Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Cen$oring Google

Recommended Posts

Cen$oring Google
 

Quote

 

...

on Friday, Google announced that it would, at least temporarily, stop accepting ads for political campaigns within the state of Maryland. This follows on the heels of a similar move in Washington a month ago, after the state enacted "emergency" rules required real-time reporting disclosure of online ad buys including "descriptions of the geographic areas and locations targeted and the total number of views generated by the ads." According to a Google spokesperson, the company values transparency but doesn't have the tools to comply with these rules as written.

It's not as though Google is resisting transparency itself. The company has been working to provide more information about online political ad buys. In May it announced it would start verifying the identities of people purchasing political ads to make sure they were American citizens or lawful residents. It's building a database of political ads that includes sources of funding and how much gets spent.

...

These rules don't impact everybody in the political sphere equally. Google's decision makes it harder for challengers with less money and connections to reach voters. The incumbents, who wrote and voted for these regulations, get the benefits. They have years of press coverage. They have war chests. They have name recognition.

 

So "we're going to protect you from $pecial interests and Ru$$ian$ and Rainbow Bernie" boils down to "we're going to protect incumbents."

Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, over on Facebook, the Declaration of Independence is hate speech.
 

Quote

 

...

Stinnett says that he cannot be sure which exact grievance ran afoul of Facebook's policy, but he assumes that it's paragraph 31, which excoriates the King for inciting "domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages."

The removal of the post was an automated action, and Stinnett sent a "feedback message" to Facebook with the hopes of reaching a human being who could then exempt the Declaration of Independence from its hate speech restrictions.

Fearful that sharing more of the text might trigger the deletion of its Facebook page, The Vindicator has suspended its serialization of the declaration.

In his article, Stinnett is remarkably sanguine about this censorship. While unhappy about the decision, he reminds readers "that Facebook is a business corporation, not the government, and as such it is allowed to restrict use of its services as long as those restrictions do not violate any laws. Plus, The Vindicator is using Facebook for free, so the newspaper has little grounds for complaint other than the silliness of it."

Of course, Facebook's actions here are silly. They demonstrate a problem with automated enforcement of hate speech policies, which is that a robot trained to spot politically incorrect language isn't smart enough to detect when that language is part of a historically significant document.

None of this is meant as a defense of referring to Native Americans as "savages." That phrasing is clearly racist and serves as another example of the American Revolution's mixed legacy; one that won crucial liberties for a certain segment of the population, while continuing to deny those same liberties to Native Americans and African slaves. But by allowing the less controversial parts of the declaration to be shared while deleting the reference to "Indian savages," Facebook succeeds only in whitewashing America's founding just as we get ready to celebrate it.

A more thoughtful approach to Independence Day—for both celebrants and social media companies alike—would be to grapple with those historical demons.

 

This reminds me of a recent attempt to watch an "edited for modern TV" version of Blazing Saddles. They took out the word nigger. Unwatchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 5:16 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Cen$oring Google
 

So "we're going to protect you from $pecial interests and Ru$$ian$ and Rainbow Bernie" boils down to "we're going to protect incumbents."

Again.

This line in your oped

Quote

Google's decision makes it harder for challengers with less money and connections to reach voters.

 

is a blatant lie, or someone is a moron and doesn't know how Google Adwords work or more likely thinks there audience are morons who don't know how ads are sold. Remember, Adwords is an auction - the person with the deeper pockets can always win at auction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

This line in your oped

Quote

Google's decision makes it harder for challengers with less money and connections to reach voters.

 

is a blatant lie, or someone is a moron and doesn't know how Google Adwords work or more likely thinks there audience are morons who don't know how ads are sold. Remember, Adwords is an auction - the person with the deeper pockets can always win at auction.

If one party in the auction is an establishment candidate with lots of money and the other is an outsider with little money, does it really matter if

Quote

Google announced that it would, at least temporarily, stop accepting ads for political campaigns

It doesn't matter how much money you can throw at the auction if you're excluded.

