What do you see as a solution to the problem of fake news/propaganda etc on FB & other social media platforms??
It seems they are now facing what we have had to put up w/ since algore created the internet.........
Mother Jones: Because Clicks Are Big Money, Facebook Gave Us President Trump. 'Oops.'
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
What do you see as a solution to the problem of fake news/propaganda etc on FB & other social media platforms??
It seems they are now facing what we have had to put up w/ since algore created the internet.........
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello anonymoose,
I don't see how. IF we were doing that, Fox News would have been shut down a long time ago. Please elaborate?
I don't see how. IF we were doing that, Fox News would have been shut down a long time ago. Please elaborate?
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Leftist universities like Cal Berkeley suppressing free speech.
Fox News is biased. So is MSNBC and CNN. No law against being biased.
Last edited:
Your example has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. It might violate federal privacy laws (I do not know enough about them to have an opinion); and/or you may be able to bring civil suit against Facebook if you can prove damages. But, since the government did not use the information to bring criminal charges against you, the 4th is not relevant.
There are companies that have been collecting data and putting Americans into categories for purposes of marketing and political campaigns before Facebook. Below is a link to some very interesting charts about "nano-targeting" that targets groups for political purposes based on Democratic and Republican choices of alcohol choice, vehicle, restaurants, news choices...........
https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/let-the-nanotargeting-begin/
"Who would have guessed that the most Democratic drink by a long shot is Cognac, or that such lite beers as Amstel Lite, Michelob Ultra, Miller Lite and Sam Adams Light tilt so far to the political right, while Bud, Miller High Life, and Natural Lite are Democratic?"
That only applies to governmental entities like public colleges. Colleges have lost most of those cases in which they have attempted to limit free speech by regulations. FIRE regularly brings and wins cases dealing with civil liberties at universities.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
What is FIRE?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
What, because they actually decide who they want to speak publicly on campus?
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
No. Because they decide who not to let speak publicly on campus. A violation of the 1st Amendment.
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. It is like an ACLU for higher education issues.
https://www.thefire.org/
No, because when they do decide who they want to speak they allow groups to interrupt or prevent some from speaking.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Fascinating article. Thanks very much for that link. Wow. Was that ever informative.
Yeah, I find that overly intrusive. We are protected against government doing that, but the framers never envisioned a private interest becoming so powerful that THEY would be able to do it. So it's all legal. And good luck making it illegal at this point, but I think it should be. I swear. They've gotcha by the you know whats. If you want ANYTHING that's modern tech, you pretty much have to sign away your rights. When you're dealing with a massive powerful corporation, they all have these 'user agreements.' Nobody ever reads them, but what is contained in there is nothing short of them owning you. You give up your right to sue them. You agree that any dispute will be settled in arbitration, a way of forcing you to take any complaint to a private court that they hire that rules, like 99% of the time, in the favor of the corporation. Doesn't matter what the product or service is. Phone, cable, internet access, almost any user online account, bank account, credit card, rental car, and on and on.
If you read the user agreement for yahoo, maybe you have a yahoo email address, you actually agree to allow them to go through the content of your emails to learn all these specifics about you so that you can be nano-targeted for marketing and politics.
And the beautiful thing (for them) is that most people don't even realize the implications! Most people don't know this is going on! Who reads those user agreements? Nobody. They don't care. They just want the technology and they will give up their privacy and 'personal effects' to get it. It's used in politics to get people elected to government, and this is NOT an indirect 4th Amendment violation? I may be a layman but I find this highly bothersome.
No WONDER the Republican party has so much traction. No WONDER things are so polarized. No WONDER Trump got elected. And look out in 2020. That is NOT going to be the pushover Democrats hope. The only way that is happening is if there is a MASSIVE voter turnout. There aren't that many Republicans who aren't voting already, but the majority of Dems just don't vote. No wonder Dems always concentrate on GOTV (Get Out The Vote) campaigns.
Fascinating article. Thanks very much for that link. Wow. Was that ever informative.
