this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
376 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
5274 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta’s oversight board has found that a Facebook video wrongfully suggesting that the US president, Joe Biden, is a paedophile does not violate the company’s current rules while deeming those rules “incoherent” and too narrowly focused on AI-generated content.

The board, which is funded by Meta – Facebook’s parent company – but run independently, took on the Biden video case in October in response to a user complaint about an altered seven-second video of the president. Mark Zuckerberg at a Senate judiciary committee hearing at the US Capitol in Washington DC

It ruled that Meta was right to leave the video up under its current policy, which bars misleadingly altered videos only if they were produced by artificial intelligence or if they make people appear to say words they never actually said.

But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.

It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”. It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 142 points 9 months ago (4 children)

So what I'm hearing is that you can call anyone a pedophile on Facebook? Ok, every single employee and executive at Facebook are all pedophiles.

[–] [email protected] 107 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sir this is Lemmy

Go ahead and post that to FB instead.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don't use Facebook or any of those mainstream social media platforms anymore... I'm not edgy, I just have really bad anxiety.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's edgy not have social media other than Lemmy?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I have no clue. I was worried I was gonna come off sounding like I think I'm edgy, so I was trying to clarify. Instead, it appears I suck my foot in my mouth?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago

Suck your foot all you want

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

the problem to me seems more like you're worried about what other people think? you were defending yourself before you did anything, and it backfired, but if you hadn't gave a fuck in the first place, we wouldn't be 6 replies deep about your anxiety?

anyways, please go tell FB that they're pedophiles.

i'll stick with the tried and true method of just not having a FB. if we all just stopped using it, it would go away. it seems pretty simple to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

if you hadn't gave a fuck in the first place, we wouldn't be 6 replies deep

True, but I appreciate the insight and conversation. How are you doing, Masterblaster? Sincerely asking.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

ah, the wife is pissed and sad at me. she just left for her job away from home for 3 days without saying goodbye knowing that i will be leaving in a day for a work trip where i won't be back for 2 weeks. it's frustrating but i got a bad case of cynical stoicism that keeps me just distant enough and inside my own head that i don't really care. i'm probably gonna play warthunder and smoke weed about it.

thanks for asking.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Found Quentin Tarantino

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

We really are all the same person on here, aren't we? Lol

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Zuckerberg is a paedoophile

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

Have you seen the video? It's fairly conclusive.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

People are saying it…

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Well I don't think you're allowed to say "Mark Zuckerberg raped and murdered a 7 year old in 2014", but you are allowed to say "did Mark Zuckerberg rape and murder a 7 year old in 2014?"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You may not be allowed to say it, but apparently a misleading video can say it all it wants… I guess, so long as you made it say that and not AI.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

I'm Ron Burgundy?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This isn't Facebook, but also of course you can. Why wouldn't you be able to?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Good point. I don't know why everyone doesn't already do that.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I seem to remember Facebook actively taking down videos critical of Trump back in 2016 and 2020. Hmm...

[–] [email protected] 34 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Joel Kaplan.

In May 2011 Facebook hired Kaplan as its vice president of U.S. public policy, as part of a Facebook's effort to "strengthen" the company's ties to Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.[16][17] In October 2014, Kaplan succeeded Marne Levine as Facebook's vice president of global public policy.[18]

Within the company, Kaplan advocated against restrictions on racially incendiary speech.[19] He played an important role in crafting an exception for newsworthy political discourse when deciding on whether content violated the community guidelines.[19] During the 2016 election, Kaplan advocated against closing down Facebook groups which allegedly peddled fake news.[19] Kaplan argued that getting rid of the groups would have disproportionately targeted conservatives.[19][3] During and after the 2016 US presidential election, Kaplan argued against Facebook publicly disclosing the extent of Russian influence operations on the platform.[20]

In 2017, after Facebook had implemented changes to its algorithm to expose users to more content by family and friends and less by publishers who were determined by Facebook to engage in misinformation, Kaplan questioned whether the algorithm disproportionately hurt conservative publishers and successfully advocated for Facebook to change the algorithm again.[19]

