45 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I'm not big on unfair intrusions in to personal lives and reporting on rumours, especially when the sources are clearly vague. Otherwise do your best media.

Interesting comment - all I can say is welcome to the world of metadata. 

If anybody can prove by reasonable efforts that DeeSpencer is infact Mrs D Brown ( made up name for example only ) has allegedly done the following wrongs- Law enforcement agencies can easily get access to your ISP server data.  

It would not be out of the question to tell you what you ate for dinner and with whom etc

12 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Interesting comment - all I can say is welcome to the world of metadata. 

If anybody can prove by reasonable efforts that DeeSpencer is infact Mrs D Brown ( made up name for example only ) has allegedly done the following wrongs- Law enforcement agencies can easily get access to your ISP server data.  

It would not be out of the question to tell you what you ate for dinner and with whom etc

20 hours ago, Choke said:

It's clearly an issue with journalism in general.

Stories are pushed to one extreme or the other, to elicit the maximum amount of outrage or partisan support. Stories are headlined to generate web traffic, not to reflect the contents of the story or the actual issue in order to get clicks for ads.

News and journalism have been chasing their tail since the internet became a thing. They missed the boat and are now trying to stuff an outdated business model onto a computer screen. But for that model to work, they need ads and a huge volume of traffic. So they sensationalise to an extent we haven't seen before to get the traffic and the ad revenue that comes with it.

If the AFL players can counter or affect this to even a small extent then that's a win. But I feel like it's an uphill battle we're all fighting. Anything that forces journalists to get all (or at least more of) the facts is a win.

Right now, being first with a story is the priority for this type of journalism. It doesn't matter if the facts are wrong. It matters that you get the story first and the web traffic that goes with it. Maybe if they're called on their factual inaccuracies often enough, they'll start to prioritise accuracy over speed. I am doubtful this will happen though.

Excellent summary.

14 hours ago, Demonland said:

That's an interesting point. Why should Facebook or Twitter be any different to say Demonland.

$$$

14 hours ago, Demonland said:

That's an interesting point. Why should Facebook or Twitter be any different to say Demonland.

 

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

$$$

Facebook and Twitter are outrageously biased towards left wing ideologies, and program their sites to filter in that direction. They have been allowed to continue unchecked by the authorities because they assisted the left wing globalist agenda

Trumps people are already talking about an internet "Bill of Rights" because of the actions of almost all of the social media platforms.

Not before time.

 

 

 

  

21 minutes ago, faultydet said:

 

Facebook and Twitter are outrageously biased towards left wing ideologies, and program their sites to filter in that direction. They have been allowed to continue unchecked by the authorities because they assisted the left wing globalist agenda

Trumps people are already talking about an internet "Bill of Rights" because of the actions of almost all of the social media platforms.

Not before time.

 

 

 

  

Trump, May, Brexit....the agenda is going well.

34 minutes ago, BigFez said:

Excellent summary.

I agree & in today’s world anybody who hits that save button and publishes content online in the public domain is a journalist- why I found it interesting they made a clear point and mentioned social media. 

Facebook, Twitter hold content and data on there own servers and in their own data centre - but that is not the case for all sites. 

99% of the population don’t understand the internet - descriptive metadata, keywords, web bots meaning nothing to them. 

2 hours ago, faultydet said:

 

Facebook and Twitter are outrageously biased towards left wing ideologies, and program their sites to filter in that direction. They have been allowed to continue unchecked by the authorities because they assisted the left wing globalist agenda

Trumps people are already talking about an internet "Bill of Rights" because of the actions of almost all of the social media platforms.

Not before time.

 

 

 

  

Hilarious because according to Oxford, it is the exact opposite:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

“On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”

 

Left wing media outlets are certainly guilty of the same sort of sensationalised click-baity partisan journalism that the right wing outlets are. However as indicated by the Oxford study, fake news is shared on social media by the right more than the left.

