Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[GordMay]

Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee unveils plan to save the internet

Thirty years after he invented the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee has released what he calls a "roadmap to build a better web." His plan aims to halt abuse of the internet by governments, companies and individuals.
The Contract for the Web was created by Berners-Lee's World Wide Web Foundation in cooperation with representatives from governments, companies and civil society to "keep knowledge freely available," while strengthening laws, regulations and companies "to ensure pursuit of profit is not at the expense of human rights and democracy."
"If we don't act now — and act together — to prevent the web being misused by those who want to exploit, divide and undermine, we are at risk of squandering" its potential for good, Berners-Lee said in a statement released by the WWW Foundation

Contract for the Web
A global plan of action to make our online world safe and empowering for everyone.
- The web is one of the most transformative tools the world has ever seen and has changed billions of lives for the better. But a growing set of risks threaten its power as a force for good.
- The Contract for the Web is a global action plan to address these threats and to protect an open web that is safe, empowering and for everyone.
- It will guide the digital policy agendas of governments and the decisions of companies as they build tomorrow’s web technologies.
- It sets standards, rooted in human rights, for the development and implementation of new technologies, and the policies and laws we need to support them.
- It brings together the core parties shaping the future of the web — governments, companies and civic groups — around a shared set of commitments that are rooted in human rights, setting out concrete actions they and individual web users must take to build a web that works for all humanity.

See ➥ https://contractfortheweb.org/

And ➥ https://9nrane41lq4966uwmljcfggv-wpe...-the-Web-3.pdf

The world wide web is 30. Here are 8 things you should know about it
➥ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...ou-should-know

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As I said, I think FB and Google should be paying its users, not the other way around. Users are not their customers. Users are their raw material. Advertisers and influence seekers are their customers. They offer these "free" services as a way to mine your personal data, plain and simple. If it was not immensely profitable to do so, do you think they'd continue to offer "free" services? (rhetorical question of course).

I guess this is primarily where we disagree. I think you're seriously undervaluing the benefits that we've received from these companies. I'm not on Facebook; my wife is, my mom is, most of my siblings... There's about f#@k all that FB has been able to sell to my wife... yet today it reminded her that exactly 2 years ago today we started our BVI charter. Good times. How is that not a win for her? Obviously some people are swayed or influenced by FB enough... or advertisers are somehow convinced that they are, that they pay for ads. but for the most part its pennies for 1000s of views. Most people tune it out. We don't seem to be inundated with misinformation, just stuff our friends and family are up to.

I'm much more certain about Google. I've developed in Android, I've used Google maps in projects, used Google docs for work, etc. Amazing capabilities that haven't cost me or my users a dime.

Maybe we're outliers, but I don't think they owe us for the mostly banal, ineffective info they may have gleaned about us.

[GordMay]

Further to post #181:
International Data Protection Day [January 28]:
5 steps governments and companies can take to respect and protect our privacy online

To create a world where everyone can use the web freely, safely, and without fear, governments should:

1. Pass comprehensive data protection laws that hold companies accountable for how they collect and use people’s personal information.

2. Make sure those laws set out clear rights for individuals to control their personal data, including the rights of access, objection, rectification, data portability and redress.

3. Require companies to carry out regular data security and privacy impact assessments, demonstrating they’re handling people’s data in the right way.

4. Enforce the laws they pass, funding independent data protection authorities to hold companies accountable for complying with data protection and privacy laws.

5. Ensure their own practices are privacy-protective. For example, government demands for access to private communications and data should be necessary and proportionate, subject to due process and compliant with international human rights norms.

To build online trust so people are in control of their lives online and empowered with clear and meaningful choices around their data and privacy, companies should:

1. Create control panels where users can manage their data and privacy options in a quick and easily accessible place.

2. Give people the option to “port” their personal data from one service to another, in a machine-readable format.

3. Support research on how user interfaces and design patterns – like user consent agreements — influence the choices people make about their data.

4. Make it easy for people to report concerns about their data on the service, and actually address the concerns when raised in a timely way.

5. Experiment with other business models (besides targeted advertising) that strengthen data rights, respect privacy, and minimise data collection practices.

The Contract for the Web gives us a roadmap to a web where privacy is protected.

Now, it’s up to governments and companies to take action.

[RaymondR]

It is the view of the Australian government the the traditional media, and in particular the print media, is vital to the proper functioning of a liberal democracy. Much of this print media is dependent upon advertising revenue for it's ongoing commercial survival.

The traditional media have complained that whilst they are obliged to bear the cost of maintaining the news gathering infrastructure required to properly bring news to the public's attention the stream of advertising revenue which largely supported these activities has now been diverted to the benefit what are effectively two large monopolies which make no financial contribution to the collection of said news and that this is threatening their ongoing commercial viability.

or in the Australian vernacular:

Google and Facebook are bludging on us and we're going broke and it don't pass the pub test and who'll blow the whistle on the miscreant pollies when we ain't around no more.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Would somebody PLEASE tell me what political gain/agenda/whatever that companies like FB are pursuing?

