The bloom is off the rose:
It was about an hour and a half into a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee when Sen. Dianne Feinstein laid into Facebook, Google and Twitter."I don't think you get it," she began. "You bear this responsibility. You've created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it. Or we will."The tech giants were being grilled by Congress over Russian trolls abusing their services to meddle in last year's US election, and the California Democratic lawmaker had had it.It was just one of very public tongue-lashings the Silicon Valley companies received over the course of three marathon congressional panels last month, held over a two-day span. The hearings were anticlimactic, in part because the three companies only sent their general counsels instead of their famous CEOs -- a point several lawmakers bemoaned during the public questioning.
It was about an hour and a half into a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee when Sen. Dianne Feinstein laid into Facebook, Google and Twitter.
"I don't think you get it," she began. "You bear this responsibility. You've created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it. Or we will."
The tech giants were being grilled by Congress over Russian trolls abusing their services to meddle in last year's US election, and the California Democratic lawmaker had had it.
It was just one of very public tongue-lashings the Silicon Valley companies received over the course of three marathon congressional panels last month, held over a two-day span. The hearings were anticlimactic, in part because the three companies only sent their general counsels instead of their famous CEOs -- a point several lawmakers bemoaned during the public questioning.
Is it Google, Twitter, and Facebook who don't get it, or Senators like Dianne Feinstein who don't get it?
Repeal the First!
They should do them in order, instead of starting with 4th and 5th.I, for one, can't wait for the repeal of the Third !
The Emoluments Clause, and the 25th and 22nd amendments are a DISASTER. Because they go against the will of the people, of the great American people. Big problems in our Constitution. But we can fix them by holding a convention. We have 25 states where the governor and the legislature are both Republican. We have 28 states that want the convention. Once we get 6 more states we can have the convention. #MAGA 🇺🇸
t Amendment must be repealed
We can fix the Constitution by holding a convention. We have 25 states where the governor and the legislature are both Republican. We have 28 states that want the convention. Once we get 6 more states we can have the convention. Get yourselves more Republican governors and more Republican legislators. Give money, vote, get out there and run for office! Then we can fix the Constitution, or #RepealAndReplace. Go back to what we had before. Back to the Articles of Confederation. Back to the time when America was great. Everybody washappy, the sun was shining, the water was clean. America was second to none. Until the Constitution. #MAGA 🇺🇸
You have been modded a troll. I don't see the "damned fool" mod, or I'd use it. In today's political climate, you really expect that a political convention will fix ANYTHING?
Oh wait. You're the same damned fool who appointed a cocksucker crony to destroy net neutrality? And, the same damned fool who is giving a sweet tax break to rich bastards and corporations - but you want to take away my 401k tax advantage?
Yeah, you probably would think that you and your cronies can "improve" on the existing constitution. You're no better than all the queer Dummycrats who want to take away our second amendment rights, along with the first amendment, and probably most of the others.
it sounds like that if you are suggesting that the dummycrats want to take away the 1st amendment -- then you are actually stating that the democratic party is the party of conservatives? The ones afraid of changes?
You can't call it progressive if its censorship. You can call the censorship of new ideas conservative thinking, though.
I know not all republicans are conservative but precious few are moderate enough to be progressive -- unless its in the favor of business innovation like the elimination of net neutrality. But they would call themselves conservatives, because the old ways before safeguards were introduced by pesky liberals are the best ways.
You know it sucks that so many words have been corrupted. I use "right" "conservative" and "republican" when referring to the one party, because those are their almost-patented tags. And, "left" "liberal" "progressive" and "democrat" for the other party for the same reasons.
Fact is, our "left" is growing to be more fascist than anything. It insists that anything it doesn't like should be illegal.
Our Euro friends readily proclaim both of our parties to be right of center, and I won't argue with them. On their scale, I, myself, am slightly left of center, and a little north of the authoritarian line. If we actually had a left-leaning party, I might like it.
> It insists that anything it doesn't like should be illegal.
Like abortions, weed, and trans people ?The pot and the kettle have been rolling in the soot for a while.
Except, yelling at therealDT on SoylentNews is like having an argument with a ventriloquists dummy while the ventriloquist is out of the room, lol.
:-) Did you throw bricks at the TV when Howard Cosell was on, too?
Everybody washappy, the sun was shining, the water was clean. America was second to none. Until the Constitution.
So... 1787, when Native Americans still outnumbered US citizens.
