The brain worm is up to something…
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sues Meta, citing chatbot’s reply as evidence of shadowban
Submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 5 months ago
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 months ago
sebinspace@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
greentreerainfire@kbin.social 5 months ago
sebinspace@lemmy.world 5 months ago
My brother in christ that is a pokemon
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 months ago
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise. Only government.
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly to basically mean “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.” How these people running for office don’t get the first amendment is amazing.
Buttons@programming.dev 5 months ago
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly
Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.
If I say “people should have a right to healthcare”, and you respond “people do not have a legal right to healthcare”, you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.
In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with “well, that law doesn’t require that”. Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we’re talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Okay, but you don’t win lawsuits based on how the law ought to be
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s lovely, and I appreciate the sentiment. It doesn’t change the fact that someone abuses the term in order to force others to listen to BS. I’m not opposed to the ideal, I am opposed to the expectation that people have a right to make you listen to them.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The thing is people shouldnt have that level of “freedom of speech”
No one is above reproach.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 months ago
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.
And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the “marketplace of ideas” while others are silenced.
“I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”
Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.
Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their “recommended” list a few times, and you’ll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.
But there’s a wide swath of content you won’t see, either because YouTube’s algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn’t maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you’re not spending enough money to boost visibility.
This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.
RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that’s not why he’s struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yeah. That’s also a problem. But then you have to upend corporate ownership of the control of speech, and we’re already facing that problem.
BigTrout75@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Really don’t need to hear anything coming from this guy. It’s always batshit crazy and it’s a waste of time.
Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
I remember seeing be was a guest on Rogan and thinking, “Oh, wow. I guess I’ll listen to Rogan again this one time to hear a Kennedy talking.”
Turns out it was right on fucking brand for Rogan.
BigTrout75@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Ha ha ha
jeffw@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s always hilarious to read and worth a laugh imo
_lilith@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Man talking to himself accuses company of action they are allowed to perform
Fapper_McFapper@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Correction, a man and his brain worm are having a conversation and accusing a company of action they are allowed to perform.
gregorum@lemm.ee 5 months ago
So what? How does he think Meta is liable for anything here?
proper@lemmy.world 5 months ago
it’s gotta be posturing for his base “lone hero stands up to big tech”
donuts@kbin.social 5 months ago
He lets the worm do the thinking.
jeffw@lemmy.world 5 months ago
They’re oppressing him! The chatbot said so!!
Mango@lemmy.world 5 months ago
So, what do we do about the fact that major social media outlets are the only effective means of mass communication? Why should they get to pick and choose our leadership?
Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 months ago
They’re not.
Stop with your complete bullshit you utter doughnut.
drmoose@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Shadow banning is definitely too much imo. It’s simply unethical no matter how you look at it.
First, it doesn’t do anything to prevent bots. It takes less than a second for a bot to check whether they are shadow banned. It’s simply a tool to bully and gaslight people - just block them. Why these abusive games?
Sabata11792@kbin.social 5 months ago
You can't get elected without big tech bribes, and he just bit the hand that feeds.
jeffw@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway
ours@lemmy.world 5 months ago
He’ll never recover after the death of his running mate: VP Brain Worm.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Let them fight. I want a discovery on this
jeffw@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’m betting this gets dismissed before discovery
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
The whole problem with shadowbans is that they are not very easy to prove (without cooperation from Meta). One can be shadowbanned from one area (by geolocation), but not from another. One can be shadowbanned for some users but not for other. The decisions here can be made based on any kind of data and frankly Meta has a lot to make it efficient and yet hard to prove.
Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing, first, and second, some of the arguments against him from the article are negligible.
I just don’t get you people hating him more than the two main candidates. It seems being a murderer is a lesser problem than being a nutcase for you.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing
I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.
Buttons@programming.dev 5 months ago
A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say “I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare”; if you respond “no, there is no right to healthcare” you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about someone and ban them; make it clear what you are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don’t apply to companies performing shadowbans.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
I bet you think this reply was sharp-minded and on spot and something else.
teft@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted. Similar to vote obfuscation. It wastes bot’s time so it’s a good thing.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted
I have not seen anything to support the theory that shadowbans reduce the number of bots on a platform. If anything, a sophisticated account run by professional engagement farmers is going to know it’s been shadowbanned - and know how to mitigate the ban - more easily than an amateur publisher producing sincere content. The latter is far more likely to run afoul of an difficult-to-detect ban than the former.
It wastes bot’s time
A bot has far more time to waste than a human. So this technique is biased against humans, rather than bots.
If you want to discourage bots, put public metrics behind a captcha. That’s far more effective than undermining visibility in a way only a professional would notice.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
It wastes shadowbanned person’s time, so it’s not.
Similar to vote obfuscation.
Which sucks just as badly.
kava@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I’ve seen reddit accounts who regularly posted comments for months all at +1 vote and never received any response or reply at all because nobody had ever seen their comments. They got hit with some automod shadowban they were yelling into the void, likely wondering why nobody ever felt they deserved to be heard.
I find this unsettling and unethical. I think people have a right to be heard and deceiving people like this feels wrong.
There are other methods to deal with spam that aren’t potentially harmful.
There’s also an entirely different discussion about shadowbans being a way to silence specific forms of speech. Today it may be crazies or hateful speech, but it can easily be any subversive speech should the administration change.
I agree with other commenter, it probably shouldn’t be allowed.
CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 5 months ago
You think hes better than Biden? Why?
ricdeh@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Because he thinks of him as a murderer?
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Because I can gather a pretty believable list of pros and cons for him as a person, which make sense together and didn’t change too sharply. Not the case with Biden.
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 5 months ago
Why should shadow bans be illegal?
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Because a good person would never need those. If you want to have shadowbans on your platform, you are not a good one.
A bit like animal protection, while animals can’t have rights balanced by obligations, you would want to keep people cruel to animals somewhere where you are not.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing
I mean, regional coding makes sense from a language perspective. I don’t really want to see a bunch of foreign language recommendations on my feed, unless I’m explicitly searching for content in that language.
But I do agree there’s a lack of transparency. And I further agree that The Algorithm creates a rarified collection of “popular” content entirely by way of excluding so much else. The end result is a very generic stream of crap in the main feed and some truly freaky gamed content that’s entirely focused on click-baiting children. Incidentally, jesus fucking christ whomever is responsible for promoting “unboxing” videos should be beaten to death with a flaming bag of nalpam.
None of this is socially desirable or good, but it all appears to be incredibly profitable. Its a social media environment that’s converged on “Oops! All Ads!” and is steadily making its way to “Oops! All scams!” as the content gets worse and worse and worse.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Yes, thank you for explaining the same thing politely, I had a slight hangover yesterday.
The problem is with unneeded people making unneeded decisions for you anonymously (for them), centrally and obviously with no transparency.
The advantages of the Internet as it came into existence for us were disadvantages for some people. Trapping people inside social media with one entry point and having the actual communication there allows for control which the initial architecture was intended to make hard.
Furbag@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
Muffi@programming.dev 5 months ago
Private companies should not be able to do whatever the fuck they like. They have a very important responsibility, and they will not consider ethics over profit, unless we as a society force them to.
Furbag@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Okay sure, but there’s nothing on the books that says that meta has to allow people to use their platform. You are not entitled to unlimited access to a private service.
Ever single person from RFK and Donald Trump to you and me all sign the exact same fucking EULA and TOS when you register for an account. Stop holding these people above the law by pretending that the rules shouldn’t apply to them.
Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 months ago
He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.
jeffw@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Sadly, that’s not the only conspiracy he’s into
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yea which is crazy. I don’t agree with him but I like him. Something about him. Makes me really engaged him more and had better discussions. I’d love to see him chat with Steve Novella or someone like that.
In all of this it has be disheartening to see how has a voice today and who doesn’t even if the people with the megaphone say they’re being silenced
Nobody@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Does everyone hate Bobby Kennedy so much that they’ll side with Facebook and Zuckerberg over a career environmental attorney running for president?
vividspecter@lemm.ee 5 months ago
He’s an unhinged anti-vaxxer and all around conspiracy theorist. Summarizing him as an environmental lawyer is being real generous.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
“Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:
“Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.
“Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.
“Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.
“Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”
Biased and selective comparisons can prove anything.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
That’s true. I’d pick that over thieves and murderers any time though. Especially as a politician to vote for.
PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power. I can see his conspiracy theories appealing to the Q type, but most of them are going to go for Trump. He’s polling this highly because he’s an unknown. As more people start paying attention to who he actually is, he will be the Herman Cain of the race.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power.
I’d trust a person openly mad more than a person still likely mad.
He actually had (much smaller) power from time to time in his career, and after becoming as he is now too. He did better with it than many people would.
Nobody@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Would you agree that Bobby Kennedy would draw more voters from Trump as it stands?
A “conspiracy theorist” is rejected on the left until government-sanctioned evidence is provided. The right doesn’t have that constraint.
PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy’s documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy’s candidacy. This allegedly has caused “substantial donation losses,” while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film’s production company, AV24.
In this case, Meta and the Biden administration are claimed to be co-conspirators colluding to block citizens from promoting their favorite presidential candidate.
We can very much dislike both while also agreeing that this is fucking stupid. While we continue to very much dislike both, one is clearly in the wrong on this issue and pointing out the sheer stupidity of Kennedy’s actions is not “siding” with Zuckerberg.
I don’t care what his profession is/was - he’s wrong and it would be disingenuous to give him a pass because he did a thing at some point in his life that I agreed with.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
The second quote is stupid, but acceptable in a contentious environment. He can say that.
The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it’s convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious. It would take Meta to go out of their way to not do that.
glouriousgouda@lemmy.myserv.one 5 months ago
I don’t think anyone “hates” him. He’s just an absurd human that no one takes seriously. And we all agree we have much more dire things to discuss than what rich white people are calling managers about now.
djsoren19@yiffit.net 5 months ago
Nah he’s great. He should take the rest of those brain worms, I think the worms should be in charge!
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Worms/Kennedy 2024!
Sorgan71@lemmy.world 5 months ago
bro he looks like the heavens gate guy
Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Real life Connor Roy soldiers bravely on.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Not the onion.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 months ago
The corpos are way too ban happy
MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 5 months ago
On the one hand, I hope he loses.
On the other hand, I hope Meta also loses.
Something tells me we are the ones who lose.
Snapz@lemmy.world 5 months ago
And on the brain… Worms!
breakingcups@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Regardless, the lawyers win.
neidu2@feddit.nl 5 months ago
And for 9nce I’m OK with that
SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 5 months ago
“When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”
RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I am the one who walks away from Omelas.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I can’t see how Meta could lose. 1 unreliable information, and 2 they can deny access to anyone they want if they are a private company last I knew.