In the dim corner, we have Trump! In the dictator corner, we have Kim! Or is that mixed up?

[TheClaws]

....aand we're expecting a dirty, unfair fight.

Old thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3015872-Trump-yes-we-have-no-Steve-Bannon

Reading back, I see that Pain had already mentioned it.

I can't quite figure out McCain.

I suspect that McCain is a fan of 'due process'. He likely wants a repeal - but not in the way the GOP were planning to do it. Not without genuine dialogue aimed at fixing the problems.

I also don't think McConnell will say anything in public at the moment. He was hurt very badly by the last failure. It doesn't mean that the phone lines aren't red hot.

I guess we have to see what is proposed.

lion To continue with the Facebook theme, some questions that might be helpful in being answered by zuckerburg (in form of a twitter thread)

mobile.twitter.com/profcarroll/status/905524719914549249

It's all informal talks atm (Damocles sword stuff I think) and Meadows wouldn't be an improvement but I'd still relish him being booted out fuck, seem to have bought into the reality show format of this White House

Bannon, Meadows talk possible replacement for Ryan: report

thehill.com/homenews/house/349565-bannon-meadows-talk-possible-replacement-for-ryan-report?amp

Definitely all above board

Pé Resists @4everNeverTrump
Secretary Ben Carson, who knows nothing about urban housing, to decide if Trump makes $34 million from HUD property

<a class="break-all" href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/nyregion/starrett-city-housing-complex-trump-sale.html?referer=t.co/UOKBbWuein?amp=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/nyregion/starrett-city-housing-complex-trump-sale.html?referer=t.co/UOKBbWuein?amp=1

DemWrite 🇺🇸
DemWrite 🇺🇸 @DemWrite
Replying to @4everNeverTrump
Is this the same HUD region overseen by the Trump family wedding planner?

Pé Resists @4everNeverTrump
Replying to @4everNeverTrump
Yes, I believe so. The corruption is out of this world.

On your hill article about Facebook a it was updated an hour ago and I think it was to include this (but I could be mistaken as I didn't read it earlier this evening)

Reuters reported later on Wednesday that the information had also been turned over to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump confuses siskind

www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens

Russians Flock to Trump Properties to Give Birth to U.S. Citizens

While Trump rails against U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, his Florida properties have become a playground for birth tourists from Russia’s upper crust. The Daily Beast has discovered several companies are advertising rentals in Trump properties to expectant Russian parents. While the Trump Organization does not directly profit from subleases of privately owned condos, it does benefit from Russian patronage of the nearby Trump International Beach Resort. (The Trump Organization did not return requests comment.)

David Carroll has some interesting stuff on that thread. I couldn't find it to link to, but I thought this Flynn-related tweet was interesting (pic). The whole thing is starting to come together and look as dodgy as f*.

THis is a worthwhile read - it reexamines the Steele dossier and it connects it all together

A Second Look at the Steele Dossier—Knowing What We Know Now | Just Security

www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

Maddow segment on Facebook

Reversing denials, Facebook admits Russia-tied election ad buy www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/reversing-denials-facebook-admits-russia-tied-election-ad-buy-1041024579957

Facebook's admission now on the BBC, too (for some reason I can't watch MSNBC on this device):

Facebook uncovers Russia-funded misinformation campaign
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41182519

That look back at the Steele dossier is very interesting Pain. It increasingly seems like he was spot on with his info. I think Buzzfeed secured a place in the history books by releasing it, that's for sure.

From the BBC story:

The company said $100,000 (£77,000) was spent on about 3,000 ads over a two-year period, ending in May 2017.
The ads did not back any political figures specifically, but instead posted on topics including immigration, race and equal rights.
...
“The ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum,” the company said in a blog post published on Wednesday.
The company said it believed, but could not independently confirm, that the accounts were created by the so-called Internet Research Agency, a St Petersburg-based group known for posting pro-Kremlin messages on social media.

I don't think I can be too critical of FB. They're a social medium, not an Election Commission.
It looks like a fairly deep investigation was needed to get to the sources as Russian and the ads weren't obviously party political.

I think it's good they're collaborating with the FBI.
Now, I'm more surprised that intelligence agencies didn't spot these sort of interventions during the election or looked for them. And FB should be called to responsibility if they refused to cooperate earlier (don't have the time to listen to Maddow).

Completely agree that FB aren't an Election Commission and don't have the responsibilities that go with that.

There are some very interesting questions about responsibility and ethics in media that the social media companies have been dodging for a while.

Facebook for a while had human editors curating its news feeds. Then they removed these and replaced them with "an algorithm" - supposedly because this would remove human bias, IIRC.