That was a bad tweet. Sometimes my lawyers help with my tweets, I told them they need to be more careful!
It is an intriguing problem, but I can see it only going as far as requiring oversight to enforce existing laws. If this makes it hard for these companies to turn a profit with their social platforms, well I won't be crying about it.
Russian meddling? Well gee, as much as I dislike it myself maybe the NSA/FBI should be on top of these activities and letting the public know! Ah, but that would be tipping their hand and they want to play 17D chess. Maybe it wasn't the Russians after all, maybe it was a bunch of US shills working hard to set up a repeal / amendment to the 1st? Or to exempt "the internet" from general 1st protections?
These problems with the net aren't going away, we should work on methods to mitigate bad information. Maybe develop some algorithms / tools to get fact checking info, opposing viewpoints, etc. Obviously this can lead to the same sort of problems with carefully tailored "the opposition says XYZ" but it would still be better than a simple bubble. Encourage critical thinking, although that goes against propaganda narratives.
I would prefer these big companies simply fail or get replaced by decentralized / individual systems. It is already happening, and hopefully soon we'll simply have tools that can aggregate multiple social streams and categorize them as the USER sees fit. Fuck FB's feed that hides 80% of shit you'd really rather see. Fuck Google search that tries so hard to customize for the user that it fails hard, or is gamed by spam sites.
If any politico wants to help change the system then they should start using one of these decentralized systems instead of Twitter / FB.
I would prefer these big companies simply fail or get replaced by decentralized / individual systems. It is already happening, and hopefully soon we'll simply have tools that can aggregate multiple social streams and categorize them as the USER sees fit. Fuck FB's feed that hides 80% of shit you'd really rather see.
That won't happen. We've had decentralized systems like Diaspora for ages now, and people just aren't interested. They want to use Facebook because everyone else uses Facebook, and then they want to bitch and gripe about the way Facebook works. It's exactly the same with things like Windows 10. People whine about the forced updates and reboots and spyware, but Linux has been around for decades but they refuse to even try it. So Linux is only commonly used on servers and embedded systems, where the drooling Facebook-using masses don't have much of a say and the OS is selected by professionals.
Nah, I've seen an increase is various networks. What is missing are client tools to scrape / manage these various platforms. What we need most is a way to exfiltrate the FB data, but of course FB has made that increasingly difficult since tools were created that were better than their own. Perhaps a built in web scraper that logs in and gathers all new info on your feed?
Anyway, the shift will happen, it just takes quite a few years for tech advice to spread and people to "get it". Also helps that people are becoming savvy to FB's creepy spying.
It takes a lot to install a new operating system. Not only in figuring out what an OS is, that you even can change one, which OS to install, how to get that OS, what to do with the data on your current computer while you install a new one, how to relearn all the things you used to do, etc... You're vastly over estimating people's tech skills. People are fine using other operating systems, see people picking up random cell phones, but what they don't have time to learn is all the available choices, the domain knowledge needed to properly evaluate the pros and cons. and then the steps needed to act on all that.
Any self-hosted solutions are blocked by the majority of ISPs. After learning all about the domain, the first steps you end up taking go against your internet contract and you have to fight their blocks.
Switching my home PCs to not-Windows was relatively easy. I'm still discussing with my IT of not running Windows. They allow Linux on some PCs in R&D for specific purposes, but they don't want to switch any PCs running routine tasks away from Windows. So, despite my willingness and capability, I am denied running the OS of my choice. This is common for corporate enterprise--the users and companies may be better off with an open OS, but the IT staff are very hostile to change.
I can't speak for YOUR IT department, but MY IT department is hostile to any change, because they are incompetent. I say "they", but our own local IT department consists of one individual, who can't grasp the concept of "malware". An ad blocker is beyond his ken. Our corporate IT department is generally better educated than our local guy - but not a whole lot better. Of course, we have some real whiz kids who know their shit, but those aren't the guys we get to deal with.
Our IT policy comes from a land across the pond called "ITlandria." There are two locals that are sharp Windows admins and they admit Linux and OSX has its places, but they have no desire of seeing those OSes on their network. They are present to setup new laptops & users, re-image machines, setup company phones, maintain the building network/ISP connection, and most importantly enforce policy from the IT mothership.
Linux doesn't have a single, deep-pocketed corporation in charge of the whole OS.This is what is necessary for it to compete as a desktop OS. Plus everybody (software producers) wants to do webapps these days instead of desktopsoftware, and the OS matters little in that model, so no incentive to push a new OS. I guess Google Chromebooks is as far as you'll get with the current Linux model.