What does matter is that this decision means that one cost-effective way of reaching voters is off limits to both parties in that situation. That's where the part you clipped out starts to really matter:

Quote

The incumbents, who wrote and voted for these regulations, get the benefits. They have years of press coverage. They have war chests. They have name recognition.

Meaning it's easier for them and harder for outsiders, as the op-ed said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Meaning it's easier for them and harder for outsiders, as the op-ed said.

so it's easier for the person that has more $peach backing them?  what's the problem Tom? Is all $peach no longer the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 3:16 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Cen$oring Google
 

So "we're going to protect you from $pecial interests and Ru$$ian$ and Rainbow Bernie" boils down to "we're going to protect incumbents."

Again.

 You left out George $orro$...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

T

so it's easier for the person that has more $peach backing them?  what's the problem Tom? Is all $peach no longer the same?

Yes, it is.

The problem is the same as ever: incumbents who wish to protect us from all that evil $peech actually want to protect themselves from outside challengers. Cen$or$hip protects those in power from us, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Surely all adds should require some transparency regarding who the buyer is?

I assume you mean all political ads.

Your thought is exactly why Google is no longer accepting political ads.

People have that thought who have no idea how these ads are bought and sold and make rules that can't be followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I assume you mean all political ads.

Your thought is exactly why Google is no longer accepting political ads.

People have that thought who have no idea how these ads are bought and sold and make rules that can't be followed.

Google made a commercial decision to not take certain adds because they couldn't be fucked meeting the regulations that went with taking those adds. Considering the issues surrounding the presidential election,  Americans needed the new regulations.

 

Free reign for advertisers and ignorant people created this. Governments heavy handed solution is the result.  Advertisers will find a way to comply because money will find a way. Money always finds away, green shoots of hope not withstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Google made a commercial decision to not take certain adds because they couldn't be fucked meeting the regulations that went with taking those adds. Considering the issues surrounding the presidential election,  Americans needed the new regulations.

 

Free reign for advertisers and ignorant people created this. Governments heavy handed solution is the result.  Advertisers will find a way to comply because money will find a way. Money always finds away, green shoots of hope not withstanding

It's like a clueless but well-intentioned powerboater decided to rewrite the rules so that sailboats must go directly toward their destination. No more of this confusing zig-zagging!

And then complains that sailors "can't be fucked to obey necessary rules."

Do you mean people who are ignorant of the difference between reign, rein, and rain? If so, I guess I agree, but it's still a heavy handed and unworkable rule. As Eva Dent, since companies don't just stop taking money if taking the money is an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook's robot is not the first to repudiate the Declaration.

What the Declaration Means

Quote

Later, the Declaration also assumed increasing importance in the struggle to abolish slavery. It became a lynchpin of the moral and constitutional arguments of the nineteenth-century abolitionists. It was much relied upon by Abraham Lincoln. It had to be explained away by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. And eventually it was repudiated by some defenders of slavery in the South because of its inconsistency with that institution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

People have that thought who have no idea how these ads are bought and sold

and you do? because you seem to be regurgitating google's bullshit.

google & facebook are moving to moderating content because that's what their customers - the ad purchasers - want. Proctor & Gamble doesn't want to have their ads for Tide appear before a skinhead propaganda video on Youtube; the Gap doesn't want a Facebook ad to be attached to the latest neo-nazi clavern meetup request. Like all moderated content the decision ultimately has to be made by a human; call it editing and you are more honest.

I'm sorry the reality of big business is going to crush your libertarian fantasy. It's like that's what happens, always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always comes down to the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's like a clueless but well-intentioned powerboater decided to rewrite the rules so that sailboats must go directly toward their destination. No more of this confusing zig-zagging!

And then complains that sailors "can't be fucked to obey necessary rules."

Do you mean people who are ignorant of the difference between reign, rein, and rain? If so, I guess I agree, but it's still a heavy handed and unworkable rule. As Eva Dent, since companies don't just stop taking money if taking the money is an option.

Every one knows that advertisers such as google are kingly.....

 

Your article says only two state elections is affected, and that's temporary. When google etc get their head around the regulations, it will be business as usual.

