesday, Facebook's chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, acknowledged that Facebook had been "too slow to act" in 2016 against the Kremlin-backed campaign that was designed to sow discord among American voters. "That's on us," she said, describing Moscow's meddling as "completely unacceptable" and a violation of Facebook's values "and of the country we love." "We're investing for the long term because security is never a finished job," Sandberg added, noting that Facebook has increased its security and communications staff to 20,000 people, doubling it over the past year. "Our adversaries are determined, creative, and well-funded," she said. "But we are even more determined -- and we will continue to fight back."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, portrayed the matter as not just a threat to democracy, but as a threat to the overall health and security of his business, saying that above all else, Twitter's goal is to serve a "global public conversation." Dorsey also acknowledged a range of threats faced by his company, including widespread abuse, manipulation by foreign powers, and "malicious automation" (i.e., bots). "Any attempts to undermine the integrity of our service is antithetical to our fundamental rights," he said, calling freedom of expression a "core tenant" upon which the Twitter is based. Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, portrayed the matter as not just a threat to democracy, but as a threat to the overall health and security of his business, saying that above all else, Twitter's goal is to serve a "global public conversation." Dorsey also acknowledged a range of threats faced by his company, including widespread abuse, manipulation by foreign powers, and "malicious automation" (i.e., bots). "Any attempts to undermine the integrity of our service is antithetical to our fundamental rights," he said, calling freedom of expression a "core tenant" upon which the Twitter is based. Google, which was also asked to appear before the committee, chose not to do so. An empty chair was left at the table next to Sandberg and Dorsey to signify Google's absence.
Bow down to mammom (Score:2, Insightful)
right (Score:2, Insightful)
An honest effort to fight foreign state influence would be fine, I suppose, but as we know, this is being used as a Trojan horse for the tech executives to simply further their own political predilections.
(Also, if our elections could truly be determined by Facebook ads and tweets, we would be doomed anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the motivations of those involved are the result is that a lot of online platforms become a lot less neutral territory, and that is a serious problem. It means they now become the subject of intense competition where algorithms and filters are constantly tweaked to make a party less or more visible.
You can argue that this was already the case but this is a step higher. Google is no longer neutral.
Concerning facebook ads, the argument is that Cambridge Analytica had succeeded in massively enhancing
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone please define "sowing discord"? (Score:2)
Foreign Social Media Posts (Score:2)
Pose far less of a threat to the American election process than an ill-informed American populace.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed; although one can partially begat the other.
hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has a long history of meddling in foreign elections [npr.org]. The US also has a long history of broadcasting radio into the East Bloc. And under the First Amendment, Americans have a right to hear the views and speech of foreigners.
How about worrying about the activities of the US government vis-a-vis US citizens? This is what Edward Bernays, the founder of US public relations had to say, about US government propaganda:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country
And the CIA appears to have been manipulating news media in the US since the 1950s as part of Operation Mockingbird [wikipedia.org]:
According to writer Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and oversaw the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed after a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In the 1970s, Congressional investigations and reports also revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. None of these reports, however, mentions an Operation Mockingbird coordinating or supporting these activities.
Nice touch... (Score:2)
I must say this is a nice touch, and stab at Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they want more theater, well, then they have to keep waiting.
They have subpoena power, man.
Re: (Score:2)
"global public conversation." (Score:3)
That's BS. If that was true they wouldn't ban so many thousands of users each day. My last Twitter account was created less than two weeks ago, and it's already been banned. I never even posted anything. I just clicked follow on a few friends.
Re: (Score:2)
The ban a lot of bots and sock puppets.
If you account that never posted got banned it's probably because you followed people with lots of bot accounts and then never did anything to suggest you were a human.
Like spam filters, mistakes happen.
Stop using them... (Score:2)
Much much worse in other countries (Score:4, Insightful)
But what about in countries where almost the entire citizenry relies on Facebook as its primary source of information? One of these is the Philippines, where once tabloids and tv dominated, today Facebook is THE biggest medium to disseminate information, thanks to the mobile phone and subsidized access to Facebook courtesy of the telco duopoly.