There are two separate issues here

The first is reputable media outlets sensationalising and intentionally mislabelling headlines in order to drive web traffic and ad revenue. They report quickly to compete to get that traffic and often the truth gets put second. This is a huge issue, and as has been posted previously if someone like an AFL player can stand up to misrepresented facts and maybe change this trend then all the better. This sensationalism of stories is something found across the spectrum of media organisations (left, right, and those who claim to be unbiased).

This sort of journalism has been called 'fake news', but it isn't. It's simply a lower quality of news that we are used to and as a society deserve. It can contain factual inaccuracies but at its heart is not meant to be fake. It is fake by virtue of lower journalistic standards and the speed at which it moves.

The second is the intentional construction of patently false stories, deliberately written and created to spread misinformation. They're written by trolls in impoverished nations who are paid simply to create something that will be shareable on social media or achieve a political aim. This is true 'fake news'. Deliberate deception masquerading as journalism. This is also a huge problem, and this is the sort of news that is overwhelmingly shared by the right on social media, as indicated by the Oxford study.

 

The two issues were conflated after Trump's election. The term 'fake news' started to trend, so Trump appropriated the label (which formerly applied only to the second form) to include the first. Now we think of both of these types of news as 'fake'. It's a sneaky trick of language, because including them both under the one umbrella conflates the issue. It puts CNN and MSNBC (who sensationalise and obfuscate) on par with a Romanian troll farm which outright deceives. They are clearly different, although the actions of both are deeply troubling.

 

I'm aware the general board may be bleeding into this post. If the mods see fit to delete my post I understand. I just wanted to add a little clarity to the debate here, given the AFL players are concerned with misrepresentations in the media. Also faultydet's post was patently untrue and so I felt it needed to be corrected.

 

Edit: corrected typo "faultydiet" to "faultydet". My apologies.

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

I agree & in today’s world anybody who hits that save button and publishes content online in the public domain is a journalist- why I found it interesting they made a clear point and mentioned social media. 

Facebook, Twitter hold content and data on there own servers and in their own data centre - but that is not the case for all sites. 

99% of the population don’t understand the internet - descriptive metadata, keywords, web bots meaning nothing to them. 

Not necessarily.

The post themselves yes are often held on servers owned/leased by the social media company.

However an external link posted to their site takes the user to that external site.

To what extent a social media company should be responsible for a user posting a link to an external site which contains false information is a significant question society and the law need to answer.

Would love for any lawyers out there to weigh in on this.

Footy is lies.

52 minutes ago, Choke said:

There are two separate issues here

The first is reputable media outlets sensationalising and intentionally mislabelling headlines in order to drive web traffic and ad revenue. They report quickly to compete to get that traffic and often the truth gets put second. This is a huge issue, and as has been posted previously if someone like an AFL player can stand up to misrepresented facts and maybe change this trend then all the better. This sensationalism of stories is something found across the spectrum of media organisations (left, right, and those who claim to be unbiased).

This sort of journalism has been called 'fake news', but it isn't. It's simply a lower quality of news that we are used to and as a society deserve. It can contain factual inaccuracies but at its heart is not meant to be fake. It is fake by virtue of lower journalistic standards and the speed at which it moves.

The second is the intentional construction of patently false stories, deliberately written and created to spread misinformation. They're written by trolls in impoverished nations who are paid simply to create something that will be shareable on social media or achieve a political aim. This is true 'fake news'. Deliberate deception masquerading as journalism. This is also a huge problem, and this is the sort of news that is overwhelmingly shared by the right on social media, as indicated by the Oxford study.

 

The two issues were conflated  The term 'fake news' started to trend, so Trump appropriated the label (which formerly applied only to the second form) to include the first. Now we think of both of these types of news as 'fake'. It's a sneaky trick of language, because including them both under the one umbrella conflates the issue. It puts CNN and MSNBC (who sensationalise and obfuscate) on par with a Romanian troll farm which outright deceives. They are clearly different, although the actions of both are deeply troubling.

 

I'm aware the general board may be bleeding into this post. If the mods see fit to delete my post I understand. I just wanted to add a little clarity to the debate here, given the AFL players are concerned with misrepresentations in the media. Also faultydiet's post was patently untrue and so I felt it needed to be corrected.

