politics

19103 readers

3377 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

375

Facebook rules allow altered video casting Biden as paedophile, says board (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Meta’s oversight board has found that a Facebook video wrongfully suggesting that the US president, Joe Biden, is a paedophile does not violate the company’s current rules while deeming those rules “incoherent” and too narrowly focused on AI-generated content.

The board, which is funded by Meta – Facebook’s parent company – but run independently, took on the Biden video case in October in response to a user complaint about an altered seven-second video of the president. Mark Zuckerberg at a Senate judiciary committee hearing at the US Capitol in Washington DC

It ruled that Meta was right to leave the video up under its current policy, which bars misleadingly altered videos only if they were produced by artificial intelligence or if they make people appear to say words they never actually said.

But the ruling is the first to critique Meta’s policy on “manipulated media” amid rising concerns about the potential use of new AI technologies to sway elections this year.

It said the policy “is lacking in persuasive justification, is incoherent and confusing to users, and fails to clearly specify the harms it is seeking to prevent”. It suggested Meta update it to cover both audio and video content and to apply labels identifying it as manipulated regardless of whether AI was used.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Can Biden sue not Meta but this exact advertiser for defamation? Or would the lawsuit itself be damaging for his reputation?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I personally believe it's more damaging to not go after people for those types of claims in one way or another, assuming you can go after them. A lie that spreads far and wide enough to enough ears will eventually become truth once the majority of the public tout it as truth.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The Streisand Effect is also a concern, though. How many people will be aware of the video if he does nothing vs how many people will be aware of the video if he retaliates. We also know that a significant chunk of the population will believe he's a pedophile regardless of what he does or how a court rules if they know about the video.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

The thing about the Streisand effect is that Barbara Streisand actually exists, so the only way for her to succeed was for her to stay out of the media entirely. There also wasn't a whole industry dedicated to making people think about her.

With defamation against Biden, it's foolish to think we can stop lies from spreading just by ignoring them, but what can be done is to debunk them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Probably. But at the same time if you can shrug it of safely it may be better than being in news arguing that you are not a pedo.