Duterte's campaign team used it to propel a known murderer into the presidency, whereby he immediately implemented his War on Drugs [reuters.com] which has since claimed over 12,000 lives. His first two years in office has also seen the economy plummet to new lows, with inflation at its highest in close to a decade and currently the highest in asia [cnnphilippines.com].
And now that Duterte's social media propaganda is state-sponsored, you can then understand why his approval ratings are the highest in history [abs-cbn.com]. This is even if his sound bites make Trump sound like Anne Frank in comparison (even more so in the vernacular).
I am unsure if Facebook will be able to fix itself because if it doesn't, you can very well imagine what the consequences are for Filipinos.
Facebook problems (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Fake news
2. Political ads by foreign powers
3. Censorship because of political views
4. Egregious selling of personal data to advertisers
The first two are difficult to detect because they are fake stories/ads posing as real ones. You have to think that with all the engineers Facebook has that they would have at least tried to solve this problem. But Facebook has really taken the position in the past that they really don't care. That is until their stock got slammed last month. Now they care.
The last two are within Facebook's control but chooses to ignore the problem because of political bias or outright greed. Greed is good, right?
Google had the motto of "don't be evil". Facebook's motto is "we just don't care".
The problem is not Facebook or Twitter ... (Score:2)
... it's the goddam naive simple-minded, gullible membership.
Facebook and Twitter will never fix stupid. ~ © 2018 CaptainDork
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
News outlets should never have been part of the revenue model on either platform.
Facebook and Twitter are for fucking cat videos.
A threat to democracy (Score:2)
To be fair, they said a similar thing about TV, radio, and the printing press.
To be even fairer, they were probably right.
Overwhelming DIFFICULTY, not threat (Score:2)
From just the summary it seems the threat itself is not overwhelming, just the difficulty in figuring out who is a state actor.
In reality the threat level is slightly about the same as if a bunch of homeless guys were given campaign posters. i.e. none.
No-one is changing minds on social media, or had you not noticed? That it where you go to yell, not to debate and learn.
It's especially hard for state actors to get anything done these days when everyone is already furious and insane. Can't really manipulate
If only someone had warned them repeatedly (Score:2)
Oh.
Wait.
We did.
Start with admitting to censorship (Score:3)
Let's start off by getting Facebook, Twitter, et al to admit that they're engaging in rampant and heavy-handed censorship. Guns? Censored! Criticism of left-wing? Censored! Praise of neutral to right-wing? Censored!
Seems obvious to me what's going on (Score:2)
1) Feel a need for vast technology/Internet company reform
2) Stage an election with an obvious moron winning where nobody could believe it
3) Have the moron do all sorts of stupid things to drill into people that he's the biggest moron
4) Pretend that the boogie man broke the process and tainted the fragile minds of idiots on social media to elect said moron
5) Point the finger at the boogie man
6) Use momentum to get the public behind reforming technology/Internet/privacy law, disregarding that pesky Constitut
Re:So they're a threat to national security? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. This is puzzling.
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy.
If true, shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely?
Should the US block them until they can operate a safe business?
They still don't understand (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Close enough. They want to offload the messy moderating business to outsiders. Government is just one of the parties. The Atlantic Council for instance represents Nato and the oil kingdoms so they are already handling content.
Re:So they're a threat to national security? (Score:5, Insightful)
The people running Facebook and Twitter are progressives who believe that more government regulation is a good thing (and for them, it is). They are "admitting" this in order to gin up calls for regulations on their industry. Regulations on social media sites would lock new competitors out.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This is puzzling.
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy. If true, shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely? Should the US block them until they can operate a safe business?
Many countries have media blackouts [wikipedia.org] in the final hours before elections. I doubt that could get by the US Supreme Court so it would probably have to be a constitutional amendment. And even then I'm not sure how these other countries can enforce such a thing in 2018.
Re: (Score:3)
Many countries have media blackouts
I happen to like the First Amendment. We're not like other countries. I don't want to be like other countries where you can go to jail or be fined for expressing yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shouldn't we shut these non-essential websites down until they can operate safely?
