What bothers me is that there are very few things that are not propaganda.
All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they are accepted? Clearly a distinction is made between 'acceptable propaganda' and 'unacceptable propaganda', and this distinction is made by Facebook, an American company.
I think this may be it. America has a ban on trade with Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information.
I don't believe that Fox and CNN have political propaganda in the sense you might imply.
Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word.
Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident.
When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda.
Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.
Welcome to Facebook Co. Where a clique of Silicon Valley exec yuppies now decide what is right and what is wrong for us to see.
It's a very slippery slope. Cannot wait for the next elections where any candidates with politically "wrong" ideas will see their pages silently being discarded or randomly hidden from timelines without warnings.
Arguably that's already happening. In the last round of Senate elections, Austin Peterson was repeatedly banned with vague explanations about the Terms & Conditions. It's of course just a coincidence that in most cases the post that triggered it were criticizing the incumbent whose reelection Facebook had contributed tens of thousands of dollars to.
" Where a clique of Silicon Valley exec yuppies now decide what is right and what is wrong for us to see."
I'm not sympathetic at all to FB overall, but I am sympathetic here.
Zuck would definitely prefer to not be in the business of moderating content.
They've created a kind of 'internet platform' and by virtue of their situation, they're kind of forced to do this.
And there is - no - solution.
Every nation has different laws, different thresholds for various kinds of activity, and I suggest most of what FB 'takes down' is probably technically legal, but just beyond what they would like to do.
They are also under considerable pressure from many countries to act explicitly in some cases. I'm not familiar with this Indian/Iranian situation, but it very well could be that Indian government officials leaned on them to do it. The less transparency there is, the more there is political interference in business, the more they have no choice: "We don't like Iran, so stop all this pro-Iran stuff in our country or we shut you down" type threats.
And no doubt the US gov. has their interests as well, both on the 'local petty stuff' (i.e. law enforcement) to 'strategic stuff' (i.e. we don't like Iran either, stop their propaganda).
I do however think that FB will actually try to do the right thing, I think it's just beyond their capability.
I don't think Zuck is trying to promote his view of the world in the filtering. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is 'an information architectural nightmare' - not really a political thing.
This could be an existential crisis for FB, as this happens more and more, they'll be expected to moderate 'everything' and then the business becomes infeasible.
They are free to exclude whatever they like, they're a private company and not beholden to what you think they should be doing. If they do the wrong thing they will go on the trash-heap of bad ideas in history, so far they're doing okay as far as being a business goes.
Not sure if this is too far off topic or if I'll get roasted for this. "Cup of Jane" is the kind of title that's so awfully on the nose that I'd mistake it for satire.
It all comes down to what specific definitions people are using, but I draw a strong distinction between propaganda and opposing opinions about things. Propaganda is basically marketing copy for politics. It's unreliable in the same way TV ads for pharmaceuticals are unreliable compared to actual advice from actual doctors.
People with opposing political opinions might accuse each other of parroting their side's propaganda, but that's just a way to try to discredit what the person is saying. Like advertising, the only constant with propaganda is that it's bullshit: it might be true, it might not be. The person telling it to you might believe it, or they might not. They may not even know whether or not it's true, and they may not care. The purpose of propaganda, like advertising, is not to convey facts to people, but to convey emotions disguised as facts, and they know ahead of time how they want you to feel about what they're saying. It's not an honest effort to communicate facts, it's often meant to discredit the very notion of facts, so they can conveniently dismiss opposing views as just someone else's opinion.
If everything is propaganda then the question is why are we selectively choosing which propaganda to show? In that case, the real propaganda is the omission of certain propaganda, or for another choice of words the 'perspective' of another group.
We are being lied to on a regular basis, this has been going on for decades and the rise of right-wing and extreme right-wing parties reflects this.
This is the risk you take when you are a sharecropper on someone else's land. Probably won't be long until FB takes an Adblock Plus/Yelp gatekeeper approach where they'll ban something, and then allow them back if they purchase a certain amount of advertising.
They won't do it in the West as it would be picked up on the news, but bad actors in places like India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (those are the ones I know of) would pay to have that "feature".
I don't know if there is any way to really decide what is inauthentic outside of say only allowing individuals who are verified to post....and nothing else.
What is up with any of the big corporations making these kinds of decisions ‘without appeal or comment’. It borders on criminal to conduct business that way.
Science fiction generally seemed to assume some evil AI or robots would take over the world and make arbitrary / unappealable decisions ....but naw we humans are happy to do it to each other.
You "triggered" far more upvotes than downvotes, which is one reason why the site guidelines ask people not to go on about downvotes like this. Would you please review them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
well of course, only _the other side_ news are subjective, with "_theirs_" carefully grouped to include people the other side of the oberton window, to sap the group legitimacy whole
tactic as old as dirt, but a lot people still falling for it
All news is not subjective. If it was, it'd be editorial content, not news reporting (obviously, don't trust any big media outlet that doesn't make a strong distinction between the two within their own organization). Now, because reporting is the product of humans, it's inevitably going to be subjective to some degree- people still decide what to report on, what words to use when describing things, etc. Objectivity in reporting is like something people can asymptotically approach but never attain.
So, there's a huge difference between a news outlet that attempts to be objective, and one that takes off running in the other direction. All news outlets are somewhere on that spectrum, and some of the most popular ones are actively trying to mislead their audience.
