TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

White House launches tool to report censorship on social media

75 点作者 mooseburger大约 6 年前

17 条评论

throwayEngineer大约 6 年前
We are going to have the government deal with shitty Mods?<p>Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you&#x27;d stop going to that website.<p>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell?<p>I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control.<p>Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites?
评论 #19929136 未加载
评论 #19929175 未加载
评论 #19929144 未加载
评论 #19929327 未加载
isk517大约 6 年前
I find it kind of amusing that the same political party that believes internet service providers do not have obligation to neutrality believe internet content providers do.<p>Edit: spelling mistake fixed
评论 #19938445 未加载
评论 #19929613 未加载
giarc大约 6 年前
&gt;A later question asks the user what year the Declaration of Independence was signed “just to confirm you aren’t a robot.” This is an unorthodox anti-scripting technique, and a generally ineffective one, given the relative simplicity of automatically entering a number.<p>A twitter user reported that any 4 digit number will be verified.
评论 #19929332 未加载
评论 #19930526 未加载
sehugg大约 6 年前
<i>In separate discussions verified by Motherboard, that employee said Twitter hasn’t taken the same aggressive approach to white supremacist content because the collateral accounts that are impacted can, in some instances, be Republican politicians.</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;washingtonmonthly.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;04&#x2F;25&#x2F;twitter-cant-ban-racism-because-theyd-have-to-ban-republicans-too&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;washingtonmonthly.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;04&#x2F;25&#x2F;twitter-cant-ban-ra...</a>
评论 #19930423 未加载
评论 #19930398 未加载
KirinDave大约 6 年前
It&#x27;s an extremely dangerous conflation of terms to suggest that private speech and private moderation are the same as censorship.<p>But forcing a &quot;fairness&quot; doctrine onto the tech world is exactly what the current political parties, who feel like reporting for them has had insufficient deference and whatabout-ism, want to do. Uniformly across the center of the political spectrum most of the US government represents.<p>Speech Rules enacted democratically by small communities are fine. Speech Rules imposed top down by the owners of infrastructure for communication are not great, but at least customers can make choices about them and it&#x27;s not so unimaginable to find alternatives. Speech Rules enacted top-down by the executive are impossible to argue with and ultimately one of the most dangerous kinds of authoritarianism. The infosec community can tell you they&#x27;ve been fighting a slow, losing battle against going to jail for saying something that is not illegal to say out loud for some time now.
评论 #19929428 未加载
评论 #19929445 未加载
panarky大约 6 年前
What&#x27;s worse?<p>Private companies making decisions about what appears on their privately funded platforms?<p>Or bureaucrats, ideologues and partisans using government power to influence what appears on private sites?
评论 #19929315 未加载
评论 #19929336 未加载
thex10大约 6 年前
It&#x27;s only for social media censorship against USians. The form kicks you out once you tell it you&#x27;re not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;typeform&#x2F;status&#x2F;1128993614250553344" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;typeform&#x2F;status&#x2F;1128993614250553344</a>
olliej大约 6 年前
I can’t help but feel the GOP wouldn’t be running into this if they didn’t keep posting attacks on minorities.<p>If you are saying some set of people don’t deserve the same basic rights as other people, simply because they exist, and are different, it’s hate speech. And if your platform is deliberately based on intolerance then there is not requirement for others to tolerate you. This isn’t a paradox - bigots love trying to say it is, but it’s not.
andygates大约 6 年前
That&#x27;s not creepy and McCarthyite at all. No sir.
MarkMc大约 6 年前
I suspect that the primary purpose here is not to uncover bias or censorship on social media platforms - it&#x27;s to get people to identify more strongly as Trump supporters.<p>This is the classic psychological &#x27;consistency&#x27; principle at work. When someone takes the small step of &quot;sharing their story with President Trump&quot; it strengthens their self-image as a Trump supporter. This is then reinforced by receiving frequent emails &quot;from President Trump&quot; thanking them for their support to eliminate censorship. This makes the person more likely to get off the couch and vote for Trump in November 2020.
评论 #19929172 未加载
评论 #19929308 未加载
评论 #19929107 未加载
评论 #19929075 未加载
JaimeThompson大约 6 年前
I am totally confident that they will handle reports of censorship by media that supports them completely and totally the same way as reports against media that doesn&#x27;t.........
评论 #19928814 未加载
SpikeDad大约 6 年前
I wonder if you can use this to report censorship that the Trump administration is actively doing to scientific reports and scientists themselves who&#x27;s results disagree with their business and extremist religious agenda?
katabasis大约 6 年前
So Net Neutrality constitutes unwelcome government interference in the internet, but it&#x27;s okay to force private companies to tolerate extreme right-wing views? This is ridiculous.
评论 #19932268 未加载
smpetrey大约 6 年前
Not a good look for Typeform.
DeusExMachina大约 6 年前
&gt; A Twitter spokesperson responded to the new tool saying, “We enforce the Twitter Rules impartially for all users, regardless of their background or political affiliation. We are constantly working to improve our systems and will continue to be transparent in our efforts.”<p>In the discussion with Jack Dorsey on the Joe Rogan podcast, Tim Pool had a good point: some of the rules are intrinsically biased on one side of the political spectrum.<p>An good example is the rule against misgendering. Twitter forbids referring to a person using a different gender than the one that person choses. E.g., you have to refer to a male-to-female transgender as a &quot;she&quot;.<p>But to conservatives, referring to someone using a gender other than their biological one is the definition of misgendering.<p>This is a purely ideological take, and Twitter chose the definition of one side over the other. Then they can apply it &quot;impartially to all users&quot;, but its the rule itself that is not impartial.
评论 #19929621 未加载
评论 #19929556 未加载
评论 #19929748 未加载
评论 #19929494 未加载
SlowRobotAhead大约 6 年前
I&#x27;m interested in the dichotomy of comments here between when Trump Admin releases a tool to report censorship and when Elizabeth Warren talks about how we need to break up Big Tech.<p>Also, it&#x27;s fascinating how many of the negative reaction comments want to pretend like there are actual alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon Marketplace. If the argument comes down to &quot;it&#x27;s a private business, do whatever you want&quot;... Well, let&#x27;s be at least partially honest this is a new problem and these are effective-monopolies.
评论 #19931988 未加载
hedora大约 6 年前
I wonder if this is running afoul of campaign finance laws.<p>The Trump administration has been doing that a lot recently, and while this can easily be misconstrued as a “report to the government” tool, it is not hosted on a .gov site.<p>Will the executive branch be acting on the information posted here? That also seems legally dubious. [edit: because there are security issues involving using non-government computers for government business. I think Hillary had some problems with that; maybe Trump didn’t hear about it?]