These are large and extremely profitable businesses. Here in the US, that makes them essential. These are the primary characteristics of essential businesses.
I can't think of the last time that a business of this size, which was solvent, was shut down for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Facebook and Twitter admit that their business is a threat to democracy?
Congress has a special language. Let me translate.
"Those are nice partisan elections you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to them."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole problem.
We're supposed to steer the ship. THEY are supposed to be the engines and rudders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So they're a threat to national security? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Gold, silver or bronze?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
polonium.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The only current threat is THEIR censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.
Either they support free speech or they do not.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.
Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.
Yes - and that should change (Score:2)
The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.
Either they support free speech or they do not.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.
Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.
And this should change.
That's the point everyone is making, that although it is perfectly legal that these sites are censoring whoever they like, that should change.
There's some legal precedent for this: when a shopping center is torn down and a mall built in its place, the mall can't prevent [otherwise legal] postings on its corkboard, because the mall has taken place of the supermarket public corkboard. Even though the mall is privately owned - the supermarket was also privately owned.
There's some legal p
Re: (Score:2)
There's some legal precedent for this: when a shopping center is torn down and a mall built in its place, the mall can't prevent [otherwise legal] postings on its corkboard, because the mall has taken place of the supermarket public corkboard. Even though the mall is privately owned - the supermarket was also privately owned.
I'd like to see your source for that. That sounds like some weird quirky law. I can't imagine malls are legally required to have a public corkboard in the first place in most locations. I haven't looked for one, but I don't recall ever seeing one in any mall I've been in.
No way to search? (Score:2)
I'd like to see your source for that. That sounds like some weird quirky law. I can't imagine malls are legally required to have a public corkboard in the first place in most locations. I haven't looked for one, but I don't recall ever seeing one in any mall I've been in.
I think you're trying to provoke a snarky response.
Do you honestly have no way to search for this information?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're trying to provoke a snarky response.
Do you honestly have no way to search for this information?
I have no idea where you live and what quirky local laws are in place at your location. So no. Malls are certainly not required to let people post whatever they want without being allowed to take it down in malls nationwide.
Some links (Score:2)
Here's one about handing out leaflets [wikipedia.org].
In general, the court held that the more an area was opened up to public use [educateforlife.org], the more it had to abide by statutory rights of a person in a public place.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one about handing out leaflets [wikipedia.org].
In general, the court held that the more an area was opened up to public use [educateforlife.org], the more it had to abide by statutory rights of a person in a public place.
Not stopping people passing out leaflets or stopping people talking is a big jump from the mall being required to let people post anything they like to a mall's corkboard and the mall not being able to take it down.
A more fitting example with Facebook/Twitter would be if the malls were required to let anyone use their mallwide intercom system anytime they wanted and say anything they wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
I believer you are forgetting something very important. Facebook and Twitter are indeed private corporations. An as therefor they do have the right to dictate what appears on their site, until.
Until their sites get so big, as twitter and facebook have done, that the options of one person or a small group of people using the cover of corporate policy can shape the destiny of elections. They do this by removing posts that disagree with this corporate policy, as both Twitter and facebook have done.
Ther
Re: (Score:2)
I believer you are forgetting something very important. Facebook and Twitter are indeed private corporations. An as therefor they do have the right to dictate what appears on their site, until...
Until... Yes, government can pass regulations on corporations like that; but haven't, and I don't think it would be popular from either side of the political spectrum if government's could chose what private corporations are allowed to post on a whim.
Let's not forget, the people being censored are a small percentage of the right (and some from the left) who are practicing hate speech. Republicans are not going to want to be seen as the party of hate-speech. They're not in large numbers going to request th
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, congress doesn't have to pass any laws to regulate google, facebook, or twitter. The commerce clause of the Constitution gives congress vast, some say to vast, and undefined powers over inner state commerce. Congress in the past has used this power to regulate what companies can and can't do.
Besides these companies exist only at the whelm of the US government. If for some reason the government decides that twitter, google, and facebook no longer exist, then they no longer exist. If you nee
Yup - with restrictions (Score:2)
So you agree that entities that choose to serve to the public should be required to serve everyone; like say a baker making cakes, regardless of their personal beliefs?