As I mentioned in reply to Mike, it's not FB et al you should worry about, it's the companies/consultants they are willing to share their data with.

Ultimately, it still does roll back up to money but most illicit corporate actions do.

Whether they do it directly or act as an intermediary it has the same impact.

If a mob boss sends out his goons to off someone, the mob boss and the goons are both still guilty.

[Lexi22]

This might be the end of an era - until smart phones are powerful enough to do everything that the servers of the social media companies can do.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Search tools are definitely a good thing. But my understanding (which could be wrong) is that this new Australian law isn't about limiting searches, it's about demanding that Google & FB pay for the material they take and put into their own specific news services.

Just out of curiosity, are Google and FB members of the AP, Reuters, etc...

Repackaging the news is not a new issue. They just do it faster and to a greater degree.

Is this just an issue of the membership/pricing structure?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Facebook isn't the Internet; it's an interface to the Internet that many many people prefer to use.

Companies like FB and Google are profiting (immensely) from innovations they brought to the party. Maybe it's time to see if they are actually engaging in monopolistic behaviours. If yes, that's a problem. But I don't think there should be penalties for innovating, for being the best at what you do. If countries decide to bust up Facebook or otherwise penalize their current activities... should every user of FB instead have to sign up and pay say $4.95 a month? No more free Google Earth? An extra $75 on your cellphone price to pay for the Android OS?

The Internet is still a very young field. The right choice was made near the start - to use a light hand, to keep it open as possible, to let inventors and entrepreneurs try things. This is why it's grown as fast as it has. It's still growing, and there is still the possibility that a newer and better thing will kick FB to the curb. Anyone remember MySpace? Blogspot?

Ma Bell isn't communications; it's a means of communications that many people preferred to use.

Before they broke them up, you still had the option of sending a paper letter, a telegram (though that might still use Ma Bell's system) or using a messenger service. Heck you could get in your car drive across town and talk to someone...lots of communications options.

I mean when people tell you they are looking something up by stating your corporate name, it's clearly past time to question if they are a monopoly.

Other than finding new ways to lock down their monopoly, it's been a long time since either of the big dogs have been particularly innovative. They mostly buy out new innovative companies that might challenge them...classic monopolistic tactic.

I'm not suggesting operating with a heavy hand is the best option but it's pretty clear Google has tossed out their corporate motto of "don't be evil"

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Just out of curiosity, are Google and FB members of the AP, Reuters, etc...

Repackaging the news is not a new issue. They just do it faster and to a greater degree.

Is this just an issue of the membership/pricing structure?

I don't know, but we could find out I'm sure. I kinda doubt it since, traditionally anyway, membership in a wire service means you both took stories from the service AND contributed back to the service.

Google and FB only takes.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I guess this is primarily where we disagree. I think you're seriously undervaluing the benefits that we've received from these companies. I'm not on Facebook; my wife is, my mom is, most of my siblings... There's about f#@k all that FB has been able to sell to my wife... yet today it reminded her that exactly 2 years ago today we started our BVI charter. Good times. How is that not a win for her? Obviously some people are swayed or influenced by FB enough... or advertisers are somehow convinced that they are, that they pay for ads. but for the most part its pennies for 1000s of views. Most people tune it out. We don't seem to be inundated with misinformation, just stuff our friends and family are up to.

I'm much more certain about Google. I've developed in Android, I've used Google maps in projects, used Google docs for work, etc. Amazing capabilities that haven't cost me or my users a dime.

Maybe we're outliers, but I don't think they owe us for the mostly banal, ineffective info they may have gleaned about us.

To this I'll just say that everyone believes they are not influenced by advertising and marketing. But advertisers, marketers and more importantly economic and psychological researchers know this isn't true. And Facebook and Google especially know this.

As with and broad statistical fact, there are always outliers. You and your wife may well be one. You're obviously media savvy. In my case, I know I'm susceptible, so I just avoid taking their lures as much as possible.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by Chotu

There should be no change in section 230.

The change should be made at the education level.

I agree with you there

Originally Posted by Chotu

These falsehoods have taken root because people are not savvy enough to separate fact from fiction.

and here

Originally Posted by Chotu

We are churning out generations of dopes. Maybe it’s time to teach critical thinking and analysis to people from a young age.

In my experience its the older (meaning probably 60+) folks who don't have a grasp that anyone can say anything without a soupçon of truth in it and just because there's a youtube video doesn't mean its fact.