As an aside, our government lowered the threshold at which imported goods attract a gst. Companies need to collect gst and pass that back to the government.  Amazon no longer ships stuff to Australia, book suppository and others no longer ship stuff to Australia because they don't want to do the collection and pass work. Instead companies are now starting up new businesses in Australia. My long winded point, that companies find ways to work within the system.

And yes, I have to pay more tax.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Your article says only two state elections is affected, and that's temporary. When google etc get their head around the regulations, it will be business as usual.

You are assuming that the states are asking for something that's technically possible. That's a heroic assumption. It may not be true.

If true, you may be right. If by "business as usual" you mean political $pending requires a legal staff to get it cleared, so incumbents can manage it but challengers can't. That's how cen$or$hip generally works to entrench the powerful and exclude the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You are assuming that the states are asking for something that's technically possible. That's a heroic assumption. It may not be true.

If true, you may be right. If by "business as usual" you mean political $pending requires a legal staff to get it cleared, so incumbents can manage it but challengers can't. That's how cen$or$hip generally works to entrench the powerful and exclude the rest.

It will be the provider, not the buyer who does the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You are assuming that the states are asking for something that's technically possible. That's a heroic assumption. It may not be true.

It's a heroic assumption that Google can create a database of who looked at ads that were paid for by people?

That's how google makes money.

Google doesn't want to provide transparency because it'll reveal how ineffectual lots of the $ spent on them is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's a heroic assumption that Google can create a database for real-time reporting disclosure of online ad buys including "descriptions of the geographic areas and locations targeted and the total number of views generated by the ads."

 

I fixed your post to reflect the actual subject.

And yes, it's a heroic assumption that this can be done and disclosed in real time. That's why Google said they can't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And yes, it's a heroic assumption that this can be done and disclosed in real time

yup, it's a heroic assumption that a company that charges ad-buyers for views/clicks they receive on targeted ads (including geolocation targeting) has the technical capability to log what ads were sold to whom.

I could buy adwords for "Libertarian Retards" target them to punta gorda, fl - maybe even down to specific businesses - and google would charge me whatever the CPC is for clicks on that. they know what my adwords are, where I'm targeting, and who they are billing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

yup, it's a heroic assumption that a company that charges ad-buyers for views/clicks they receive on targeted ads (including geolocation targeting) has the technical capability to log what ads were sold to whom.

Wouldn't that be like, uh, metadata?

Who has the right to see it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
21 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And yes, it's a heroic assumption that this can be done and disclosed in real time

yup, it's a heroic assumption that a company that charges ad-buyers for views/clicks they receive on targeted ads (including geolocation targeting) has the technical capability to log what ads were sold to whom and disclose that information in real-time in a bureaucratically-approved way and without compromising trade secrets or the financial privacy of customers.

 

Yes, That's what I was saying. At least, after I added in the parts you wish to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Wouldn't that be like, uh, metadata?

Who has the right to see it?

 

Add owners get access to metadata from google and facebook now.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, That's what I was saying. At least, after I added in the parts you wish to ignore.

so you agree with me that their answer is don't want to not can't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so you agree with me that their answer is don't want to not can't

Not at all. I'm aware of the fact that bureaucrats are often clueless and will ask for the impossible. See the red part?

disclose that information in real-time in a bureaucratically-approved way and without compromising trade secrets or the financial privacy of customers.

Do you know that what was being required is actually possible?

If so, let's see your source.

The idea that a business "doesn't want to" do what they do to make money makes about as much sense as a lot of your economic ideas. But it's not one I believe in. I think businesses want to make sales and won't simply stop making sales because they "don't want to."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The idea that a business "doesn't want to" do what they do to make money makes about as much sense as a lot of your economic ideas. But it's not one I believe in. I think businesses want to make sales and won't simply stop making sales because they "don't want to."

Many highly profitable companys don't wish to showcase in public documents how ineffectual their product can be. Google would much rather people think them an evil advertising super genius throwing elections, than a company that makes billions off of fraudulent clicks on useless ads.

