Twitter To Label Tweets Linking To Russian State Media (securityweek.com) 53
wiredmikey writes: "Twitter will put warnings on tweets sharing links to Russian state-affiliated media, the platform said Monday, as Kremlin-tied outlets are accused of spreading misinformation on Moscow's invasion of Ukraine," reports SecurityWeek. The news comes as Russian troops have launched a major assault on Ukraine and while their forces battle in the physical world for control over various cities and regions, a battle is also taking place in cyberspace with attacks and misinformation campaigns. Yoel Roth, Twitter's head of site integrity, says the platform is seeing more than 45,000 tweets per day that are sharing links to state-affiliated media outlets.
"Our product should make it easy to understand who's behind the content you see, and what their motivations and intentions are," he added. In addition to adding labels that identify the sources of links, Roth said the platform is also "taking steps to significantly reduce the circulation of this content on Twitter."
"Our product should make it easy to understand who's behind the content you see, and what their motivations and intentions are," he added. In addition to adding labels that identify the sources of links, Roth said the platform is also "taking steps to significantly reduce the circulation of this content on Twitter."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I think that overall such labels are a much better way to deal with questionable content than bans.
Judicial branch (Score:3)
Can they do the same for american state media? Even better for the social media pages the white house has asked to be banned?
Should be the judicial branch that bans pages, not the executive.
The judicial branch has rules of evidence, an avenue for appeal, and familiarity with the law, while the executive branch has none of that.
If the White House really thinks a page should be taken down, they should get a judge to sign off on it.
I just want to know who I can trust.
You can trust the judicial branch. One of their functions is to prevent overreach.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, we don't have state controlled media.
We have a media controlled state.
Re: Judicial branch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't have any "state media". Just because you don't like what they're saying doesn't make that true.
Er, we literally have PBS, which is state media.
And then we have the vast media universe that literally employs state security agents through a revolving door (CNN, looking at you) and shares the permastate ideology to a t.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PBS gets a only a small portion of its budget from the state, but is nog beholden to the state and will take decidedly anti-government stances when it feels like it. You will find liberal PBS stations and conservative PBS stations, but what you won't find are state controlled PBS stations.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it is a literal breach of the first amendment for the executive to even ask a private entity to ban speech, as has been ruled in the past by the Supreme Court. As if the constitution even matters to this administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Dred Scott, Wickard, Buck v Bell, Korematsu, Kelo v. New London, would all beg to differ about how trust worthy the judicial branch is. Unless you are a believer in one Hawaiian [npr.org] judge to right all the world's wrongs.
Re: (Score:2)
How much "state media" does America have? NPR and PBS are only partially funded by government, and will take a distinctively anti-government stance at times and is never a "mouthpiece". I think only CSPAN and Voice of America count that I can think of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's their raison d'être. Take that away and they'll have nothing left to live for.
Re: (Score:2)
NPR, PBS, and Voice of America are in a literal sense state media. Voice of America is actually used for propaganda purposes, the other two are mostly neutral of the government.
Why Even Let Them Be Posted? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's also why they'll ban your account for posting a joke about COVID-19 misinformation but let the top 12 posters responsible for nearly all vaccine misinformation keep posting.
They're a corporation. A business. Remember, it's not personal, it's just business.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, this is slashdot. Not, you know, "letters to penthouse". I'm not going to judge, but if you're flog the bishop, firstly, pornhub is here [pornhub.com] and secondly a gentleman does not punish Percy in public.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, "This is his last tweet: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”?
So let's check...
-- calls to "2nd amendment" (read: kill with guns) various politicians.
-- tweets supporting violent white supremacists.
-- promises to pay for the legal fees of anyone at his rallies who got violent against the press.
So... yeah maybe you can go fuck yourself IdanceNnyCar you terrorist supporting piece of shit. Around the USA we don't support you sisterfuck
Re: (Score:2)
Well this other news item [theintercept.com] suggests you may have a point
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't remove the Orange One (who's name shall not be spoken) until they were afraid of lawsuits from all the violence being incited.
You people are such delusional retards. The vast majority of the violence ANYWHERE was at the hands of the liberal mobs. There was some violence on our side, but nowhere fucking near what you cop-hating morons generated. It's not the conservatives driving all the business out of San Francisco you liberal turd.
Unlikely there's a city more liberal than Chicago. Absolutely top heavy with lefties. What city is setting all sorts of records for violence?
Only a liberal would have the balls to flat-out lie
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure high rent is driving small stores out of SF. But it seems like you think petty theft in the Tenderloin is left wing violence, which would explain your afactual understanding of political violence in America.