He pushed against a proposed Facebook project that was intended to make Facebook users of different political views engage with each other in less hostile ways. Kaplan argued that this feature would lead conservatives to accuse Facebook of bias.[7][5] Kaplan also reportedly advocated on behalf of Breitbart News and the Daily Caller within Facebook.[5][6] Kaplan has helped to place conservatives in key positions in the leadership of Facebook.[3]

In 2018, he advocated strongly for the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.[21] Kaplan sat behind Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings.[21]

During Donald Trump's presidency, Kaplan was on friendly terms with the administration.[20] At one point, the administration considered nominating him as head of the Office of Management and Budget.[20]

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

I even left out this bit.

Kaplan worked as a policy advisor on George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, during which he was a participant in the Brooks Brothers riot on November 22, 2000.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

Not a single person involved in the riot went to jail over it, and most got jobs with Bush's White House.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So they're saying that a very similar fake video calling Mark Zuckerberg a pedophile would be fine too, right?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Would it even need to be altered?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago

All Zuckerfuck cares about is $$$

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Someone should create a series of AI deepfakes (or would they be called deepTRUTHS in this case) of Trump 'telling the truth'. Having FACTUAL information coming from the horses mouth about his actual doings and intentions, would be a nice change.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Why on earth is this not a thing already?

I'd like to see a video of him mocking his base. We know he hates them.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Can Biden sue not Meta but this exact advertiser for defamation? Or would the lawsuit itself be damaging for his reputation?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I personally believe it's more damaging to not go after people for those types of claims in one way or another, assuming you can go after them. A lie that spreads far and wide enough to enough ears will eventually become truth once the majority of the public tout it as truth.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The Streisand Effect is also a concern, though. How many people will be aware of the video if he does nothing vs how many people will be aware of the video if he retaliates. We also know that a significant chunk of the population will believe he's a pedophile regardless of what he does or how a court rules if they know about the video.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

The thing about the Streisand effect is that Barbara Streisand actually exists, so the only way for her to succeed was for her to stay out of the media entirely. There also wasn't a whole industry dedicated to making people think about her.

With defamation against Biden, it's foolish to think we can stop lies from spreading just by ignoring them, but what can be done is to debunk them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Probably. But at the same time if you can shrug it of safely it may be better than being in news arguing that you are not a pedo.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So Meta's own board of review thinks that this video should be violating a rule (or implied as much) but the rules are so incompetently written that it isn't...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Typical corporate pretzel think.

They want Biden brought low so are t-rex arming the rules.

Facebook is worse than cancer because cancer only kills one person. Facebook is killing the internet.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Meta allows and advertises nazi content like stonetoss.

Yes, the same nazi stonetoss that got banned from Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Friendly reminder to everyone reading that Donald Trump was a known associate of Jeffery Epstein. There are unaltered photographs to prove it.

This is just more right wing projection.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

The number of comments I've reported to Facebook that are blatant racist/Nazi diatribes is insane, especially when you consider that Facebook ALWAYS says it doesn't go against their "Community Standards."

Looks like they don't have any standards.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Sounds like it's time for a round of populist trust busting, starting with Meta

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How about this for a headline?

Meta's Oversight Board Finds Company Policy on False Content Inadequate, Suggests Updates

Nah. Won't get you guys up in arms. "Engaged" as Zuckerberg might say.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Facebook Takes Twenty Years To Realize Altering Videos To Make Presidents Look Like Pedophiles Is Undesirable

(They are a small bootstrapped startup, and some decisions are really tricky)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Sounds like meta is desperately asking to be regulated.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.

It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”.

It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.

Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, informed the board in the course of the review that it was planning to update the policy “to respond to the evolution of new and increasingly realistic AI”, according to the ruling.

The clip on Facebook manipulated real footage of Biden exchanging “I Voted” stickers with his granddaughter during the 2022 US midterm elections and kissing her on the cheek.

Enforcement, it added, should consist of applying labels to the content rather than Meta’s current approach of removing the posts from its platforms.


The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›