Navigation

Archive | Facebook

The narrow Facebook mindset

By on September 11, 2016 in Big Data, Civil liberties, Democracy, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Internet, social media

We live in a time of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and young people being offended by other people’s opinions – to a point where they seem to be perfectly willing to silence others.

For society, this is disastrous. For a community to evolve, different opinions and ideas must be tested against each other in a free and open debate. Especially unconventional or controversial ones. Without a free exchange of thoughts, democracy becomes pointless. Without diversity, our culture will die. Without new input, there will be no progress.

Especially young people ought to question everything, explore new ideas and oppose conformity. Instead, today many of them seem to be narrow-minded, politically conform, anxious, and frantic. I’m pretty sure this is a new phenomenon.

Why are people so easily offended, upset and disgruntled these days?

For young people born in the Facebook era, conflicting information and alternative views are things they might not be used to. Entangled in Facebook’s algorithms they mostly communicate with like-minded people. So when faced with alternative views and opinions, many of them react with hostility. (This is nothing strange. People often react negatively to the new, to the unknown and to things that they might perceive as threatening.)

This is just an observation – not the full or only explanation. But it might be a clue to what’s going on: Facebook is limiting free speech and the development of new ideas.

This is a very sad and unfortunate way to use a tool for instant, unlimited global communication such as the Internet.

/ HAX

Also read satire website The Onions piece: Horrible Facebook Algorithm Accident Results In Exposure To New Ideas »

2

Facebook turning WhatsApp to the Dark Side of the Force?

By on August 25, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Data, Data Protection, Facebook, IT security, Privacy, social media

Under the new user agreement, WhatsApp will share the phone numbers of people using the service with Facebook, along with analytics such as what devices and operating systems are being used. Previously, no information passed between the two, a stance more in line with WhatsApp’s original sales pitch as a privacy oasis.

Wired: WhatsApp’s Privacy Cred Just Took a Big Hit »

“Only at the end do you realize the power of the Dark Side.”

0

At the US border, your digital footprints will catch up with you

By on August 23, 2016 in Big Brother, Facebook, Privacy, social media, Twitter, US

U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world. But this flawed plan would violate travelers’ privacy, and would have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of expression—all while doing little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism.

EFF: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Wants to Know Who You Are on Twitter—But It’s a Flawed Plan »

0

When algorithms become politics

By on August 16, 2016 in Big Data, Censorship, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, social media, Twitter

Are Facebook, Google, and Twitter politically biased? The jury seems to be out on that one. But one thing is clear – Facebooks algorithms do have political consequences.

It’s very simple: If enough people flag a Facebook post as offensive, it will automatically disappear. If this happens frequently, a user or a group can be banned from the platform – sometimes forever.

This is often used by various parties to silence others, for the simple reason that they do not agree with the information posted. It can be for e.g. political or religious reasons.

In my world disagreement is something positive. It promotes debate, fosters logical reasoning, widens our views, often adds relevant information and encourages progress.

That might be exactly why some find other people’s opinions offensive. They do not want to have their views questioned. They do not want people to think for themselves. They cannot defend their positions in a free and open debate. So, they try to silence dissent.

And crappy Facebook algorithms makes silencing others extremely easy.

Silencing people will have consequences for society. It will hinder human advancement, thwart enlightenment and make the world a poorer place.

Facebook is a private company, and we all have agreed to (but not read) their terms and conditions. They can do more or less as they like. But they can never escape criticism when acting in an imprudent way.

My recommendation would be for Facebook only to delete posts, users and groups if clearly illegal. And even that would be a slippery slope.

/ HAX

2

Atheism – a reason to be banned by Facebook?

By on August 15, 2016 in Censorship, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, social media

In February 2016, ten of the largest Arabic-speaking atheist groups, with a total of about 100,000 members, have been deactivated for the same reason: heavy reporting campaigns that are organized by “cyber jihadist” fundamentalist Islamic groups, especially for the removal of any anti-Islamic group or page. In such coordinated campaigns, very large numbers of people, and possibly automated scripts, simultaneously file reports falsely claiming that a page, group, or personal account has violated Community Standards.

Facebook Facing Heavy Criticism After Removing Major Atheist Pages »

1

Government using private sector censorship for political objectives

By on July 24, 2016 in Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Human rights, Rule of law, social media, Transparency, Twitter

Censorship is censorship. If you block someone from speaking freely or delete people’s content from the Internet you do censor them.

But there are different sorts of censorship.

One is when the government silences opposition, controversial voices or whatever. That is, in general terms, a violation of freedom of speech and our civil rights. That should not be accepted in a democratic society.

Another form of censorship is when Twitter censors Milo Yiannopolous, when Google censor artist Dennis Cooper or when Facebook is accused of downgrading news depending on political affiliations.

These are private companies and they choose to whom they want to provide their services. This is clearly stated in these companies voluminous terms and conditions.

So, OK – social media giants can censor people (and ideas). But should they?

The fact that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter can censor people in a legally »correct« way in no way should protect them from being criticized for doing so.

And they should be criticized! Especially as their dominance on the social media scene is almost total. Their actions have political consequences. And they might very well have a political agenda.

(As a libertarian I run into this issue a lot. Just because I dislike something, I do not have the desire or right to outlaw it. But still, as a consumer, user or concerned citizen I am free to criticize e.g. censorship – and to loudly point out its risks and problems.)

But recently the lines are getting blurred. As I have pointed out in previous blog posts, governments (most recently the EU) are teaming up with major social media players to use the latter’s legal framework to silence voices that politicians dislike. Thus circumventing the legal system and the rule of law – and moving government censorship out of democratic control.

This is a serious, mounting problem.

/ HAX

2

And now… automated web censorship

By on July 13, 2016 in Big Data, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Europol, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Internet, Rule of law, social media

Automated systems to identify child abuse material (and flag it for removal) on the Internet is now going to be used to combat “extremist” and “hateful” content on social media.

“However, the definition of “extremist content” is everything but clear; CEP’s algorithm does not (and logically cannot) contain this definition either. Even if it were to use a database of previously identified material, that still would create problems for legitimate quotation, research and illustration purposes, as well as problems regarding varying laws from one jurisdiction to another.”

“The Joint Referral Platform has the potential to automate Europol’s not-formal-censorship activities by an automatic detection of re-upload. However, it remains unclear whether any investigative measures will be taken apart from the referral – particularly as Europol’s activities, bizarrely, do not deal with illegal material. There is obviously no redress available for incorrectly identified and deleted content, as it is not the law but broad and unpredictable terms of service that are being used.”

What could possibly go wrong..?

EDRi: Algorithms – censorship à la carte? »

0