Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Google and others agree to new EU rules to fight disinformation

[silversurfer]

Content source

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23168987/eu-code-disinformation-online-propaganda-facebook-twitter-tiktok

Tech companies operating some of the world’s biggest online platforms — including Facebook-owner Meta, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Twitch, and TikTok — have signed up to a new EU rulebook for tackling online disinformation.

These firms and others will have to make greater efforts to halt the spread of fake news and propaganda on their platforms, as well as share more granular data on their work with EU member states. Announcing the new “Code of Practice on disinformation,” the European Commission said that the guidelines had been shaped particularly by “lessons learnt from the COVID19 crisis and Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.”

“This new anti-disinformation Code comes at a time when Russia is weaponising disinformation as part of its military aggression against Ukraine, but also when we see attacks on democracy more broadly,” said the Commission’s vice president for values and transparency, Věra Jourová, in a press statement.

The code itself contains 44 specific “commitments” for companies that target an array of potential harms from disinformation. These include commitments to:

• create searchable libraries for political adverts
• demonetize fake news sites by removing their advertising revenue
• reduce the number of bot networks and fake accounts used to spread disinformation
• give users tools to flag disinformation and access “authoritative sources”
• give researchers “better and wider access to platforms’ data”
• work closely with independent fact-checkers to verify information sources

Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Google and others agree to new EU rules to fight disinformation

The EU is forcing big tech to battle disinformation

www.theverge.com

 

[SumTingWong]

censorship

 

[ScandinavianFish]

censorship

How is it censorship when its all about "censoring" fake news? Here in Sweden we are litteraly creating an cyberdivison specifically to counter disinformation from Russia, China and Iran, theres overwhelming evidence that rogue states use social media to spread disinformation, a lot like how statistics show Russia is responsible for 60% of all cyberattacks.

So called "Free Speech" cant be used in arguments against actions to combat this kind of stuff when in the end its all about your own opinion and worldview about something. Like any conspiracy theorist its all about rejecting anything that doesnt conform to your narrative and political ideology, no matter how much evidence to the contrary are shown, especially when it comes to scientific statements like during COVID. People want to feel special, like they are somehow brave by speaking against current establishment.

Though obviously if the disinformation favours Russia then it isnt surprising people will defend it.

 

[malis2007]

How is it censorship when its all about "censoring" fake news? Here in Sweden we are litteraly creating an cyberdivison specifically to counter disinformation from Russia, China and Iran, theres overwhelming evidence that rogue states use social media to spread disinformation, a lot like how statistics show Russia is responsible for 60% of all cyberattacks.

It is still censorship, who determines said "fake" news or "rogue" states? You don't seem to recognise that said views could be applied in both sides? (E.g. china could consider US as a rogue state because it is recent and built upon injustice) it is like kettle calling pot black which applies to both sides.. as for an example in regards to fake news, there are many in both sides you just have to dig deeper and have broader access to information, which is sadly being restricted slowly with the recent events in ukraine(e.g. rus news sites are blocked and common folks in eu will have to use a vpn from middle east(or elsewhere) to access said sites)
Censorship in general is bad when it is related to politics, but i don't mind a family friendly censorship that will block sexual content access to my children
As for "fake" news or info, the only legitimate way to solve it is with an opposing evidence, and that should be the commonly agreeable solution instead of the "trust your government blindly/we won't provide any comment in this matter/you can't see this" type of solution

 

[ScandinavianFish]

It is still censorship, who determines said "fake" news or "rogue" states? You don't seem to recognise that said views could be applied in both sides? (E.g. china could consider US as a rogue state because it is recent and built upon injustice) it is like kettle calling pot black which applies to both sides.. as for an example in regards to fake news, there are many in both sides you just have to dig deeper and have broader access to information, which is sadly being restricted slowly with the recent events in ukraine(e.g. rus news sites are blocked and common folks in eu will have to use a vpn from middle east(or elsewhere) to access said sites)
Censorship in general is bad when it is related to politics, but i don't mind a family friendly censorship that will block sexual content access to my children
As for "fake" news or info, the only legitimate way to solve it is with an opposing evidence, and that should be the commonly agreeable solution instead of the "trust your government blindly/we won't provide any comment in this matter" type of solution

Until theres evidence that theres censorship of actual legit news I see no problem with this kind of "censorship".

Researchers can easily tell where disinformation comes from, and its yet to be proven the US government is part of it, though it wouldnt be surprising if some of it originates from the US, seeing their past history with the Equation group and Stuxnet and how the political right use fake news to their advantage to gain power (January 6th).

Personally, I only trust the scientific community if most of them agree with something, I ignore any "news" from Social Media as its not worth my time to do deeper research on stories originating from social media

 

[ForgottenSeer 77194]

It is still censorship, who determines said "fake" news or "rogue" states? You don't seem to recognise that said views could be applied in both sides? (E.g. china could consider US as a rogue state because it is recent and built upon injustice) it is like kettle calling pot black which applies to both sides.. as for an example in regards to fake news, there are many in both sides you just have to dig deeper and have broader access to information, which is sadly being restricted slowly with the recent events in ukraine(e.g. rus news sites are blocked and common folks in eu will have to use a vpn from middle east(or elsewhere) to access said sites)
Censorship in general is bad when it is related to politics, but i don't mind a family friendly censorship that will block sexual content access to my children
As for "fake" news or info, the only legitimate way to solve it is with an opposing evidence, and that should be the commonly agreeable solution instead of the "trust your government blindly/we won't provide any comment in this matter/you can't see this" type of solution

Disinformation is a huge problem and i believe if a solution is implemented correctly, it will be a good thing.
By correctly I mean the cooperation with "fact-checkers", which will provide evidence and open access to information which proves something wrong.
It could be implemented as a flag or link under the post. The thing is it should also provide transparency and the ability for someone to appeal the "flag" as "wrong" by providing counter-evidence. The thing is both of the facts and the appeal with counter-evidence must be accessible for the public to see without alteration.

 

[TairikuOkami]

By correctly I mean the cooperation with "fact-checkers", which will provide evidence and open access to information which proves something wrong.

I had many comments removed by fact-checkers, which proved to a fact just a month later. FB itself announced, that fact checker googles the information and decides, whether it is a fact based on 5 min search. The most "funny" disinformation was something to be a disinformation by my government in the morning and announced as a fact by the government itself in the afternoon.

 

[ForgottenSeer 77194]

This raises an interesting question about who checks the "fact-checkers"

 

[ScandinavianFish]

I had many comments removed by fact-checkers, which proved to a fact just a month later. FB itself announced, that fact checker googles the information and decides, whether it is a fact based on 5 min search. The most "funny" disinformation was something to be a disinformation by my government in the morning and announced as a fact by the government itself in the afternoon.

Source on that disinformation by your government?

 

[Wontkins]

The mainstream media and the social media giants pushing certain agendas is a big part of the problem. One side only or get off the highway. One can get banned for an opinion that goes against the grain of the social media giants. Better get with the program or it will be labeled disinformation and you will be called a traitor for having a differing opinion and spreading what they determine to be fake news. The so called "independent" fact-checkers they say they will be working with, that's a laugh.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Social media is a cesspool of bad information, there is a real need for someone to do something about it. Subjects such as Covid have so much fake info that it is influencing people to make bad decisions. Now in some cases it may be a fine line as to what is disinformation and what is not but in other cases its easy. Such as Trump, any information that anyone puts out that he actually won the election should be deleted permanently. The major news networks, for the most part, try to put out a factual newscast, sure they may slant some news but they don't blatantly lie, other than Fox. So it should be easy to delete the obvious BS, others may be a bit harder.