What it actually did was open Facebook up to MORE human bias... by anyone with the know-how and bot-capacity to game the algorithm.

So (comparatively) transparent gatekeeping by identifiable humans at FB was replaced by covert gatekeeping by actors unknown.

Swampy.

thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/349490-gop-leaders-prevent-votes-to-ban-federal-spending-at-trump

Facebook still use a lot of human moderators. I remember reading they hired 3000 more in May after a rise in violent videos being posted. Even so it is a pebble against a tsunami when you consider the 300mil photos uploaded each day. The fact is no human moderators are ever going to be able to check everything and not miss stuff. When the individual posts are not a huge issue alone, but you are looking at connections between different posts and where they are coming from that is an even harder job.

I do think that part of the conversation around social media has to be us deciding what we want. Do we want our social media locked down and heavily censored or do we want it more open? We are incredibly conflicted about this and often it comes down to quite fine nuance. We don't want pornographic pictures of women's breasts, but we do want artistic pictures or maternal pictures to be allowed. We don't want to allow abuse, but we also don't want to censor every instance of a slightly naughty word or line pushing joke.

This can be a very fine line and hard to police. If we want to be sure to avoid anything unpleasant happening in social media we will have to accept restrictions on performance and what we can put up that go with that. If we want to have something that allows dissenting voices and nuance we are going to have to accept that this is hard to moderate and unpleasantness will slip through the net.

I am not saying I think social media couldn't do better then they are. I really think they could and should work harder on this. However, we also need to be realistic in our expectations and think through what we are asking for.

i appreciate it's anonymously sourced but from this article:

gizmodo.com/facebooks-fight-against-fake-news-was-undercut-by-fear-1788808204?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gizmodo_twitter

“They absolutely have the tools to shut down fake news,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous citing fear of retribution from the company. The source added, “there was a lot of fear about upsetting conservatives after Trending Topics,” and that “a lot of product decisions got caught up in that.”

If this was the case, then I think they should take some of the flack but I agree that they are a private business and aren't a journalistic body or a political institution.

This is some good background on Cambridge Analytica

narativ.org/2017/09/05/psychological-warfare-cambridge-analytica/amp/

Also, this doesn't sound like they were trying to combat it (unless it's one of those "hire the best hackers and use them for good" type operations):

theintercept.com/2017/03/30/facebook-failed-to-protect-30-million-users-from-having-their-data-harvested-by-trump-campaign-affiliate/

Caroline O.‏ @RVAwonk O.
Oh btw: The guy who harvested data on 30 mil unwitting Facebook users on behalf of Cambridge Analytica? Hired by FB.

Oh, I absolutely agree Pain that they are not doing enough and could do more, but the issue with fear of come back from conservatives sort of highlights what I was saying in that it is more than just a technical issue. It is a political problem for social media in that while everyone from all sides will say they are not doing enough there is not consensus on what exactly they should be removing.

It is easy to say they should remove fake news, but when they know doing that will mean flack from the current ruling party I can understand why they may hesitate. There is often a grey area around some items of fake news and also around what constitutes calls to violence or abuse, which can become a minefield for the people charged with making a decision. The fact is they are not going to come up with something that pleases everyone and it is no surprise to me they are therefore putting off really tackling the issues.

I also wonder if it is right that we are asking a private company to make the decision about what should or should not be said. I am not sure what the solution is here, but I find myself uncomfortable with the increasing push to get social media companies to effectively define what we should be allowed to say online.

BiglyBadgers, I agree with every word of your last two posts.

Which I appreciate isn't very constructive, as I'm basically joining you in going, "Hmm, hard."

A while back Facebook were, IIRC, denying they were a "news organization" - while providing a newsfeed onto people's pages. They've now begun to contemplate the fact that they are, in fact a news organization, and that there might be a reason old-fashioned news organizations (most also private companies) have codes of ethics.

There's a major change from the previous structure. It used to be that news organizations broadcast, and readers/watchers discussed it in the pub.

Now readers/watchers bring their discussion back onto the comments page of the online paper, onto their "personal space" at Facebook, or onto a social network like MN. Instead of carrying out their free speech in the pub, everyone's publishing, and using other people's platforms to do so, in a way they couldn't previously do (they could write a letter to the editor, who'd decline to publish on "grounds of space"...).

So the landscape in which we exercise free speech is completely different from 20 years ago. We haven't yet caught up with new maps.

Yes I'd agree with all of that bigly.

There was/is probably some fairly low hanging fruit that could've been dealt with but is a hugely complex issue and one that needs careful consideration.