Brilliant Summary minus the political references. 

48 minutes ago, Choke said:

Not necessarily.

The post themselves yes are often held on servers owned/leased by the social media company.

However an external link posted to their site takes the user to that external site.

To what extent a social media company should be responsible for a user posting a link to an external site which contains false information is a significant question society and the law need to answer.

Would love for any lawyers out there to weigh in on this.

You have nailed it -external links work both ways for web-bots , once your site is indexed - good luck removing the content from the public domain. Yes you can remove it delete it from your site, but its almost impossible to remove it from the public domain. 

45 minutes ago, Choke said:

Hilarious because according to Oxford, it is the exact opposite:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford

“On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.”

 

Left wing media outlets are certainly guilty of the same sort of sensationalised click-baity partisan journalism that the right wing outlets are. However as indicated by the Oxford study, fake news is shared on social media by the right more than the left.

There are two separate issues here

The first is reputable media outlets sensationalising and intentionally mislabelling headlines in order to drive web traffic and ad revenue. They report quickly to compete to get that traffic and often the truth gets put second. This is a huge issue, and as has been posted previously if someone like an AFL player can stand up to misrepresented facts and maybe change this trend then all the better. This sensationalism of stories is something found across the spectrum of media organisations (left, right, and those who claim to be unbiased).

This sort of journalism has been called 'fake news', but it isn't. It's simply a lower quality of news that we are used to and as a society deserve. It can contain factual inaccuracies but at its heart is not meant to be fake. It is fake by virtue of lower journalistic standards and the speed at which it moves.

The second is the intentional construction of patently false stories, deliberately written and created to spread misinformation. They're written by trolls in impoverished nations who are paid simply to create something that will be shareable on social media or achieve a political aim. This is true 'fake news'. Deliberate deception masquerading as journalism. This is also a huge problem, and this is the sort of news that is overwhelmingly shared by the right on social media, as indicated by the Oxford study.

 

The two issues were conflated after Trump's election. The term 'fake news' started to trend, so Trump appropriated the label (which formerly applied only to the second form) to include the first. Now we think of both of these types of news as 'fake'. It's a sneaky trick of language, because including them both under the one umbrella conflates the issue. It puts CNN and MSNBC (who sensationalise and obfuscate) on par with a Romanian troll farm which outright deceives. They are clearly different, although the actions of both are deeply troubling.

 

I'm aware the general board may be bleeding into this post. If the mods see fit to delete my post I understand. I just wanted to add a little clarity to the debate here, given the AFL players are concerned with misrepresentations in the media. Also faultydiet's post was patently untrue and so I felt it needed to be corrected.

Are we name calling now chokeson?

My post was completely correct. It is well known that all of the Social Media magnates are left wing socialists, and that is a fact you cant change regardless of the left wing newspapers that you quote.

I was commenting on the post I quoted, as to the question of why Facebook and Twitter are treated differently, not on who reads what on each platform.

As usual, it is so easy to flush the lefties out.

17 hours ago, Demonland said:

That's an interesting point. Why should Facebook or Twitter be any different to say Demonland.

Or, why should Facebook and Twitter be any different to traditional media? For example, why does Bauer Media get sued for publishing defamatory comments and Facebook and Twitter not?

5 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Are we name calling now chokeson?

My post was completely correct. It is well known that all of the Social Media magnates are left wing socialists, and that is a fact you cant change regardless of the left wing newspapers that you quote.

I was commenting on the post I quoted, as to the question of why Facebook and Twitter are treated differently, not on who reads what on each platform.

As usual, it is so easy to flush the lefties out.

I don't think I called anyone anything?

I said your post was incorrect and provided evidence to support my assertion.

Other posters can decide which of our positions they find more persuasive.

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Or, why should Facebook and Twitter be any different to traditional media? For example, why does Bauer Media get sued for publishing defamatory comments and Facebook and Twitter not?

Here's an article on the subject:

"The internet groups are considered conduits of information rather than publishers under UK law, meaning they have limited responsibility for what appears on their sites.

