Microsoft Won't Label Fake News As False In An Attempt To Avoid 'Censorship' Cries (bloomberg.com) 164
In an interview with Bloomberg, Microsoft President Brad Smith said the company won't label social media posts that appear to be false in order to avoid the appearance that the company is trying to censor speech online. From the report: "I don't think that people want governments to tell them what's true or false," Smith said when asked about Microsoft's role in defining disinformation. "And I don't think they're really interested in having tech companies tell them either." The comments are Smith's strongest indication yet that Microsoft is taking a unique path to tracking and disrupting digital propaganda efforts.
Smith said Microsoft wanted to provide the public with more information about who is speaking, what they are saying and allow them to come to their own judgment about whether content was true. "We have to be very thoughtful and careful because -- and this is also true of every democratic government -- fundamentally, people quite rightly want to make up their own mind and they should," he said. "Our whole approach needs to be to provide people with more information, not less and we cannot trip over and use what others might consider censorship as a tactic."
Smith said Microsoft wanted to provide the public with more information about who is speaking, what they are saying and allow them to come to their own judgment about whether content was true. "We have to be very thoughtful and careful because -- and this is also true of every democratic government -- fundamentally, people quite rightly want to make up their own mind and they should," he said. "Our whole approach needs to be to provide people with more information, not less and we cannot trip over and use what others might consider censorship as a tactic."
Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah! fuck science and math! Everything is a narrative we choose to our liking as the post-modernists claim and their profit Karl Rove has brought us into an age of freedum to choose whatever reality we like!
As long as you don't cancel people it's just fine if we filter you out of OUR reality.. go ahead and filter us out of yours but whenever we clash, our might makes us right so follow our rule.
Re:Thank you (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting that you picked Karl Rove as your example of someone spreading falsehoods. Karl Rove never signed on to the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen. In fact, he was very vocal, criticizing other Republicans for their deception.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Karl Rove never signed on to the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen. In fact, he was very vocal, criticizing other Republicans for their deception.
I guess a stopped (and corrupt) clock is correct twice a day eh? lol
Re:Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former scientist, you are a moron.
As someone who was apparently better educated than some random former scientist on the internet, you're an ignorant toolshed.
Science is anything but objective. What is "true" in science changes frequently.
No, what is inferred from facts in science changes frequently.
Science deals with facts. If you want truth, talk to a philosopher.
Re: Thank you (Score:5, Informative)
Well, almost.
Nope.
Science deals with our perception of reality. That's not the same as facts.
Nope.
1==1 is an axiom.
Yup.
Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time is our perception.
Actually it's no more than a conjecture.
Nobody has ever called the Pauli Exclusion Principle a fact.
Kim Kardashian has a fat ass is a fact.
That's an opinion.
Joe Biden is a senile fool is truth.
Old as fuck, and certainly showing signs of being an old fucker, but senile? No. I've had senile family members. He's not anywhere close to that.
You're 1 for 5. Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
You're 1 for 5. Good job.
If that's the score for OneSmartFellow I genuinely weep for those who don't consider themselves smart.
Re: Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Because in my opinion stupid people are much less capable of introspection, etc.. The smart people are losing the war because they acknowledge they might be wrong. The stupid people are running the table because other stupid people follow the loudest, most overly confident blowhard in the room.
Look at Anthony Fauci. Smart guy, doing his best. But his biggest public relation sin was trying to own ambiguity and the evolution of knowledge. Stupid people want to hear every fact as immutable and perpetual. No naunce, no caveats... tell them what they want to here, tell them it's a forever truth, and then go away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think people expected Fauci to be an expert, not someone who learns as they go. It would have been ok for him to say that he didn't have a clue, but when he flip-flopped, people began to understand that bureaucracies select for political panache, not competence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for demonstrating your loud overly confident blowhard ness on cue.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... really? I'd say you should reread your own post here.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think what is most lacking from the bureaucrat in question is panache.
People expected him to be an expert, and he was that.
His messaging changed as knowledge changed.
What you want is someone with political panache, fully willing to deny reality for the sake of consistent messaging.
It is precisely the lack of political panache that led this particular life-long Republican to be demonized by people he generally votes with.