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/05/12/google-makes-billions-by-failing-to-properly-police-rampant-click-fraud-on-ads-lawsuit-by-vacaville-man/

that's just one, there's many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 8:45 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Google would much rather people think them an evil advertising super genius throwing elections, than a company that makes billions off of fraudulent clicks on useless ads.

If what you're trying to say there is that Rainbow Bernie really didn't change everything, I think we may have found a point of agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plaintiff Dropping Case in Which He Got Order to Google to Vanish Photo from Search Results

Quote

 

As I wrote on Aug. 3, a New Jersey state court (in Malandrucco v. Google) issued an order requiring Google to remove the photograph of the plaintiff from its search results. Also, in a parallel case (Malandrucco v. Chicago Tribune), the plaintiff was seeking an order requiring the Chicago Tribune to take down a blog post about the plaintiff that also included that photograph. The judge orally stated at the hearing that he was indeed ordering the Tribune to do so, but the written order didn't reflect that.

You can read more details about that order (including links to the underlying documents) here. The short version of the legal analysis is "the order was clearly unconstitutional." The short version of the facts is that the photo was a picture of plaintiff after he had been beaten by the police in 2010; he then sued the city, successfully, and became an anti-police-brutality activist, but around 2016 concluded that he wanted the stories about him, as well as the photo, removed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile Google Is Doing The Wrong Thing In China
 

Quote

 

...

Google left China in 2010 after realizing that there was no end to the demands and intrusions the government would make, no matter how the tech firm tried to comply. But now the company appears willing to do almost anything asked to win access to the vast market. And what's being asked of the company is that it help the government control its people.

A "memo, authored by a Google engineer who was asked to work on the project, disclosed that the search system, codenamed Dragonfly, would require users to log in to perform searches, track their location—and share the resulting history with a Chinese partner who would have 'unilateral access' to the data," The Intercept reports about a new search engine Google is developing for China.

 

Unsurprisingly, the results delivered by the new search engine will be as considerate of state demands as are its tracking capabilities. Dragonfly will serve up only fare approved by government officials, according to the Intercept's Ryan Gallagher.

When a person carries out a search, banned websites will be removed from the first page of results, and a disclaimer will be displayed stating that "some results may have been removed due to statutory requirements." Examples cited in the documents of websites that will be subject to the censorship include those of British news broadcaster BBC and the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

And some queries are considered so sensitive that they'll return no results at all—though users' interest in pursuing forbidden paths of inquiry will certainly become part of their permanent record. That's no joke in a country that's rapidly modernizing the hoary old mechanisms of the police state with a modern "social credit" system that can effectively place people under house arrest with nary a trench coat in sight.

"A poor Chinese social credit score can lead to bans from travel, certain schools, luxury hotels, government positions, and even dating apps," notes the Brookings Institution. Liu Hu, an investigative journalist, incurred the Chinese government's wrath for exposing corruption among Communist Party officials. He's among millions who have been punished with a tanked social credit score that prevents him from easily working or even leaving his hometown.

I suspect that a few officially disfavored internet searches on topics like "Tianenmen Square" could easily ding a social credit score, and a person's life. Google is happily dedicating hundreds of employees to making that nightmare become a reality.

 

I suspect a Dragonfly search for Winnie the Pooh would not be much fun at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tumblr and now Facebook have decided that naughty pictures are bad.

Among the banned activities:

Quote

Explicit sexual solicitation, which is defined as offering or asking for sex or sexual partners, sex chats or conversations and nude images

I know it's not FRIDAY but I'm hoping for lots of nude images in response to this post.

Of pretty girls.

That should go without saying but I know what I'll get around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 8:20 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Meanwhile, over on Facebook, the Declaration of Independence is hate speech.
 

This reminds me of a recent attempt to watch an "edited for modern TV" version of Blazing Saddles. They took out the word nigger. Unwatchable.

So have they not heard Rap and Hip Hop lately?  Seems that Nigger is the favourite word for black artists.  Not once but mutliple times in the same chorus.

I find it offensive.