I'd like to hear the court's opinion on that, but I think that one boils down to the difference between a commodity sale and a contract negotiation.
For custom work, you're basically negotiating a contract and you aren't required to agree to any particular contract or statement of conditions.
For a commodity sale, then yes - if you generally sell something to the public, then you should be required to sell to the parts of the public that you don't agree with.
We're seeing a lot of boycotting nowadays - "in-and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The only current threat is THEIR censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write.
Fuck off with this tired old propaganda piece. They're corporations, they are only entities by virtue of the power granted by the government, the government does not have the right to quell free speech so neither does any corporation, period. They know damn well censorship is on shaky grounds and people are getting fed up with it, which is exactly why they're bitching about how much of a menace they themselves are. It's a tactic to try to get people to scream "please of please censor us, for you are clearly our wise superiors." Fuck them and fuck their sociopathic attempts to control the masses through censorship, and fuck you too for being dumb enough to be their halfwit shill.
Newspapers can chose not to publish letters to the editor and have for all time. TV stations aren't required to broadcast your home movies if you send them in. If you send an addendum to a Steven King novel... guess what... the publisher isn't required to include it as part of the novel. Heck- if you record a song in your mother's basement and send it to Nickelback- they aren't even required to include it in their next album. If you give Webster a new definition for their dictionary stating that the word donkey now means dog, they will probably ignore you. A buy sell newspaper could even choose not to list your ad.
This isn't about censorship- there is certainly nothing new about this; it's happened longer than the internet age has existed. It's just about private corporations choosing what they publish on their own platforms- that THEY OWN... and they absolutely have the right to not publish your racist drivel if they don't want to.
You don't like it? There are websites that would love to hear how much you hate minorities and women- go post on one of their websites if that is more your crowd. You can go to 4chan if you think facebook and twitter are too tame for your liking. You have options and places to go to spout bile if you really want to.
Re:The only current threat is THEIR censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Try to pull your head out of your ass and learn something before engaging your bullshit.
Re:The only current threat is THEIR censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
I especially like the hover text on that XKCD:
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
Re: (Score:3)
How is that statement anti-free speech? The whole point is that they're free to say things, even if they can't support their statements with ethos, pathos or logos.
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1357 [xkcd.com] Try to pull your head out of your ass and learn something before engaging your bullshit.
And if Facebook, et al want to honestly present themselves as SJW Central, great. Make the chamber as echo-y as you want.
But if they want to present themselves as just places where pretty much anybody can sign up and post stuff, and then do a bunch of biased banning, not so much.
Yeah, they can do it (probably - but we can force people to bake a cake expressing opinions that they don't like??), but I am going to call them dishonest jerks for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As a Russian myself I see this as extremely hypocritical for Americans to be dismayed at this "election interference" considering that US never shied to meddle in politics of other countries, including Russia itself.
Whataboutism, the concept of trying to make your adversary out as a hypocrite, is 100 percent beside the point. One wrong does not make another wrong right. If US interference in other countries elections is found, document and report it.
All of which is to say Russia got caught. Rather than say America does it so it is a good thing when we do it, perhaps exposing the wrong is better than expressing desire for allowing it.
In fact I don't even believe that it was Russian government agents who are responsible for events on those American elections, due to the fact that Russian gov has nothing to accomplish by this, they're more in bed with Clintons than with Trumps.
Whataboutism number 2. Your mortal enemy, the Clintons are in no political power now
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russian interference = handful of retweets.
Illustrate your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
That fact that you think everyone on the right are "fascists" and then go on about conspiracy theories is just precious if not hypocritical.
But you don't care one bit about a faked and paid for dossier, an illegally gotten FISA warrant, or DNC tampering with the primaries as well as the general election... but muh integrity! Seems you know nothing more about integrity than the people you hate.
Continue swearing some more, it really makes your argument more credible.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only a problem when it isn't the US doing it, right?
It is always wrong, dear little coward. We're just doing something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> I've yet to see a single study, or even anyone claiming, those ads and fake news reports actually had an effect on the election
There are some people claiming this, but there's not much to it.