However, the chairman of the media regulator Ofcom said on Tuesday she believed the likes of Google and Facebook were publishers, raising the prospect that they could eventually face more regulation."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/11/government-considers-classifying-google-facebook-publishers

Just now, Choke said:

I don't think I called anyone anything?

I said your post was incorrect and provided evidence to support my assertion.

Other posters can decide which of our positions they find more persuasive.

faultydiet must have been a typo.

Again, I was referring to the treatment of the Social media outlets, so regardless of whether your post was correct or not (it may be, who knows), it was irrelevant to my comment.

9 minutes ago, faultydet said:

faultydiet must have been a typo.

Again, I was referring to the treatment of the Social media outlets, so regardless of whether your post was correct or not (it may be, who knows), it was irrelevant to my comment.

yep it was a typo, I'll go fix it.

 

1 hour ago, Choke said:

Facebook and Twitter are outrageously biased towards left wing ideologies, and program their sites to filter in that direction.

This is what I was responding to, by linking to an article referencing a study showing fake news being spread more by right-wing users than left. Given that this is a thread about fake news, I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

 

Edit: more typos. On fire today.

35 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Here's an article on the subject:

"The internet groups are considered conduits of information rather than publishers under UK law, meaning they have limited responsibility for what appears on their sites.

However, the chairman of the media regulator Ofcom said on Tuesday she believed the likes of Google and Facebook were publishers, raising the prospect that they could eventually face more regulation."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/11/government-considers-classifying-google-facebook-publishers

How many website owners read the terms and conditions of their webhosts, google, facebook, twitter, cloudflare, rss feed syndication etc etc - plus if your site has been in existence for a few years what you did agree to back many years ago is not worth the paper its written on ? 

Governments all around the world are struggling with legislation. 

57 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Or, why should Facebook and Twitter be any different to traditional media? For example, why does Bauer Media get sued for publishing defamatory comments and Facebook and Twitter not?

That was the point I was making. I worry that I can potentially be sued if a user of my site makes defamatory comments on this site. Is Facebook not also potentially liable if that same user makes those same defamatory comments on Facebook?

8 minutes ago, Demonland said:

That was the point I was making. I worry that I can potentially be sued if a user of my site makes defamatory comments on this site. Is Facebook not also potentially liable if that same user makes those same defamatory comments on Facebook?

In relation to Facebook it’s a third-party platform so the user is liable.

4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

In relation to Facebook it’s a third-party platform so the user is liable.

not so simple, ethan. torrent sites were 3rd party too and have been held to account. third party sites still have a duty of moderation and governance especially when run as profit centres. fb have had issues of failure to moderate and refusal to disclose to authorities. it's inevitable (even if impractical and difficult) that there will be more legislation globally to increase regulation of the internet  

12 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

In relation to Facebook it’s a third-party platform so the user is liable.

Exactly,  Facebook under most circumstances can identify the guilty party - they store the data in their data centres on their serves. 

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not so simple, ethan. torrent sites were 3rd party too and have been held to account. third party sites still have a duty of moderation and governance especially when run as profit centres. fb have had issues of failure to moderate and refusal to disclose to authorities. it's inevitable (even if impractical and difficult) that there will be more legislation globally to increase regulation of the internet  

If a complaint is received in relation to a defamatory comment (or illegal content) the host must act expeditiously to remove the content or disable access to the information. 

If we’re talking purely defamatory comments made by a user, at the present time, that user is liable (I understand this could change).

On 3/15/2018 at 10:48 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

Could this report be a fake news item planted by an insidious organisation such as those we are often warned about?

 

"fake news, no such thing"!                    

>>>>>>>>>>

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

If a complaint is received in relation to a defamatory comment (or illegal content), they must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information. In relation to a solely defamatory comment though, at present the user is liable (I understand this may change). 

but arguably they haven't been expeditious or coopertive on many occasions and have been difficult on issues of disclosure. Where they have complied it has been more through overt pressure and threats than any particular legal regulation. I'm not saying they should be instantly liable for any 3rd party content but their needs to be more legally binding regulations to spell out their responsibilities and liabilities when certain content is published on their sites