Kendrick Lamar’s Onstage Outrage: Why Rap Should Retire the N-Word for Good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

So have they not heard Rap and Hip Hop lately?  Seems that Nigger is the favourite word for black artists.  Not once but mutliple times in the same chorus.

I find it offensive.

Kendrick Lamar’s Onstage Outrage: Why Rap Should Retire the N-Word for Good

People who find the word offensive regardless of context are the reason Blazing Saddles is unwatchable and unfunny on commercial TV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

People who find the word offensive regardless of context are the reason Blazing Saddles is unwatchable and unfunny on commercial TV.

 

No, I don't find the word Nigger offensive.  I find the abuse of it by black artists offensive.  It's as if there is a competition on to see how many times it can be repeated in the shortest possible time.

I give a track two 'Niggers' before I press the 'next' button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

No, I don't find the word Nigger offensive.  I find the abuse of it by black artists offensive.  It's as if there is a competition on to see how many times it can be repeated in the shortest possible time.

I give a track two 'Niggers' before I press the 'next' button.

Does spelling matter?

And is rapping the words somehow different from posting them on a forum?

I ask because I may have offended you in the Censoring T-Bizzle thread with this:

On 4/24/2018 at 5:58 PM, dogballs Tom said:

The hate crime in question:

Quote

[Verse 1]
I was chillin' with my bitch, we was gettin' high as shit
Fuck around and start trippin', I was thinking about a lick
Then I called my twin told him bring the F&N
He said he already got it, make sure you bring your friend
He say I see you in about ten, we met up at the Coney
Seen an old head with a cuban and a rolley
Nigga run that shit, you better not make a move
He tried to run back up in the Coney with his food
I seen my brother shot him, so I shot him too
Get that cuban and the rolley, fuck it, get the money too
I was trippin' hard, fuck the white and blue
Oh shit we gotta go, before we end up on the news

[Chorus]
Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin'
Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin'
I hate fuck shit, slap a bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga
I think I'm trippin', I think I'm trippin'

[Verse 2]
So I called up sosa, he said we about to take off
Gotta keep that bitch on me
Cause they gonna start hatin' on me
So I walked outside with my Mac 10
Some niggas rolled up on me sayin', "Snap you shot my man"
So I upped my shit and let off about ten
Then they pulled off, now they got me on ten
Hopped up in my shit, then I peeled up
Pull up on them niggas seen they mans bleeding out
That's what you get for acting tough
You about to end up like your mans
Hopped out the whip, blew those niggas like a fan


[Chorus]
Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin'
Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin'
I hate fuck shit, slap a bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga
I think I'm trippin', I think I'm trippin'

 

Sorry 'bout all the hate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Data Protection Regulation
 

Quote

 

The GDPR's many problems are by now well understood. The vague and expansive legislation has introduced regulatory uncertainty for businesses operating in member states. The combination of unclear wording and extreme financial penalties means that companies must spend billions of dollars to maybe be considered compliant.

This may be a headache for large firms, but hardly insurmountable: they have the deep pockets and armies of lawyers needed to stay on the right side of the law. But GDPR can be a death knell for small or not-yet-formed ventures, many of which are not even data-focused tech companies, who could never hope to spend enough money to comply.

Indeed, many companies and online platforms have decided to just shut their doors to Europe completely rather than risk the $25 million or 4 percent of annual revenue at stake for inadvertently running afoul of the GDPR. There are more unseen casualties as well. We will never know the developments that could have been that the GDPR prematurely quashed.

Consequently, the GDPR has had the unintended (but wholly predictable) consequence of consolidating market power behind the mega firms that privacy advocates hoped to take down. There is a reason that the GDPR earned its informal nickname of the "Google Data Protection Regulation": small adtech vendors lost dramatic EU market share after the GDPR was implemented. Only Google's market share increased.

It makes sense why Google would support another "GDPR" in the US. Last week, Pichai publicly confirmed these suspicions.

During the hearing, Rep. Eric Swalwell asked Pichai whether he thought the US should adopt a national GDPR-style data framework, requiring that users affirmatively "know, understand and consent" to all data usage. Pichai responded that he thought global regulatory harmonization is a good idea. But he didn't just offer vague platitudes: he said he actively supported the GDPR as a "well thought-out" law and thought it was a good idea to bring to the States.

