New York Times: What Stays on Facebook and What Goes? The Social Network Cannot Answer. “Facebook was once the most nimble company of its generation. The speed at which it adapted to every challenge was legendary. It needed only about a decade to go from a dorm-room start-up to the largest and most influential communications platform in the world. But it’s been two years since an American presidential campaign in which the company was a primary vector for misinformation and state-sponsored political interference — and Facebook still seems paralyzed over how to respond.”
The Register: US Declaration of Independence labeled hate speech by Facebook bots. “The Liberty County Vindicator, a newspaper serving Liberty, Texas, posted “small bites” from the Declaration on its Facebook page in the leadup to the USA’s July 4th Independence Day, ‘To make it a little easier to digest that short but formidable historic document’. But as the paper detailed on July 2nd, ‘The first nine parts posted as scheduled, but part 10, consisting of paragraphs 27-31 of the Declaration, did not appear.'”
KFGO: Majority of Americans think social media platforms censor political views: Pew survey. “About seven out of ten Americans think social media platforms intentionally censor political viewpoints, the Pew Research Center found in a study released on Thursday. The study comes amid an ongoing debate over the power of digital technology companies and the way they do business. Social media companies in particular, including Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google, have recently come under scrutiny for failing to promptly tackle the problem of fake news as more Americans consume news on their platforms.” This doesn’t surprise me at all, considering how inconsistently social media platforms apply their own rules.
Washington Post: Inside Facebook and Twitter’s secret meetings with Trump aides and conservative leaders who say tech is biased. “Twitter and Facebook are scrambling to assuage conservative leaders who have sounded alarms — and sought to rile voters — with accusations that the country’s tech giants are censoring right-leaning posts, tweets and news. From secret dinners with conservative media elite to private meetings with the Republican National Committee, the new outreach reflects tech giants’ delicate task: satisfying a party in power while defending online platforms against attacks that threaten to undermine the public’s trust in the Web.”
Snopes: Journalists, Activists Criticize Social Media Sites Amid Conflicts Over Content. “In June 2018, journalists and activists raised concerns over sudden apparent suspensions or sanctions from social media web sites within days of one another amid increased concerns over their policies toward news outlets. In the latest incident, Lucas Waldron — graphics producer for the investigative news site ProPublica — said on 21 June 2018 that the visual platform Instagram had deleted a post on the outlet’s account that identified members of a white supremacist group.”
The Register: UN’s freedom of expression top dog slams European copyright plans . “The campaign against a key aspect of new European copyright legislation has picked up a significant backer: the United Nations’ freedom of expression expert. David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur, has sent a lengthy letter to the European Commission outlining his concerns about Article 13 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, which would require large internet platforms to introduce automated upload filters that remove copyrighted content.”
The Atlantic: Gambling Channels Are the Latest Victims of YouTube’s Arbitrary Moderation Process. “Days before he was set to begin a month-long promotional tour for his YouTube channel, Brian Christopher learned that his account had been abruptly terminated. In the two years since Christopher has been running BrianChristopherSlots, he’s produced more than 1,100 vlogs of himself gambling, mostly on slot machines, and racked up 50 million views and 80,000 subscribers. But then, last week, his account was suspended, along with many other prominent YouTube gambling channels. In an email, YouTube explained the suspension was due to ‘repeated or severe violations’ of its community guidelines, which prohibit ‘violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.’ (YouTube did not respond to requests for comment from The Atlantic.)” I am not a fan of gambling but this is nuts.