Linux doesn't have a single, deep-pocketed corporation in charge of the whole OS
Actually, if you're willing to throw money at the "problem", Red Hat or SuSE or Oracle will be glad to set you up with a service contract.
Additionally, most Windoze support is farmed out to local operations.There's no reason (especially in a city of any size) that that can't be done with Linux.
...and your premise is nonsense.The vast majority of Windoze-compatible apps aren't produced or marketed by MICROS~1.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
Parent said:"...and your premise is nonsense.The vast majority of Windoze-compatible apps aren't produced or marketed by MICROS~1."
That was never my premise nor did it follow logically from anything I said.
What people who develop software need is a development target that they can count on. You know, a standard. Web apps provide that with the browser. (Back end web services run on your platform, so what the user runs as his OS doesn't even matter for that part of the system.)
Look, Linux can't even guarantee you a GUI toolkit, nor a device driver interface that stays compatible from release to release.Linux had about 25 years to become a general purpose desktop standard, and it never did.
a device driver interface that stays compatible from release to release
Heh. Now you're just making me laugh.Backwards-compatibility with Windoze and hardware? Pffff.
I like old hardware.Never had a problem with Linux and hardware.It's always worked out of the box.
Old hardware and Windoze? Good luck with that.I got tired of that shit and moved on.
Linux had about 25 years to become a general purpose desktop standard
WFM.There are Linux deployments with thousands of seats. They're happy.There are Linux deployments with tens of thousands of seats. They're happy.There are Linux deployments with hundreds of thousands of seats. They're happy too.
Linux is available, it's gratis and libre, and it works.Don't want it? Don't use it.
Like dealing with the infection of the week^W day^W hour?Stick with Windoze.Like waiting until the 2nd Tuesday of next month for security patches?Stick with Windoze.Like spyware straight from your OS vendor?Stick with Windoze.Like defragging?Stick with Windoze.Like installs that take days?Stick with Windoze.
I found a better way.So have hundreds of millions more across the globe.
Maybe Congress could allow people to give testimony over a video link? It would save time, money, energy, and CO2.
The honeymoon will be over when people stop using these platforms. Until then Dianne Feinstein is powerless. Seriously, threaten Facebook, see how far you get. Any fine will either be paid or ignored with no change (depending on scale), and any more substantial threat will risk riots (and more importantly permanent political damage).
Feinstein gives a number of shits asymptotically approaching 0. She's not standing for re-election. She can grandstand and stomp ground and fling poo like the political silverback she is.
She knows full well that the first amendment shoves her plans into a very small, tightly constrained box, and that all the companies she grimaces at can and will pay for a legion of lawyers to smack down her little tantrums.
You are correct, I had forgotten we are almost rid of her permanently. Good riddance.
all the companies she grimaces at can and will pay for a legion of lawyers lobbyists to smack down her little tantrums.
Huh? [politico.com]? There's a bunch of articles around 2017-Oct-9 saying that she will run again.
Millenials were born into a world where these companies (and text messaging) formed their substrate of communication and information dissemination for the last decade. When they start taking office, wouldn't they consider these companies' mode of operation during their formative years as the shape of reality?
And all of us were born into a world based on electricity, cars, and modern medicine. That doesn't mean we can't think critically about those subjects.
Nothing stopping you thinkingNothing stopping fb/t/g users thinking critically. But they don't - think, or care, for those millisecond moments where the "ick" is obvious. Just move to the next post.
Then what's all the commotion about electric cars, self driving cars, and medicinal pot? Outside of your social bubble, what evidence do you have that our society thinks critically? I interpret the GP as saying, society doesn't think critically and these business models were the norm during the millennials' formative years and thus they expect this to remain the norm even if it requires maintaining contradictions or imposing ludicrous mandates. At no point during their thought process does challenging or even questioning the norm is the natural course of action. It has become the norm to question what is in your bread and where those ingredients come from because industry has done some questionable things, but questioning the use of the major internet platforms is not yet natural as their abuse is not yet apparent.
But seriously? She's running again? At what point does this approach farce? Is she trying to break some kind of record?
And politico describing her as a centrist? Holy crapweasels, she's no centrist to anyone I know. She's the poster child for hooking the democratic catfish and reeling it as far left as the voices in her head will help her get it. Bernie's maybe to her left, Warren's maybe a little to her left, but centrist? Nope.