Is anyone surprised? Although the company had to spend billions of dollars to try to be compliant with the GDPR, so did its competition. Google is one of the most well-capitalized companies in the world. It can afford compliance costs, its upstart competitors probably cannot.

 

And more regulations sold as attempts to rein in the powerful wind up entrenching the powerful. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How shall we censor? Let NYPD Count The Waze!
 

Quote

 

The application in question is Waze, a community-based navigation app that allows users to report car accidents, traffic jams, and police activity. While there isn't a specific feature that lets people report checkpoints meant to catch intoxicated offenders, users can leave comments specifying the type of police activity, according to The New York Times.

"Individuals who post the locations of DWI checkpoints may be engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of the DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws," reads a February 2, 2019 cease-and-desist letter to Google from Ann Prunty, the NYPD's acting deputy commissioner in charge of legal matters. "The posting of such information for public consumption is irresponsible since it only serves to aid impaired and intoxicated drivers to evade checkpoints and encourage reckless driving. Revealing the location of checkpoints puts those drivers, their passengers, and the general public at risk," Prunty adds in the letter, which was first reported by StreetsBlog NYC.

 

Cops have hated Waze since before Google bought it because people seem to mostly like to use it to speed.

It doesn't "only" serve to aid those people, though. I might choose an alternate route if Waze said I'd be going through a checkpoint ahead just because I don't wish to be bothered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Facebook Rejected Warren's Ads

Quote

To summarize, Warren attempted to purchase advertising on Facebook to promote her campaign to break up big tech, including Facebook. Three of her advertisements contained one of Facebook's logos. Those ads (but not her others—that's important to note) were rejected temporarily because Facebook has rules against using their logos in advertisements. The reasoning behind this is extremely logical—to avoid the possibility of confusing Facebook users over the difference between ads and "official" messages from Facebook itself.

...

So either Warren is being deliberately manipulative here (by downplaying that there was a reason for Facebook's decision and that it wasn't all of her advertisements) in order to bolster her argument, or she's too dense to understand the implications of her own arguments. Should The New York Times be required to run ads from President Donald Trump calling them "fake news" while using the newspaper's own logo?

That's a good question there at the end.

People who are vocal fans of cen$or$hip often go quiet when their rules are applied to the likes of the NY Times. Or NAACP Inc.

Facebook ran some of Warren's ads and did not immediately run the ones featuring their own logo. And this is the reason Warren needs to have politicians decide who should own and control the various parts of Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The European Union May Order Facebook to Stop You From Calling Austrian Politicians 'Corrupt Oafs'
 

Quote

 

Today Advocate General Maciej Szpunar of the E.U. Court of Justice (a neutral legal advisor to the court) released an analysis and set of recommendations that the court will consider that explore how far an Austrian political official can push Facebook to remove posts with content considered offensive under that country's laws and whether Facebook can be forced to hunt down and remove similar content no matter where it's posted online.

If the E.U. court accepts Szpunar's recommendations, the dangers to free speech online could be significant.

The official at the center of the case is Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, a now-retired Austrian Green Party politician and former member of the European Parliament. An Austrian online magazine published a story in 2016 about the Green Party supporting a minimum income welfare for refugees in the country. Glawischnig-Piesczek's picture appeared as the thumbnail photo when the story was shared on Facebook. A user who apparently disagreed with the Green Party's position expressed his disgust, calling her a "lousy traitor of the people," a "corrupt oaf," and a member of a "fascist party." That's the extent of the offensive speech indicated in the court documents. Those comments do not involve threats of violence. They do not even seem to involve "hate speech" as defined under the laws of many European countries.

Glawischnig-Piesczek asked Facebook to take the offending comments down, and Facebook declined, so she turned to Austria's defamation laws and got a court order forcing Facebook to act. But the case didn't end with Facebook censoring that one post. Glawischnig-Piesczek wants an injunction ordering Facebook to continue to censor any similar comments about her that show up on the platform, a request that is not limited to those comments that appear only to Austrian users.