Case in point, my mid-70's wingman who went from pretty smart guy (career airline pilot and chief instructor brand D airline and brand B aircraft) to not only questioning the moon landings, 9/11, COVID, believing qanon and anything on hannity and infowars to, and I kid you not, wondering if the earth was really flat and we were all being lied to. All because of a constant diet of crap on the 'net and the lack of ability to critically assess it.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Interesting stuff. I see valid arguments on both sides of this issue.

But I keep coming back to one observation. It's not the "free speech" aspect that's at the core of the problem. There have always been crazy ideas, and there has always been a way to air them in public. And some crazy ideas raise valid issues.

What's changed is that the algorithms so-called social media companies use amplify the craziest and most salacious speech, and de-emphasize the true, but less emotionally charged, speech. Basically, the algorithms are specifically designed to rile people up, to get them angry, and to push them away from reality-based speech.

The tech companies have a euphemism for that. They call it "engagement." And it's highly profitable for them.

its not really deliberately riling people up, but what it is is delivering content that the algorithm thinks you want to see.

So, you click once on some nonsense infowars/hannity bovine excrement and from then on you get fed more of that, you click on more of it, it gets upranked more for you and so on.

It creates an echo chamber where all you see is one side of things.

[Wotname]

There is more to the story than the Australian government going into bat for the embattled print media.

Why is it the Aussie government and not say the poms (UK), or the yanks (USA) or any of the other first world governments? Why is David taking on Goliath?

The answer my friends - because it is politically expedient (in oz) for the incumbents to act right now.

Unlike most other first world countries, Australia has only one major commercial print media outlet. Protect that owner and the donations (and votes?) flow accordingly. Currently the said major print outlet (Murdoch) is friendly to the incumbent bloke, so it is mutually advantageous to shore up the friendship.

Plus it is great optics, the little Ozzie battler (PM) taking on multinational giants (FB) - "onya matey, y'll get my vote"

Make no mistake, if the wind blew the other way...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don't know, but we could find out I'm sure. I kinda doubt it since, traditionally anyway, membership in a wire service means you both took stories from the service AND contributed back to the service.

Google and FB only takes.

I'm sure in the good old days, most of your small town papers only took (even if in principal, they are supposed to contribute occasionally).

It might be time to consider updates to copyright laws as they relate to reposting news stories. It's pretty loosey goosey but the rules were put up in a time when it would have been difficult and time consuming to retrieve someone else's paper, read it, find stories you are interested plagiarizing (within copy right rules), then you have to have someone retype it, get it to the printer...blah blah blah...it might be 2-3 days for a big city paper to get out. It might be a week or two for a small town paper. By the time they did, it was no longer news and no one cared. If you wanted current news, there was a significant benefit to the user in going to the source (or an AP affiliate which had advance access)

With the internet and automated indexing, it might be a matter of seconds from the time a story is posted until it's on the google news feed.

If Google was limited to the headline and the first paragraph, it would create two options:
- The reader might then click the link going to the source. At that point the source could monetize it. This would drive readers to the news outlets site which most would consider a positive.
- Or Google could pay for AP access and post the entire story. Then the AP would set up a pricing structure to compensate the story originators. This would reward news outlets that generate stories.

It might use a time frame to switch from the old to new way.
- Stories less than 2 weeks old, Google (or any other news feed service) is limited to just the title and first paragraph.
- After 2 weeks the old copy right rules are back in play as it's no longer really "news" but historical information.

PS: This is an excellent example of where FB and Google have a political agenda to push forward. If these changes would eat into their profit margins, they have a strong incentive to herd their users into a position where they discourage their elected officials from implementing this type of legal change.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

To this I'll just say that everyone believes they are not influenced by advertising and marketing. But advertisers, marketers and more importantly economic and psychological researchers know this isn't true. And Facebook and Google especially know this.

You seem to be implying that all advertising is bad, or one-sided.

If I'm in the market for a new car, I don't mind seeing new car ads. If I bought a car magazine, I'd expect to see car- and car-related ads. When I'm reading some professional technical magazine or website, I expect to see related ads; in fact it's useful for keeping up to date in the field.

When I browse CF, I don't mind ads for anchors or watermakers. I do mind ads for utterly unrelated stuff... and this is my biggest issue with online advertising. When you read a sailing magazine, you won't likely get an ad for used cars or earwax remover (gaaaah ), but on the internet, there's often very little curation of ads to match the OBVIOUS subject preference of someone on a sailing site... but I digress...

Ads are often useful input when a person is comparison-shopping. Their pitches land more successfully with people who are in-market. It's rare that an ad pushes someone into a purchase they haven't already contemplated.

Now, I'm old, a cheapskate, jaded, been around the block (I'm a sailor, in other words ). I'm hard to sell to. I fear more for younger people who are social-media junkies who might be getting the wrong lifestyle messages... but that is often more to do with their peers and the media they consume, than the ads they get.