But then again, those fuckers would eat the
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's kind of the point. An "expert" is just somebody who operates at the edges of domain knowledge. When that domain isn't well understood, an expert is still somebody with an ocean of uncertainty in front of them. You do the best with the information available at the time. An "expert" will probably make better guesses.
Only the foolish think an expert should be always correct and generally infallible.
Anybody who thinks they have an absolute lock on the knowledge of any domain should be scrutinized v
Re: (Score:2)
Darn... my reply ended up one level up. Apologies.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Weird. I thought that was exactly my point, although less vitriolic... :)
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed out severe logical failures on their part in a different thread, and they are reacting by calling me dumb wherever they can.
If indeed you already knew that, and still wrote this response- then you're as fucking dim-witted as they are. But I think it was probably a mistake, because you don't bear the hallmarks of a mouth breather.
Re: (Score:2)
But one of those things, is that you aren't very fucking smart, because you use subjective value assessments as truths, and a smart person would be able to differentiate their obviously abnormal opinion from facts.
Another of those things, is that you have a seriously tiny dick (virtual or otherwise), because you respond to being made to look like a fool by 1) disappearing, and 2) reappearing where you won't be challenged.
It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I was wondering why that was true. I have never noticed this nesting problem before.
Re: (Score:2)
"Another of those things, is that you have a seriously tiny dick"
Says the admitted sports car addict. ROFL. You. just. keep. digging. deeper.
"you respond to being made to look like a fool by 1) disappearing"
I must be really bad at hiding, posting on a thread where you went all egotistical jackass and made a fool of yourself trying to spin a claim that the entire scientific method isn't build on observations with the core axiom of science being that only what we can observe (directly or indirectly) exists or
Re: (Score:2)
Well then you should be very pleased that he won the election, Your laundry list of detrimental complaints would be much larger under the alternative, should your gaze have the same focus.
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious, though, why you feel it's somehow unseemly for a world leader to prepare his thoughts in advance of writing them in the permanent guestbook of the funeral of an important monarch. Apparently only a senile would do that, and a youthful, virile leader would totally wing it - and that's better?
Re: (Score:2)
" Did any other head of state need a cheat sheet to write down their thoughts?"
Did they? I don't know, and I suspect neither do you. You probably saw the one leader your media chose to put a camera on.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the American media will focus on anything except American leaders?
You might think it's fixation on a single point, but it's the only point you made that isn't a generality or an assumption.
Re: (Score:3)
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hasten to remind everyone that, at some point, a political party you don't like will be in power. The tools of your friends today will be the tools of your enemies tomorrow.
Plus, the government is full of people who couldn't hack it in real jobs, and they'd be the ones determining what is false and what isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus, the government is full of people who were put there and kept there, by voters.
FTFY. And yeah, I agree with your analysis. Too bad voters care about who's in charge next about as much as a CFO cares about FY2040 financial planning.
We can generally handle and deal with people we don't like all day. That said, no one should tolerate an "enemy" Representative who turns combatant and divisive strictly for politics and Greeds sake. That's how wars get started and we already know they're not sending their kids to die.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, the government is full of people who were put there and kept there, by voters.
FTFY.
Bzzzt, wrong, the vast majority of people working in the government are unelected bureaucrats, been that way since the aftermath of the assassination of President Garfield in 1881. Not that your points are wrong, but the problems are deeper and more intractable than you think they are. The elections, especially of the US President, are a mere dog and pony show when it comes to the machinations of the government as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
I hasten to remind everyone that, at some point, a political party you don't like will be in power. The tools of your friends today will be the tools of your enemies tomorrow.
This is why I find it astounding that politicians fight so hard for rule changes to get bills passed into law, don't they know that they could be on the other side of this after the next election?
Plus, the government is full of people who couldn't hack it in real jobs, and they'd be the ones determining what is false and what isn't.
These are people that get suckered into giving money to any wild idea because someone made a nice looking PowerPoint presentation. If some idea had a chance to be profitable then there would be private investors standing in line to get a piece of it. If there's no private investors touching it then they go to gov
No need to censor what isn't reported (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem with news reporting today is that news that people would like to know is not reported in the first place.
We have large news networks that have been caught colluding to keep quiet on news that they'd prefer the public not know. They all have a similar political slant so in order to get an accurate view of the world people are turning to social media.