Yeah, I find that overly intrusive. We are protected against government doing that, but the framers never envisioned a private interest becoming so powerful that THEY would be able to do it. So it's all legal. And good luck making it illegal at this point, but I think it should be. I swear. They've gotcha by the you know whats. If you want ANYTHING that's modern tech, you pretty much have to sign away your rights. When you're dealing with a massive powerful corporation, they all have these 'user agreements.' Nobody ever reads them, but what is contained in there is nothing short of them owning you. You give up your right to sue them. You agree that any dispute will be settled in arbitration, a way of forcing you to take any complaint to a private court that they hire that rules, like 99% of the time, in the favor of the corporation. Doesn't matter what the product or service is. Phone, cable, internet access, almost any user online account, bank account, credit card, rental car, and on and on.
If you read the user agreement for yahoo, maybe you have a yahoo email address, you actually agree to allow them to go through the content of your emails to learn all these specifics about you so that you can be nano-targeted for marketing and politics.
And the beautiful thing (for them) is that most people don't even realize the implications! Most people don't know this is going on! Who reads those user agreements? Nobody. They don't care. They just want the technology and they will give up their privacy and 'personal effects' to get it. It's used in politics to get people elected to government, and this is NOT an indirect 4th Amendment violation? I may be a layman but I find this highly bothersome.
No WONDER the Republican party has so much traction. No WONDER things are so polarized. No WONDER Trump got elected. And look out in 2020. That is NOT going to be the pushover Democrats hope. The only way that is happening is if there is a MASSIVE voter turnout. There aren't that many Republicans who aren't voting already, but the majority of Dems just don't vote. No wonder Dems always concentrate on GOTV (Get Out The Vote) campaigns.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello anonymoose,
If I recall, the student body (including some staff) didn't want that speaker. The college responded to that.
If I recall, the student body (including some staff) didn't want that speaker. The college responded to that.
There is no such thing as an "indirect 4th Amendment violation; again, it only applies to evidence used for criminal prosecution.
I don't see how you made the jump from businesses using our data to the Republican party. Nothing about it gives one party an advantage over the other.
There is a good free add-on for Facebook called FBP (Face Book Purity) that allows you to make many different revisions to the way Face Book presents information including removing advertising. I don't know if has anything that affects privacy, but it is good for other adjustments.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Maybe not yet, but who knows what the future brings. New precedents are set all the time.
Well, from the data given in your link it certainly appears to.
Maybe not yet, but who knows what the future brings. New precedents are set all the time.
Well, from the data given in your link it certainly appears to.
Precedents never (?) go against the clear meaning and understanding of the Constitution.
Both parties have political consultants who use that data for the advantage of that party based primarily on marketing techniques rather than ideology although I don't really understand why you think the link gives the advantage to either party. They both use emotion, fear mongering, etc. to appeal to supporters.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
So if I want to believe this intrusion is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights, then that is not supported by any precedent, so it is unlikely I would prevail if I tried to bring such a case. I don't like having all my shopping habits and politics all tied to a file that some giant corporation amasses on everyone so that I can be targeted with marketing and political advertisements crafted to suit my type. I don't think that is what is meant by the framers. I am a human, not some data set. Everyone is. We should have a right to live our private lives and not be under scrutiny by a system designed to prod us and elicit some predicted response. If we don't currently have this right in the Constitution, then maybe it is time we enacted it.
True, but. The things presented to the left that they should be afraid of are not scapegoats, they are the candidates on the right and what they actually say they want to do. The right singles out members of our society that we should hate, and fear them taking over. And even though there is nothing to be afraid of, the left can't tell them that.
So if I want to believe this intrusion is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights, then that is not supported by any precedent, so it is unlikely I would prevail if I tried to bring such a case. I don't like having all my shopping habits and politics all tied to a file that some giant corporation amasses on everyone so that I can be targeted with marketing and political advertisements crafted to suit my type. I don't think that is what is meant by the framers. I am a human, not some data set. Everyone is. We should have a right to live our private lives and not be under scrutiny by a system designed to prod us and elicit some predicted response. If we don't currently have this right in the Constitution, then maybe it is time we enacted it.