America's Right is obsessed with violence ("Second Amendment Solutions") and in the past few years Rightists have plotted multiple times to kill governors and try to start a civil war or a race war. Furthermore, you watched organized right wingers beating the shit out of BLM protesters a
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure high rent is driving small stores out of SF.
I'm talking about LIBERAL DA's decriminalizing shoplifting to the point BIG STORES (nobody said small) are bailing. I'm talking about LIBERAL DAs decriminalizing the fucking rioting that was going on. Smashing all the goddamn windows in a store and then robbing it, during a riot or not, is a violent act.
But it seems like you think petty theft in the Tenderloin is left wing violence, which would explain your afactual understanding of political violence in America.
Fuck you. You aren't playing that shit with me and succeeding. You fucking retards are pathetic. You'll stand there and tell someone what they see isn't what they see. You'll stand there with a straight f
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more interested in persuading the persuadable, rather than committed nuts. Many Walgreens closures were planned before the new DA took over. [latimes.com] And " While the burglary rate increased over its baseline, San Francisco's total crime rate was down in 2020 . . . And as it turns out, San Francisco's homicide increase in 2020 was nowhere near as pronounced as the increases in other cities that are also frequent subjects of rising crime stories such as Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle." So things aren't as bad [sfgate.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason I occasionally dip into neonazi Internet cesspools ... to keep track of what they're are thinking. Or more precisely: to keep track of what they want other people to think.
In 1644, the English poet and civil servant John Milton wrote a famous essay in defense of free speech called *Areopagitica*, in which he argues that you can't improve public morality by controlling what the public reads. On one hand a corrupted mind turns good information into more bad ideas; the analogy he gives is
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want people to be able to read the propaganda, don't worry: they publish their lies many places, not just on Twitter. There's no need to repeat their lies everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree; if Twitter wanted to ban them they absolutely can do so. But there's also reasonable arguments for allowing user posted links to misleading information but flagging them.
Re: (Score:2)
One other benefit is that if the misinformation is there, you can challenge it (or mock it) and possibly someone who wouldn't see the truth elsewhere, might be exposed to it there.
Re: (Score:2)
The Secret twitter Doesn't Want You to Know (Score:2)
To some extent blocking them makes it look like Twitter doesn't want you know ... whatever the tweet said. It means Twitter is hiding something. Blocking them makes them the "victims of censorship".
Not censoring it, but instead accurately labeling it as coming from Putin's government is probably the most effective way to take the power away from the propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the first amendment. Different thing (Score:2)
The *first amendment* relates to the federal government.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of censor
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
example: censor the news
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
example: censor out indecent passages
All of the major TV networks employ censors.
For example Christine Hikawa is head of standards and practices at ABC. She has about 30 censors working under her.
It's not *illegal* for CBS or Twitt
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify further, people regularly mix up the following terms:
The FIRST AMENDMENT makes ILLEGAL for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to CENSOR you.
Censorship isn't illegal. ABC censored Roseanne Barr right off the air and that's fine.
The first amendment says the federal government isn't allowed to engage in censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is theres a very sizeable number of conspiracy theory knuckleheads that see those "This post shitty propaganda" type labels and decide it MUST be true, after all what are they trying to hide.
Its an oroborous of stupid, but after 4 years of batshit governance followed by 2 years of batshit antivaxers , theres enough teeth grinding idiots out there that see evidence of disproof as evidence of proof to make mere labeling somewhat innefective.
You know what does work though? Kicking the stupid fucker
Can we also label US/EU State Media tweets? (Score:2)
Then I can focus on the remaining 4 tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just not visit twitter altogether?
Re: (Score:2)
Then I can focus on the remaining 4 tweets.
Why? It's only propaganda when the other side says something.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'd all benefit from knowing exactly who is behind most messaging.
That's when you find out a chocolate company in the US is betting big on some opposition government in Wtfistan and you start to see funny stuff going on with supply chains etc.
Who gives a shit? (Score:2)
Anyone who believes Twitter is still at the center of the social media universe has zero idea what is happening. Just like Facebook, it is a has been.
There are a LOT of alternatives out there now that can and do believe in free speech, even for those with you do not agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is still at the center of the social media universe
So far, it is still receiving an inordinate amount of attention, even if it is not representative of the broader population.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed.
Notice (Score:2)
Small change in policy. While people like George Kennan , William Burns and Henry Kissinger were once considered sensible hard core pragmatists when they warned that attempts to expand nato to include Ukraine are barking mad and a recipe for world war are no longer considered sensible but will now be labeled tools of the Kremlin with career ending consequences.
This unofficial policy will now be cast into officialdom, ish, ness. Also this has always been the case.
When someone forwards you a link which is lab
Now label the tweets linked ot the CIA (Score:1)