A problem with labeling anything false is that it brings more attention to the reporting. This is like when NASA chose not to comment on claims the manned missions to the moon were faked. To say anything means that this has risen to a level that NASA felt a need to comment.
Another problem is that any claims of something being false is to bring attention to what truth lies behind it. To say that NASA faked the missions of putting men on the moon is telling people that NASA exists, the moon exists, and putting humans on the moon is something close enough to probable that there's a debate on if it happened or not. Another example, to claim some drug is worthless to treat COVID-19 means that there is a disease called COVID-19 and treating it is something people need to be concerned about. It's something of a trope of people making denials of something happening as evidence of them knowing more than they claim, or some admission of guilt, or some other kind of revelation. Attempting to keep something quiet could reveal more than doing nothing and hoping nobody notices.
I wonder if this isn't about avoiding accusations of censorship but avoiding the chances of highlighting something that they'd rather keep quiet.
Re: (Score:3)
If this were true, then the people would be arriving at a more accurate view of the world through social media than they would from the large news networks. I'm not saying that mainstream media doesn't have faults, but to think that social media is making things better is laughable at best.
This doesn't come from people looking for an accurate view of the world. It's from them despe
Not censorship. (Score:2, Insightful)
Do rightwing snowflakes need to get participation trophies simply for being able to read and write, and still not be able to tell apart complex situations from outright lies?
Re: (Score:3)
MS is self-censoring here. And yes, censorship requires non-publication of parts or all of something or it is not censorship.
Re:Not censorship. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Labeling something with whatever label _cannot_ be censorship. Censorship can only be non-publication of part or all of a work cor certain quite specific reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be what you learned in school 40 years ago, but nobody defines censorship like that in this century.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be what you learned in school 40 years ago, but nobody defines censorship like that in this century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sure, the assholes that value pushing their own opinions over actual truth try all the time to warp terminology for their own use.
Better reason, often wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Lots and LOTS of things marked on Twitter and Facebook as "false" were found later to be true. The best course of action is to not label things as false you think, but do not know, are false in the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots isn't really a statistical value, what percentage were labeled false incorrectly ?
What percentage of things that were objectively false were left unlabeled ?
Aren't twitter and facebook exercising their own freedom of speech to express an opinion on whether something is true or false ? Or are companies not allowed to express an opinion in such a way ?
If you're going to be a freedom of speech absolutist you have to drink all the kool aid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the the purposes of informed debate, can you provide some examples? (I'm not saying there aren't any)
I'm also not sure that correctly labelling 99 fake posts and 1 real news story fake isn't a fair trade off.
Especially considering that so much of the fake stuff is produced en mass by troll farms and the like - it's not a level playing field between the truth and crazy.
That said, I'm not sure marking things as false news helps as in the end there's still:
* Millions of people that believed the COVID vacci
Re: (Score:3)
Such platforms have never been common carriers. They are granted protections that are similar to common carrier protections, but they are not and have never been classified as common carrier. Your beef is with S.230 of the Communication Decency Act. That section was added precisely so that they could play referee on their platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
The law allowing the moderators of content on social media platforms to police content so it might get a PG-13 rating, not to "fact check" or play political favorites.
The social media platforms took the freedom to remove "otherwise objectionable" content as a blank check to remove posts that could prove harmful to their favorite politicians. I don't remember the specifics on who and when but a platform was allowing a dictator of a country to keep his account, post comments that were hateful, racist, antise
Re:Better reason, often wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
The law allowing the moderators of content on social media platforms to police content so it might get a PG-13 rating, not to "fact check" or play political favorites.
Patently untrue. The law was passed after the Compuserve lawsuit where Compuserve was held liable for defamation of a user of their service.
I think you should read the actual statute. [cornell.edu]
The social media platforms took the freedom to remove "otherwise objectionable" content as a blank check to remove posts that could prove harmful to their favorite politicians. I don't remember the specifics on who and when but a platform was allowing a dictator of a country to keep his account, post comments that were hateful, racist, antisemitic, or some such. People complained about this and they claimed they would not silence a head of government. This was clearly bullshit because at the time POTUS Trump was being silenced. Also silenced where a number of members of Congress, radio and TV personalities, popular YouTube content creators, and others that all appeared to have similar political leanings.