Fake News: Wide Reach but Little Impact, Study Suggests
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/health/fake-news-conservative-liberal.html
What probably did swing the election was non-fake news like Clinton's anti-Bernie and email shenanigans coming to light. That's why it's OK to get worried when news or g
Re: (Score:2)
So, Russia placed misinformation on social networks, and who do we believe that swayed? I've yet to see a single study, or even anyone claiming, those ads and fake news reports actually had an effect on the election, i.e., convinced voters to choose one candidate over another.
Why is that your definition of an effect? Another effect, indeed the one mentioned in the summary, would be to sow discord. Do you consider "foreign power sowing discord" a possible concerning effect? How would you measure it?
My impression from http://www.people-press.org/20... [people-press.org] is that discord has been growing steadily for decades. If I wanted to weaken America, I reckon that my starting point would be contributing to this tread. Personally I want to strengthen America, but I'm just an individual not a nati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call it vague. It means any advocacy or activist group now becomes a russian agent.
Re:We're giving Russia far too much credit (Score:4, Interesting)
TLDR - the race was very close and I believe its not possible to argue successfully that Russian meddling didn't carry the day.
Personally, I don't think we give the Russians nearly enough credit. Vladimir Putin is truly an evil genius. If you don't agree, read House of Trump House of Putin. I have to say it blew my mind. And if you're tempted to cry Fake Book, be sure to review the bibliography. Its hard to argue with facts backed up by proof.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is nonsense. If a race is very close then every tiny event can be made responsible for tilting the result. Do you accept that if your kid comes home and he failed the exams but it was sooo close?
The real issue is why the race was close at all. The same reasoning applied to Gore losing against Bush and the recount.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course. There were many tiny events that led us to the Trump presidency. The important point here is that some tiny events are legitimate and some like a foreign power's propaganda are not.
>The real issue is why the race was close at all.
You're right. The race would not have been close if both political camps conducted themselves honorably.
Take away Comey's Clinton investigation announcements a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about minor events. Trump is a media-savvy populist who got elected by people who feel they're not represented. If Bernie Sanders had been the candidate for the democrats the situation would have been different. And how come Bernie Sanders didn't get past the primaries? Because Clinton had bought up the DNC.
So my perception of the elections is completely different than yours. US democracy is broken alright but Russian meddling is just a red herring. And I consider that an informed opinion. I
Re: (Score:2)
>Russian meddling is just a red herring
This is the incorrect and dangerous attitude I'm trying to change. There are many other factors that our system is addressing, but the foreign powers messing with our democracy cannot go unchallenged.
If you cannot agree that Russian meddling
Re: (Score:2)
I have an informed opinion, whether it's right or not, and you are calling that something which is wrong with our democracy. I guess I should be happy at least you're not calling me a Russian stooge. You think the problem is we are not mobilizing enough against the external enemy?
I have definite ideas about what's wrong with our democracies and Russian interference is a mere drop in the ocean. What do you think the budget of the Russians in this is and how it compares to the whole?
Re: (Score:2)
Bec
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies for the delay in replying. So you're not sure whether I'm a Russian stooge. Maybe I'm some kind of sleeper agent who registered to /. almost 20 years ago(see my id).
Or I'm being cleverly lied to. I think the core disagreement is I see the dangers as internal, you as external. And it's a pretty radical disagreement.
I'll put it this way. I think you're a bit presumptuous about knowing the Americans. You're dismissing everyone who doesn't buy into the mainstream stories as either a Russian stooge o
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, no worries. It's clear we're a couple of people who care to know the truth.
>I think the core disagreement is I see the dangers as internal, you as external
We actually agree that the greatest danger is internal. Where it seems we disagree is that I have reviewed solid proof that there are serious dangers that are external as well. We have been infiltrated and corrupted from within.
>I think you're a bit presumptu
Re:Only CNN, NBC, CBS are allowed to sow discord (Score:4)
Probably when you tell us what lies about police shootings, what attacks on the President, what whitewashing of "the criminals", other bs that you're ranting about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basic knowledge of history and of US Constitutional law would be very helpful
Re: (Score:2)
"They let you do it" as he put it indicates consent. Consensual sexual contact is not assault.