 

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek really thought both of those names were keepers and had to do the hyphenation thing?

The temptation to wander over to Facebook just to call her a corrupt oaf is strong in me. I won't do it because I'm slowly training FB's algorithm to only show me boaty stuff but I might Tweet something to that effect. Might even call that Chinese guy Pooh again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Corrupt Oafs In Europe Erode The First Amendment
 

Quote

 

Social media firms are complying with the requests of corrupt oafs from European countries, where free speech protections are significantly weaker, according to Daphne Keller, a former Google attorney who's now a law professor at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. They're pressuring these U.S.-based firms to ban "hate speech," "terrorist content," and alleged disinformation, and because these policies are applied across their platforms, they also affect what U.S. customers are allowed to see.

"They are making European law global," Keller says.

 

OK, so I might have edited that quote a little bit.

Because that's allowed here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you say "corrupt oafs" in French?
 

Quote

 

Macron and his government are attempting to unilaterally scrub out the internet of hateful thoughts. The French Parliament has moved toward a new law that would give internet companies like Facebook and Google just 24 hours to remove hateful speech from their sites or face fines of $1.4 million per violation. A final vote is expected next week. Germany passed a similar measure last year and imposed fines of $56 million.

The French and Germans have given up in trying to convince the United States to surrender its free speech protections. They realized that they do not have to because by imposing crippling penalties, major companies will be forced into censoring speech under poorly defined standards. The result could be the curtailment of the greatest invention fostering free speech in the history of the world. It is all happening without a whimper of opposition from Congress or from most civil liberties organizations.

...

In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French mother was prosecuted because her son went to school with a shirt reading “I am a bomb.” A German man was arrested for having a ringtone with the voice of Adolf Hitler. A German conservative politician was placed under criminal investigation for a tweet in which she accused police of appeasing “barbaric gang raping Muslim hordes of men.” Even German Justice Minister Heiko Maas was censored under his own laws for calling an author an “idiot” on Twitter.

 

What's the purpose of Twitter if not to call others idiots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Are you saying nations may not regulate the conduct inside their borders?

Can you quote where I said that, or anything implying it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Can you quote where I said that, or anything implying it?

I assumed 'corrupt oafs' referred directly to the first line of your post. "Macron and his government."

I further assumed you called them 'corrupt' for attempting to regulate hate speech inside their borders.

If my assumptions are incorrect, my apologies.  In that case, please explain what you mean with the post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 2:23 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Tumblr and now Facebook have decided that naughty pictures are bad.

Among the banned activities:

I know it's not FRIDAY but I'm hoping for lots of nude images in response to this post.

Of pretty girls.

That should go without saying but I know what I'll get around here.

Dude, the Friday thing died looooooong ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I assumed 'corrupt oafs' referred directly to the first line of your post. "Macron and his government."

I further assumed you called them 'corrupt' for attempting to regulate hate speech inside their borders.

If my assumptions are incorrect, my apologies.  In that case, please explain what you mean with the post?

It was a reference to post 39. We're allowed to call politicians "corrupt oafs" here so I was flaunting our freedom.

I don't know how corrupt Macron is, but I do consider censors oafs.

It's quite a leap from "he's a censoring oaf" to "he shouldn't be allowed to censor in his own country." I never made that leap, you did.

As for this part of my post (which had a link to an article, for readers)

Quote

The French and Germans have given up in trying to convince the United States to surrender its free speech protections. They realized that they do not have to because by imposing crippling penalties, major companies will be forced into censoring speech under poorly defined standards. The result could be the curtailment of the greatest invention fostering free speech in the history of the world. It is all happening without a whimper of opposition from Congress or from most civil liberties organizations.

I think it's foolish like most any censorship plan but likely to work so clever in that respect.