It was a blank check.
Repeat after me.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of:
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
You know what? Fuck Trump. He got his ass banned. It wasn't because he was a Republican. It wasn't because he was Trump. It was because he did shit that would have gotten anyone banned. I imagine very few companies wouldn't take the opportunity to execute the right to refuse service to that bloviating dumbfuck. If you seriously see that as an injustice- if he is your example- I imagine you haven't got enough brain cells to come to any kind of nuanced understanding of the situation.
What Congress gives they can take away. Congress isn't liking that they could not get a fair treatment from these platforms.
Agreed.
Once the political slant on Congress flips then expect these protections to be pared back.
Oh, I doubt that.
People with more viewings of Tucker Carlson than brain cells are certainly up in arms over it, but nobody is seriously considering removing it.
S.230 is perhaps the greatest protection against tort abuse that exists on the internet in the US. It enables freer speech online, not restricts it. No politician in their right mind is going to remove such a thing.
Why? Because then you will see real censorship from the platforms.
S.230 protects platforms from liability from the words of their users. The reaction to the removal of S.230 will be draconian censorship.
These platforms are playing with fire, and if they don't get burned then I'd be quite surprised,
These platforms are trying to deal with trolls with political power. I wouldn't say they're doing a great job, but they're doing a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course sometimes they're wrong, and it does happen, and that changes the political winds, like Republicans likely failing to take over Congress these midterms because they accidentally succeeded at getting abortion protections removed federally.
Curbing the power of social media sites in one arena is not compelling their speech. Your deliberate (or perhaps stupid) conflation of those is just a tool to muddy the waters
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct that no speech need be compelled, but that is the end goal here.
To compel speech, or face consequences.
You and your fucking ilk's naked attempt at bringing fascism-lite to this country is amusing.
You speak of employed tools being turned back on them, somehow missing the dripping irony present in that claim- that the very second you remove S.230,
Re: Better reason, often wrong (Score:2)
Can you provide lots and lots of examples? Or at least a few, to give us an idea.
Microsoft don't manage content as it is (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is complicit in their involvement in assisting fraud through its Internet platforms such as MSN via scams masquerading as news items, supported by Windows, Bing and Microsoft Edge that defaults to all of the above. Its fair to say that they have a financial incentive to continue to support fake news in as much as they support fraud. They are two sides to the same coin.
Good job, Microsoft. Not only are you refusing to label 'fake news', you are actively creating it!
Great plan, but it it may be too late to matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's needed here is real news, without much commentary or spin.
Not only has that never been available throughout history, but it's also undesirable. People don't want to have to be foreign policy experts to understand the ramifications of a piece of news. There's too much to know, no one can ever know everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Famous quote from Thomas Jefferson - the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
TJ goes on to say - what country can preserve it's libertie
We have the DPG Media Group to filter the news (Score:2)
in Europe so that we only see news that is approved by the European Ministry of Truth.
Labelling false is not censorship (Score:2)
It might be insulting to someone who believes the obviously false shit for whatever tribal allegiance reason, but it's not censorship.
Only someone who can't tell false from true will think that labelling content is the same as censoring it.
Now lowering the replication tendency of false-classified items. That would be censorship.
Get it straight.
Microsoft is right!!!! (Score:2)
We don't want governments telling us what is true or false. But Microsoft is not the government. We do want to hold platforms accountable when promoting obvious bullshit and (sometimes dangerous) misinformation in their algorithms for profit.
Nice strawman you made there Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
I may be too kind, but I think the reason for bringing up "the government" was to make a connection implied by users where some authority is telling them what they can and cannot say.
If there were any journalists working at bloomberg, they might have pressured MS to explain exactly what they intend to do about the "fake news" problem in place of censorship. If we read in between the lines I'd guess they're experimenting with accompanying articles and shadowbanning to limit the problem without bringing the
Okay fine (Score:2)
But what am I thinking? This is Microsoft and their new revenue model is embedding clickbait and other social media advertising trash straight in
Yep ... (Score:2)
... those darn "censorship cries". Whiny babies!