True, but. The things presented to the left that they should be afraid of are not scapegoats, they are the candidates on the right and what they actually say they want to do. The right singles out members of our society that we should hate, and fear them taking over. And even though there is nothing to be afraid of, the left can't tell them that.
There might be remedies in federal and/or state laws, but it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. The framers certainly did not mean for the rights to apply to private entities. The framers did not think any of the Bill of Rights were needed and did not include them in the Constitution. They only agreed to add the amendments in order to get support for ratification.
Basically, everything in the Constitution only applies to government. There is basically nothing a person or business can do that the Constitution makes illegal or a violation of any rights; exceptions might be slavery and treason, but those are regulated by federal laws, not the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution applies to private entities except the 1st Amendment that says government may not restrict free press.
I would think there have already been lawsuits or challenges to businesses collecting our personal data; otherwise it would not be such an issue today.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
The problem with the USA is that it was conceived at a time when the big fear was from government over reach. It was never imagined or envisioned that corporate over reach could be so much more intrusive into personal lives, to the point that is actually creates a system of defacto slavery. I don't know what else you call it when people are relegated to working their entire lives, but are unable to accrue any appreciable wealth, and are instead indebted for life working dead end jobs, living in dilapidated housing, and paying endless rent to the rich.
It's very much like a national system of coal mine owners. The coal mine owners own the mines, they own the towns, they own the housing and the stores. Thus they own the means of income, and they own all the services that income is used to purchase, and the income is never enough to transcend paycheck-to-paycheck impoverished existence. This is what the super-rich are doing to over half of America.
They claim it is possible to excel and rise above that existence, but truly, that only happens in extraordinary cases. For most, it never happens. The rich know this, but they don't publicly say it unless they are like Warren Buffett. Instead, they stress this idea of opportunity, as they work very hard to suppress it.
They claim they are afraid of everybody being equally poor. What they are really afraid of is everybody being equally rich. I once calculated that if all the vast wealth of America was equally redistributed, every single man woman child and baby in the USA would have a net worth of $150,000 dollars. A couple would be worth $300,000, and a family of four would be worth $600K. That's reality. That's real math. But if you ask the typical person who fears socialism, they will repeat the old Conservative Myth that if socialism is allowed to take over then everybody will be equally poor.
The reality is that the only way some can be billionaires is for many others to have nothing.
The problem with the USA is that it was conceived at a time when the big fear was from government over reach. It was never imagined or envisioned that corporate over reach could be so much more intrusive into personal lives, to the point that is actually creates a system of defacto slavery. I don't know what else you call it when people are relegated to working their entire lives, but are unable to accrue any appreciable wealth, and are instead indebted for life working dead end jobs, living in dilapidated housing, and paying endless rent to the rich.
It's very much like a national system of coal mine owners. The coal mine owners own the mines, they own the towns, they own the housing and the stores. Thus they own the means of income, and they own all the services that income is used to purchase, and the income is never enough to transcend paycheck-to-paycheck impoverished existence. This is what the super-rich are doing to over half of America.
They claim it is possible to excel and rise above that existence, but truly, that only happens in extraordinary cases. For most, it never happens. The rich know this, but they don't publicly say it unless they are like Warren Buffett. Instead, they stress this idea of opportunity, as they work very hard to suppress it.
They claim they are afraid of everybody being equally poor. What they are really afraid of is everybody being equally rich. I once calculated that if all the vast wealth of America was equally redistributed, every single man woman child and baby in the USA would have a net worth of $150,000 dollars. A couple would be worth $300,000, and a family of four would be worth $600K. That's reality. That's real math. But if you ask the typical person who fears socialism, they will repeat the old Conservative Myth that if socialism is allowed to take over then everybody will be equally poor.
The reality is that the only way some can be billionaires is for many others to have nothing.