Facebook employs an army of censors to stop “hate speech”, but also at times, censors legitimate and fair political speech based on a complex multi hundred page mashup of censorship guidelines. I’m so old, I remember a few months ago when Mark Zuckerberg promised us AI would solve all these problems 🙂
Imagine a future where everything is subject to manipulation and censorship by robots – we are already there!
NBC makes a major error in reporting on a Trump speech and then retracts its claim, on Twitter – but leaves the original incorrect headline and incorrect video online. NBC News had the story completely wrong.
Source: Platform Censorship: Lessons From the Copyright Wars | Electronic Frontier Foundation I had two music publishers both claim copyright ownership of a music track in one of my videos. Obviously, both could not own the copyright. The music selection I used was written during the U.S. Civil War, decades before music was copyrightable, and the performance was by the U.S. Army with a specific license that it may be used by anyone for any purpose. I challenged the copyright…
Facebook to “fact check” photos, propaganda posters and videos – but how accurate is their “fact checking”, and what happens when Facebook fact checkers must apply subjective interpretation? There is a risk that Facebook will become the arbiter of truth, and due to a false positive problem, turn fake facts into true facts.
An image search for the word “idiot” across 7 different search engines yields curious results.
Tweets published by those with verified “blue check mark” accounts get greater visibility on Twitter. Twitter also admitted to using algorithms to shadow banning 600,00 accounts including those of U.S. Congressional representatives. Twitter is a mess.
Twitter’s failed algorithm censored people based on their assessment of their followers, over which the censored person has no control. This caused Twitter to effectively shadow ban over 600,000 accounts, including those belonging to members of Congress.
A web site purports to determine if your Twitter account has been shadow banned.
A reporter, and some of her readers, posted links to a published news report she wrote for her employer, the New York Post. Facebook deleted all of the status updates with links to the published news report even though there is nothing in the article that violates any Facebook policies.
What happens when employers require that you may only have a clean, moral, “fit lifestyle”, free of politics and political controversy and require you give them access to your social media to prove it?
What if your employer believes that a lack of a public social media presence means you are hiding something (like you are not on social media)?
What happens when public sector workers are protected by law from similar rules and can freely express their political beliefs free of employer repercussions?
Facebook and Twitter are algorithmically assigning users a secret “trustworthiness” score. This score is used to determine whether your posts are seen by others – in effect, its a computational shadow ban on users. Twitter takes into account who you follow and who follows you and their scores – which means people you have no control over may be determining your trustworthiness score.
The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring or compelling or controlling your speech. But the First Amendment does not apply to what businesses may do with their clients and customers. Social media companies are free to censor as they wish.
Does this provide a way for the government to bypass the First Amendment and restrict speech? A tweet by a U.S. Senator seems to advocate for outsourcing censorship to private entities.
We do not know much about PragerU but a situation involving that group and Facebook confirms that Facebook does indeed shadow ban groups and pages.
Facebook says they made an error in shadow banning the group’s posts and videos and has since restored them. But in the process, they confirmed they are using shadow bans.