"Second Source" Confirms Project Veritas Report on YouTube Meddling in Irish Abortion

hatrickpatrick

It's quite obvious that the tech industry is totally out of control when it comes to intentionally suppressing political dissent, especially since the 2016 elections and the thinly veiled move to "make sure the 'wrong' side doesn't win again next time".

The interesting thing is that they may actually be breaking American law by doing so. There's a distinction in American law between a carrier and a publisher - a carrier is not liable for the conduct of its users, but a publisher is. By engaging in politically motivated editorial decisions regarding on-platform censorship, it would appear that many of these platforms are inadvertently crossing from the "carrier" status they've hitherto enjoyed, to the "publisher" status they've long opposed - meaning that they can be sued, prosecuted, fined etc for their users' behaviour.

I'm quite certain that even the most over-zealous of the political censorship advocates in these companies will balk at the idea of receiving heavy financial penalties because they couldn't moderate something quickly enough. They may change their tune fairly rapidly on their vendetta against conservatives expressing their opinions when faced with the reality of what that vendetta means for them in terms of their legal standing.

Eric Cartman

B0jangles wrote: »

Diversity of opinion is good, but if a story is shown to be based on false information, the Guardian will print a retraction, Breitbart will just keep pushing it regardless. It's not about political stance, it's about whether or not the source thinks it is important that news reporting be based on facts.

I think a line has to be drawn between online and traditional publishers , the guardian or fox are liable to print retractions if they make a mistake, breitbart, huffpo, vice etc.. can peddle all their extremism without a second thought for accuracy.

pgmcpq

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Go to YouTube and search for "CNN Trump Russian agent". Literally tons of results, from the official CNN account, saying just that.

It is ironic in the context of the thread that you’d point to YouTube for reference. In any event I ran this search. There were only two videos from CNN. I viewed one. It referenced an editorial for the Washington Post and that included such well known leftists as Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney criticizing Trumps past and present relationship with Putin.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A model created by a left wing person is going to look different to a model created by a right wing person.

Again - that entirely depends on what the model is of - and what the model is for.

If they are building a model to determine the likelihood that content being created is being created by an actual real life user and not a bot network - then how exactly will the model differ between a left or right wing designer? Which biases are you seeing there exactly?

The big problem on the outside that this causes is that if one side on an issue is caught by the algorithm in submitting a lot of fake or bot content - then a retrospective article written after the fact will of course be easy to write to make it seem like the algorithm or the service provider maliciously attacked the content of one side over the other.

What conspiracy theory has to ignore - like you did - is that the black list in question included pro-choice terms too. Including the biggest pro-choice term that was being used at the time - and you also had to ignore when I pointed out multiple times that the search results do not appear to be skewed at all. If anything - as I said from my own search - they are skewed _against_ the pro-choice side.