The war on "hate speech" gets as out of control as any of our wars on peaceful behavior. I tried watching a "cleaned up" version of Blazing Saddles not long ago. They removed the word nigger. Unfunny to the point of being unwatchable, but hey, it had no "hate speech."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A short enough excerpt that there's some chance even CLEAN will read it:

Quote

A user who apparently disagreed with the Green Party's position expressed his disgust, calling her a "lousy traitor of the people," a "corrupt oaf," and a member of a "fascist party." That's the extent of the offensive speech indicated in the court documents.

Banning "hate speech" like that seems to me to be all about protecting politicians from any criticism.

Like most censorship regimes, come to think of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, shaggy said:

Dude, the Friday thing died looooooong ago...

For everyone else, maybe. I still like posting pics of naked chicks.

BC9332CA-FC30-44AD-838B-F2EDA269314D.jpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google Cen$oring
 

Quote

 

You're not likely to find much overlap in content when comparing the YouTube channels of conservative Prager University, and the LGBT kink educators at Watts the Safeword.

But they do share a belief that YouTube and Google are unfairly discriminating against them and censoring their content, and they're both willing to sue in federal court to put an end to it.

Yesterday, a group of eight LGBT YouTube creators announced a federal class-action lawsuit against Google and YouTube claiming "discrimination, fraud, unfair and deceptive business practices, unlawful restraint of speech, and breach of consumer contract rights" by among other things, demonetizing their videos so that they can't make money off of advertising, putting age restrictions on their videos, excluding their videos from recommendation algorithms, and otherwise making it harder for YouTube viewers to find their stuff and for them to make money off their works. The plaintiffs produced a video (and are hosting it on YouTube) explaining their lawsuit:

...

It's fascinating how much their complaints mirror those by Prager University, which argues that Google and YouTube discriminate against their content because they're conservatives. In fact, Prager U and these LGBT creators are being represented in their lawsuits by the same firm, Browne George Ross LLP. At their site, Browne George Ross provides a recording of a conversation between one of the plaintiffs, Chris Knight of GlitterBomb TV, and a YouTube advertising representative who told him they wouldn't accept an advertisement for an episode of the show due to "shocking content," which was further explained to mean "gay content." The lawsuit argues that YouTube uses its "restricted mode" not just to block minors from accessing adult content, but to hide away LGBT videos entirely.

The lawsuit, much like the Prager U complaints, leans heavily on the idea that, because YouTube is such a powerful, dominant online hosting system for videos, it's under an obligation to be "viewpoint-neutral," and in fact, YouTube claims that they are indeed viewpoint-neutral in their moderation.

 

I hope this one ends the way the previous one did.

Quote

They want a jury trial, and without trying to guess at the outcome, I'll note that Prager U has already lost a lawsuit last year over claims like this, as a judge held that YouTube was a private platform and not a "state actor." The judge also said that simply because YouTube expresses values supporting free speech doesn't mean it must structure moderation with the First Amendment in mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 6:04 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

The European Union May Order Facebook to Stop You From Calling Austrian Politicians 'Corrupt Oafs'
 

Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek really thought both of those names were keepers and had to do the hyphenation thing?

The temptation to wander over to Facebook just to call her a corrupt oaf is strong in me. I won't do it because I'm slowly training FB's algorithm to only show me boaty stuff but I might Tweet something to that effect. Might even call that Chinese guy Pooh again.

Well, the censors won in the EU.

Now let's see if they make Facebook take down my morning entertainment.

 

EvaCorruptOaf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cen$oring Waze

Quote

 

police organizations have called for Google to hold off on releasing it, saying it could tip drunk drivers off to DWI checkpoints and encourage speeding.

“Revealing the location of checkpoints puts those drivers, their passengers, and the general public at risk,” the New York Police Department wrote in a letter to Google in February, demanding that Waze stop alerting users to those locations.

The National Sheriffs’ Association went even further, saying the feature puts officers at risk by letting criminals or even terrorists know where they are on a map.

“NSA is supportive of the Google Waze App but is emphatically opposed to the police locator feature within the app,” the NSA said in a statement. “There is no moral, ethical or legal reason to have the police locator button on the app.”

 

The Sheriffs' Association gets bonus points for the most far-fetched fear of terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this