Cheating on your wife is not an impeachable offence. Obstructing justice by committing and suborning perjury is impeachable offence.
His campaign manager was found guilty of crimes committed before he was his campaign manager. The crimes took place during Obama presidency.
Your post is the perfect example of lies constantly repeated by t
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes racism is just that... racism. Removing hate speech doesn't have to be about Conservatives vs Liberals.
I'm an centrist independent and I'm fully for Twitter and Facebook removing racist posts (not that I use Facebook or Twitter myself). The fact that a small percentage of Republicans (and it is a small percentage-not all Republicans are racist douche-bags; the party existed before Trump and used to be fairly intolerant of racism like the rest of us) feel it is necessary for racism to be allowed to express their political views is quite telling about what really drives those individuals.
I fully support freedom of speech, but media companies are not required to post and keep every single thing you write on their platforms- nor should the be.
There are pro-white supremacy websites out there. If you're offended that racism isn't allowed on your media site of choice- go use one of those which do allow it and leave everyone else alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes racism is just that... racism. Removing hate speech doesn't have to be about Conservatives vs Liberals.
But it's conservatives that are tarred with the "racist" label, for example, arguing [slashdot.org] against phony narratives like Black Lies Matter. But when it comes to liberals, they get away with saying the most hateful [archive.is] and racist things against white people.
The fact that a small percentage of Republicans (and it is a small percentage-not all Republicans are racist douche-bags; the party existed before Trump and used to be fairly intolerant of racism like the rest of us) feel it is necessary for racism to be allowed to express their political views is quite telling about what really drives those individuals.
Do you believe your own bullshit? Here's the real story: Twitter cast a wide net based on associations, block lists, and the double standards of their Orwellian "Trust and Safety" (Target and Silence) team. Here it is from the horses mouth [breitbart.com], CEO Jack Dorsey:
" 'In th
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-White-Supremacy isn't "white people are great". Pro-White-Supremacy is "white people are functionally greater than not-whites."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Political strategy of today is to use the more-active primary voters to control the nomination, then excite the loyal voter base and tilt the swing vote to select the electee. It's ripe for abuse by propaganda: you only need to tilt a few minds.
We can solve this with better voting rules.
For any party with 25% or more of the registered voter base, the party should be allowed to nominate two candidates by Single Transferable Vote. Single Transferable Vote converges ballots onto the plurality-strongest
Re: (Score:2)
They just can't and won't ever admit that Hillary Clinton was pretty much the most unlikable candidate ever.
I said from the beginning she had zero chance of winning.
She will never be US president.
Thank God.
Perhaps the second most unlikable candidate ever. She did get more votes than Trump but lost because of the electoral college system.
Re: (Score:2)
If you count the third parties it's still against her; the Gary Johnsons align closer to trump and the Jill Steins closer to Hillary. Trump+Johnson > Stein+Clinton in the popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
If you count the third parties it's still against her; the Gary Johnsons align closer to trump and the Jill Steins closer to Hillary. Trump+Johnson > Stein+Clinton in the popular vote.
I don't know that you can say that. Johnson was a libertarian. Trump is about as far away from Libertarianism as you can get. Tarriffs, blocking people from entry to the country. Increased military spending and involvement in other countries. Trying to regulate the press. His increased government involvement in all sorts of things would not be popular with libertarian ideals. Trump is almost the exact opposite of libertarianism. Not that libertarians would have any joy with Clinton either- she's far
Re: (Score:2)
Trump campaigned on tax cuts, deregulation and killing ACA. These are all Libertarian things. If you recall he also originally was for less military spending, particularly in making foreign countries (Asia, Germany, etc) pay for our military aid or we would pull out (pissing off Japan because we are obligated via treaty to defend them). Both candidates vowed to kill the TPP so neither was distinguished there. The silly wall no one took him seriously on (an incorrect assumption as it turns out). Clinton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish this wasn't so insightful
But it is.
Re: (Score:2)