Thank you for posting that link, I hadn't heard about Feinstein's change of plans.
I had been planing on moving out of CA early next year but now I'm going to stick around in CA till after the next election. Just so I can vote against her.
Whoever has the best chance of beating her will get my vote, I don't care if I have to vote Republican or even Nazi. Hell's I'd even vote for Hillary if she ran against Diane and looked like she could win.
All we hear about is how great free market is supposed to be. These tech companies actually have systems that implement just that: pay more to get more ad space on their platform, no meddling, just let the "market" take care of it. And somehow now it's an issue?
That's just swell... Guess what: none of those people could care less about these things. The only reason they might do something about it is when there is a public backlash against it, on a per backlash basis. As of now, only political figures care so much about it. This does not have the kind of resonance that #MeToo and other recent events have on the average internet user. To imply that this has somehow shifted the outcome of the election one way or the other is in my opinion far fetched. That would imply that people are receptive to online ads, something that most marketers are still trying to justify to their bosses.
Look at YouTube: how long did it take for them to finally half admit that relying entirely on AI to curate content was a bad idea? And yet, they are only starting to do it because people claim that they will stay away from the platform, not because the MPAA has been bitching about it.
In any case, you'd have to define "misuse" to begin with. As far as those guys are concerned the platforms work just fine, they bring in tons of money ;-). That's exactly what a social media platform is built to do: allow influencers of all kinds to have their voices heard :D
This 'free market' crap is just the kind of thing we'd expect to hear from scumbag running-dog capitalist Republican types. Instead, we have the great and honorable Democrat Dianne Feinstein rejecting that free market nonsense in favor of ... uh ... free speech restrictions ... for the people? Sorry, I kind of lost my point somewhere in there.
They moderate the content so much for the specific purpose of making money, it is not reasonable to believe it when they say they are unable to moderate the content in a way that makes it not possible to specifically display ads to people they have identified as untouchable non-gendered computer information system experts that post on an alternate news site trying to escape their influence.
if they accept money to present messages deemed illegal by any country, then...
frankly I would like the ability to censor other people from what I can see, so that they are free to talk to people that want to listen. but capitalism calls that censorship if I am not forced to endure drivel.
Here's an educational video [youtube.com] on determining whether the honeymoon is really over. I'd say this applies more to California's voting population's relationship with Feinstein, but I think a divorce video would be more in order there.
Based on how ridiculous the ads shown to the public [esquire.com] are, any influence this Russian troll farm had on the US election is hypothetical. These ads are trash. Whoever paid for them got ripped off.
Maybe some competent people could influence an election using social media in the future, but that hasn’t happened yet.
Nice try, Boris!
Based on how ridiculous the ads shown to the public are, any influence this Russian troll farm had on the US election is hypothetical. These ads are trash. Whoever paid for them got ripped off.
Except they did work. They were endlessly shared by those favoring those positions, and the comments in those shared posts indicate there was a great deal of belief in what was posted. What's more, searching for the truth about any such posts required first wading through pages of search results showing various blogs repeating the messages. They were not aimed at those to whom critical thinking is an important factor in their lives.
and were operating under 501-(c)3,4 of the tax code, they weren't breaking any laws.
If Congress wants to constrain foreign influence over domestic elections, they might start by (as an example) requiring that corporations disclose ALL foreign stock holders and employees before making campaign contributions.
Of course if they did that, they'd be disclosing that every person in the Congress has taken money from foreign sources. And they're fully aware of this, and fully aware of how to fix it. But they'd rather drop a flaming bag of shit on the first amendment, so that they can say "look aren't we wonderful", while still taking backhanders from every two bit dictator and bottle washer on the planet.
Oh they get it all right. In twenties and fifties.
...and were operating under 501-(c)3,4 of the tax code, they weren't breaking any laws.
501-(c)3 explicitly forbids political activity. [irs.gov]
...in addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Feinstein and her ilk are! God forbid people should have a "platform" without government permission!
I thought the prevailing opinion of this forum was that corporations are multinationals and as such do not care that much about the US people opinion. For example, Halliburton, when pressed, moved to Saudi Arabia. What makes Google and Facebook different?
when will these suck asses from the tech companies grow a pair and just say "fuck you, you grandstanding parasite. we don't have to do shit! why don't you go get a job, you retarded old fuck?"