It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“It’s ridiculous,” said Ann Ravel, a Democrat who served on the election commission from 2013 until this year. “We need to rethink all the exemptions for the internet because even if Facebook might not have known about the Russian advertising, they knew — and we all knew — that this was possible.”
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: seasonal
Oh yeah. Because as we all know we can always count on the fact that if 1 liberal does something that means it's fair game to apply that to every liberal leaning person on earth and treat them all the same right???
Regardless of how many other liberals might also be against it as well doesn't matter. Just ignore them and keep that generalization going. Make sure you tie Liberal with as many words like communism and fascism etc as you can and just keep that narrative going.
Good form pal. Nothing wrong with that kind of message.
originally posted by: seasonal
In this case it fits like a liberal glove. I don't like it either.
Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation
Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.
Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.
Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above. The most analogous cases are to commercial speech cases (AdChoices and Do Not Call Registry, which was upheld). Commercial speech receives less protection than political speech.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
I can't seem to find this story anywhere that isn't a right wing blog or opinion rag and a copy of the above.
Now why is that I wonder.
Ill leave it up to you all. You're so good at pointing it out continually.
Ill give you a hint it rhymes with Faye Knuse.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Well this means there would have to be certified panels of experts to confirm and prove news stories are real or fake.
What does THAT remind you of ?
Where do you think that slippery slope might lead? The repeal of the First Amendment?
It's dangerous and a stepping stone to far worse IMO.
One persons truth is another mans "Fake News". It should be up to the reader to decide.
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: mOjOm
Why yes, yes you are.
I guess I must just be missing something.