If all news was subjective, it wouldn't matter if someone got their news from Alex Jones or The Economist. It's all just someone's subjective opinion after all! But it does matter, it matters a lot. Some media outlets make an effort to be as truthful and transparent as they can be, and some just say whatever comes to mind in hopes that it'll keep people interested for long enough to hear their ad for vitamins for preppers or whatever.
tl;dr: They were unwitting accomplices. The propaganda from well known Iranian government outlets was being shared frequently enough, with very little other content, that they were unwittingly part of the machine itself.
jnaddef|6 years ago
All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they are accepted? Clearly a distinction is made between 'acceptable propaganda' and 'unacceptable propaganda', and this distinction is made by Facebook, an American company.
How acceptable is that?
zachguo|6 years ago
xupybd|6 years ago
sonnyblarney|6 years ago
Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word.
Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident.
When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda.
Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.
warp_factor|6 years ago
It's a very slippery slope. Cannot wait for the next elections where any candidates with politically "wrong" ideas will see their pages silently being discarded or randomly hidden from timelines without warnings.
TallGuyShort|6 years ago
sonnyblarney|6 years ago
I'm not sympathetic at all to FB overall, but I am sympathetic here.
Zuck would definitely prefer to not be in the business of moderating content.
They've created a kind of 'internet platform' and by virtue of their situation, they're kind of forced to do this.
And there is - no - solution.
Every nation has different laws, different thresholds for various kinds of activity, and I suggest most of what FB 'takes down' is probably technically legal, but just beyond what they would like to do.
They are also under considerable pressure from many countries to act explicitly in some cases. I'm not familiar with this Indian/Iranian situation, but it very well could be that Indian government officials leaned on them to do it. The less transparency there is, the more there is political interference in business, the more they have no choice: "We don't like Iran, so stop all this pro-Iran stuff in our country or we shut you down" type threats.
And no doubt the US gov. has their interests as well, both on the 'local petty stuff' (i.e. law enforcement) to 'strategic stuff' (i.e. we don't like Iran either, stop their propaganda).
I do however think that FB will actually try to do the right thing, I think it's just beyond their capability.
I don't think Zuck is trying to promote his view of the world in the filtering. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is 'an information architectural nightmare' - not really a political thing.
This could be an existential crisis for FB, as this happens more and more, they'll be expected to moderate 'everything' and then the business becomes infeasible.
djakjxnanjak|6 years ago
someotherperson|6 years ago
Various pages belonging to the main Libertarian party ("Liberal Democratic Party") started getting shutdown[0] about a month before elections.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/davidlimbrickldp/posts/209817440381...
GuiA|6 years ago
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may...
stjohnswarts|6 years ago
Udik|6 years ago
https://m.facebook.com/DailyCupOfJane/
The "about" section presents it as:
"Sugar, spice, and everything nice.Changing the world, one mug at a time. We're your daily girl power pick-me-up.
Cup of Jane is a community launched by TIP’s Future Media Project in DC. We love our communities!"
The discreet acronym TIP stands for "The Israel Project":
https://www.theisraelproject.org/
The page mixes feminist and feel-good messages with subtle propaganda for Israel. When is Facebook going to take it down?
Waterluvian|6 years ago
qrbLPHiKpiux|6 years ago
Everything written is propaganda depending on what side of the opinion you were on.
Although I don’t like it, what is happening today is incredibly fascinating, watching it unfold since I have been using computers since 1990.
mwfunk|6 years ago
People with opposing political opinions might accuse each other of parroting their side's propaganda, but that's just a way to try to discredit what the person is saying. Like advertising, the only constant with propaganda is that it's bullshit: it might be true, it might not be. The person telling it to you might believe it, or they might not. They may not even know whether or not it's true, and they may not care. The purpose of propaganda, like advertising, is not to convey facts to people, but to convey emotions disguised as facts, and they know ahead of time how they want you to feel about what they're saying. It's not an honest effort to communicate facts, it's often meant to discredit the very notion of facts, so they can conveniently dismiss opposing views as just someone else's opinion.
newsgremlin|6 years ago
We are being lied to on a regular basis, this has been going on for decades and the rise of right-wing and extreme right-wing parties reflects this.
Gibbon1|6 years ago
Mirthful because except for the polonium and nerve gas[2] everyone else has been playing the same games forever.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke-filled_room [2] Boorish to use your own people to kill someone instead of hiring it out like civilized men.
rchaud|6 years ago
They won't do it in the West as it would be picked up on the news, but bad actors in places like India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (those are the ones I know of) would pay to have that "feature".
zecg|6 years ago
duxup|6 years ago
Aeolun|6 years ago
duxup|6 years ago
kevin_thibedeau|6 years ago
saravana85|6 years ago
Facebook is a perfect example of how a monopoly will treat people
temptemptemp111|6 years ago
[deleted]
jnaddef|6 years ago
[deleted]
dang|6 years ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20057158 and marked it off-topic.
neaden|6 years ago
avereveard|6 years ago
tactic as old as dirt, but a lot people still falling for it
mwfunk|6 years ago
So, there's a huge difference between a news outlet that attempts to be objective, and one that takes off running in the other direction. All news outlets are somewhere on that spectrum, and some of the most popular ones are actively trying to mislead their audience.
If all news was subjective, it wouldn't matter if someone got their news from Alex Jones or The Economist. It's all just someone's subjective opinion after all! But it does matter, it matters a lot. Some media outlets make an effort to be as truthful and transparent as they can be, and some just say whatever comes to mind in hopes that it'll keep people interested for long enough to hear their ad for vitamins for preppers or whatever.
dsl|6 years ago
opportune|6 years ago