Well, what can you expect from some old dead white guys in powdered wigs anyway ...
Problems and Solutions (Score:2)
Let us ponder, for just a moment, which of these two Microsoft is contributing to with their stance.
Perhaps they should lean towards being part of the solution, instead of perpetuating the problem? Perhaps they can split hairs and say that something is 'unconfirmed' or 'unsubstantiated.' This would allow the reader to decide, which is, after all, what those who are posting such things want.
What else are they going to do? (Score:2)
Microsoft can't win if they start to label items as fake news or real news.
They will start to piss off portions of their money pool no matter what they do, mostly because those people believe that fake news. Sometimes because MS got it wrong.
And then, there is the expense. Either train an AI to label (good luck on that one!), or have, hmm, how many staff to ascertain the truth (be investigative journalists themselves?) for ALL the content they deliver?
It's all just a no go from the start.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Label everything as false. You'll be right 50% of the time. Maybe more.
COVID and Crime (Score:2)
After the last 30 months of lies or premature-and-inaccurate conclusions about mask effectiveness, vaccine effectiveness, who and how many are killed by cops relative to by others, whether having more minorities arrested for crime intrinsically means racist enforcement and that curtailing that enforcement would reduce crime, etc., it should be obvious that the media and the government are not capable of determining which news is "fake." Having "scientific consensus" sometimes only really means that dissent
False information = fascism (Score:2)
Fascism needs needs false information, a soapbox, and for people to let their false information go unchallenged.
Microsoft has provided two of the three. They are promoting fascism.
Microsoft are scum (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft has a social network? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has a social network?
They own LinkedIn -- and they have that search-like thingy called, I think, Bing that, I guess, displays "results" of some sort. Don't know, never used it, but it's not Google.
Re: (Score:3)
LinkedIn users certainly post false narratives, but it's typically the kind that inflates their own accomplishments. It's generally not the kind that incites violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has a social network?
Microsoft OS, isn't just an operating system.
Given obvious telemetry, and the dominance of computers running Windows, who needs a cheesy social network? They probably know more about you than you do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you have proof that the so called "dumbest people on the planet" are actually the dumbest people on the planet? Oh, everyone you disagree with is dumb you say?
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who think they are smarter than most, and those who know how averages work across intelligence.
Also, Agent K's analysis was rather spot on. A person can be smart. But people are often dumb as rocks. An entire planet full of a species too stupid to learn from the worst of their own history and avoid repeating it, tends to speak volumes about "reason". Down to opposing thumbs and religion.
One last thing about the parents statement in question. Good luck
Re: (Score:2)
The correct answer to this (and most other) problems of biased gatekeepers is the same old one: free markets with many independent actors offering their services.
That's funny, because you're here complaining about the free market in action!
Re: (Score:2)
Um... Dude, this is /. we all know about negative moderation for bogus reasons.
Re:Yeah that and a dollar will buy a coffee (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct answer to this (and most other) problems of biased gatekeepers is the same old one: free markets with many independent actors offering their services. That is to say, some robust trust busting.
Bingo.
This bizarre fucking desire to essentially nationalize private communications media is flat out vile.
Coming from conservatives, it makes my head spin.
Dishonest peddlers of misinformation have always been a thing. The solution was never to force some private entity to publish "all viewpoints".
The solution was make sure there was a free market of ideas.
What's being proposed only ensures that there is a fucking swamp of ideas, because bad ideas are unable to be rejected from the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the headline should read "ALLEGEDLY fake." Author is presuming facts not in evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The title is a great example of making you think past the sale ... Bloomberg framing it in that manner makes you biased towards one point of view and biased against the other
Maybe I have the dumbs and am not seeing your point, but [proceeds to argue the conclusion]
You've definitely got the dumbs if you don't understand the complaint. You've got them bad if you argue anyway. And if you don't really believe it, you've got the same problem as Bloomberg; intellectual dishonesty.
Re:Nice informal logical fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Who makes the choices?
Only one people can- the people themselves.
That includes Microsoft.
And who watches the watchers?
The only people who can- the people themselves.
That includes Microsoft.
And what redress do people have when they get it WRONG?
And what redress does anyone have if we decide that it's uncouth to call out lies for what they are?
How the flying fuck can free speech survive if we prevent labeling bullshit for what it is?
If YOU want to filter out a story or a source, that's YOUR freedom of choice.
Ah, yes. The reasoning that led to the rise of the echo chamber.
If you want to appoint someone else as YOUR personal "arbiter of truth", again, YOUR CHOICE.
You're always free to start your own news/story aggregator or network. That is freedom.
Allowing others to force a discriminatory viewpoint upon you? Yeah, BAD!
The only person I see advocating for forcing a discriminatory viewpoint upon anyone would be you.
The reasoning is pretty simple.
Person A says that water is solid.
Person B says that water is liquid.
Publisher A thinks person B is a misinformation peddling pile of shit, and so does not publish them.
Have they forced a viewpoint upon anyone? Of course not. They have denied their platform to someone.
You are still free to use another service.
Publisher B thinks person A is telling a story they don't want their echo chamber to process, and so does not publish them.
Have they forced a viewpoint upon anyone? Of course not. They have denied their platform to someone.
Along comes person C. Person C wants to force Publisher A to publish Person B.
You are Person C. You are the only one who wants to force a viewpoint on anyone.
Re: Nice informal logical fallacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People can call out lies for what they are.
Microsoft is people.
Microsoft itself does not need to be in that business.
That's a decision the people of Microsoft get to make.
If a platform makes censorship a policy, it becomes easy for biased parties to misuse this policy to silence fair opposition.
Microsoft has no obligation to fairness, any more than you do.
Instead, if Microsoft simply makes data about the post clear and accessible, it's not complicated for most sane people to identify absolute bullshit.
All available evidence to the contrary.
At the same time, more complex gray issues can be decided by readers, without undue censorship.
Freedom of speech (including freedom from having your speech compelled or censored) is a right that Microsoft has, too.
Your rights stop where theirs start, and vice versa.
Both you and Microsoft have the right to be as biased as you want to be. That is how freedom of speech works, and that is why freedom of speech works.
If someone ca
Re: (Score:2)
Only one people can- the people themselves.
That includes Microsoft.
The only people who can- the people themselves.
That includes Microsoft.
ESL huh?
Microsoft made their choice.
They're going to treat their users LIKE ADULTS.
They're going to let them make the decisions THEMSELVES.
They're not going to waste money on bullshit censorship mechanisms.
They're not going to risk ideological capture.
They're not going to open themselves up to accusations and legal action over censorship.
And people are free to implement whatever mechanisms they like to curate the content THEY choose to consume.
Up to and including CHANGING THE FUCKING CHANNEL.
And what redress does anyone have if we decide that it's uncouth to call out lies for what they are?
You use YOUR f
Re: (Score:2)
ESL huh?
Nope.
Microsoft made their choice.
They're going to treat their users LIKE ADULTS.
They're going to let them make the decisions THEMSELVES.
Microsoft is making the smart business decision, because they're afraid of the government being used against them.
They're leaving the fight up to the organizations already fighting that fight. They literally said as much.
They're not going to waste money on bullshit censorship mechanisms.
They're not going to risk ideological capture.
They're not going to open themselves up to accusations and legal action over censorship.
The last sentence is the one that matters. There are some who wish to make that legal (it is currently not).
MS is hedging their bet, because they're not sure which way the fight is going to go.
And people are free to implement whatever mechanisms they like to curate the content THEY choose to consume. Up to and including CHANGING THE FUCKING CHANNEL.
Microsoft is free to censor whatever they like. It's their platform.
Do you have a point so
Re: (Score:2)
and I have every right to sue them for statutory damages for doing so wrongly.
Only if they're knowingly slandering you.
I'd agree with that.
Slander doesn't apply to someone who made a mistake: It applies to someone who knowingly slandered.
I.e., if they can be sued for mistakingly marking your content as misinformation, then you can be sued for mistakingly disseminating misinformation that you thought was true.
Freedom of speech is important because no matter what you do, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The only way to win the game, is not to play. To prohibit la
Re: (Score:3)
>Obviously actually does 1+1=38 eggs.
Nope. You have unitless numbers and numbers with units. This is incorrect.
The correct equation would be 1 box + 1 box = 38 eggs.
This is not just being pedantic. You are simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian Disinformation" Fake News, or "Trump had Russian prostitutes peeing on a bed" Fake News?
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloomberg also frames the issue by implying that corporations should be the arbiters of truth. Therefore Microsoft is failing to fulfill its duty to police what the public sees.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say exactly what's the story here since bloomberg replaced their article with javascript begging for subscriptions. The only disjointed quote from MS goes like this: "I donâ(TM)t think that people want [tech companies] to tell them whatâ(TM)s true or falseâ.
This is true, but more so there's limits to what a "platform" can do to censor users without defamation, or the alternative which is an arbitrary and opaque moderation policy. If the platform chooses to display the "truth" alongs
Free Top G (Score:2)
Re:Tay (Score:5, Insightful)
Birds Aren't Real! [birdsarentreal.com]
The fictitious "migration paths" published in the past are just the robot birds following high-tension power lines so they can recharge on the fly. Ever notice how power lines always follow a closed loop that includes so many major cities?
Any attempt to suppress this information is censorship and the free flow of this truth must be rigorously defended! /s
Every publisher should have the right to decide what information they want to publish and what they decide is junk. Just because the Times decides to not publish your "truth" about the flat earth, mind control through cloud seeding, or Bigfoot's DNA, doesn't make it censorship. If it doesn't pass the Smell Test [mediashift.org] they don't publish it.
Re:Tay (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the Times decides to not publish your "truth" about the flat earth, mind control through cloud seeding, or Bigfoot's DNA, doesn't make it censorship. If it doesn't pass the Smell Test [mediashift.org] they don't publish it.
That's the entire complaint in a nutshell. User generated content platforms want the freedom of a publisher without any of the responsibility and liability. Why should they be able to hide behind Section 230 if they are truly publishers? The Times doesn't get that privilege.
Re:Tay (Score:5, Insightful)
The Times does get that privilege. Section 230 doesn't distinguish between "publishers" and "platforms." Section 230 distinguishes between "providers or users of interactive computer services" and "information content providers." The Time's online platform makes them a provider of an interactive computer service, so they indeed get that protection for anything placed upon it where they were not the information content provider.
Also, the 5th Circuit's recent ruling, as crazy as it may be, goes to great lengths to argue how social media platforms are not newspapers. Well, guess what, the Times is literally a newspaper. And despite that, they're still not responsible for the crap that users publish in their online comments.
This I label your comment "Fake News."
Re: (Score:2)
Thus I label your comment as "intentionally misleading."
Re: (Score:2)
It surely does. It's quaint that you appear to believe that "a newspaper" is simply the physical item that you likely haven't had delivered for the past 15 years.
Maybe you should modernize your vocabulary. In the meantime, the Times is still only responsible for its own content -- that which it publishes as an information content provider -- but not for user generated conten
Re: Tay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you are talking about online content and NOT the times newspaper. This is what MISINFORMATION actually looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
For you as well, it's quaint that you appear to believe that "a newspaper" is simply the physical item that you likely haven't had delivered for the past 15 years. My local newspaper doesn't even have a print edition. It's still a newspaper. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you aren't quoting me there and second no, it is not a newspaper. A newspaper IS a print publication. Words have meaning, that is what that one means. When the same company posts something on a website it is just that and not a newspaper. Maybe you haven't had a newpaper delivered in 15yrs but the circulation of the NYT Newspaper is still 343k, yes that is down from 1.2M 10 years ago but a very real thing.
But sure, lets embrace your concept that they are the same thing. There is then no reason the on
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, boomer [collinsdictionary.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"The Times doesn't get that privilege" was written in the present tense. Attempting to transform that into "whether or not curated user content *should* be subject to publishing laws" is an interesting attempt at a save, but section 230 is the law in the present, and you haven't gotten it changed yet.
Section 230
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you censor the bots it would piss off the other side of the political spectrum. Suddenly they would be all alone in a quiet world where they are the only ones who think men can get pregnant and the Martha's Vineyard 24hr turn and dump illegal discard was an example of treating humans with dignity.
There would be nobody trying to point out the 'median' income on the billionaire island because that is the income of the servants and police and scrapes off the handful of palatial estate owners they all serve