$1,000,000 out of the taxpayer pocket

[connieb]

so, that the internet can be monitored to "mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate."


http://theweek.com/article/index/267097/the-government-is-getting-into-the-fact-checking-business-be-very-very-afraid

Well, i am sure many of our resident totalitarians will be happy to know that our tax dollars will be used to ferret out speech some researchers ( and more broadly our Gov't that gave them the grant) feel is subversive. In my opinion though - THESE are the kinds of things we should be protesting against. The idea that it is ok for the Gov't to financially support what amounts to monitoring of free speech is abhorrent, and should be to anyone who calls themselves Americans.


connie

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

disgusting.

 

[connieb]

disgusting.

Well you know they would like to set up a way for people to report the speech they find which they don't like. Stuff like that should scare the crap out of every person in this country. But, no, they will insist - hey its necessary, a lot of people learn the wrong stuff - i.e. stuff we don't agree with.

 

[Charcat]

Well you know they would like to set up a way for people to report the speech they find which they don't like. Stuff like that should scare the crap out of every person in this country. But, no, they will insist - hey its necessary, a lot of people learn the wrong stuff - i.e. stuff we don't agree with.

Especially when the government determines what is "hate" speech.

 

[connieb]

Especially when the government determines what is "hate" speech.

yeah, the hate speech and the 'subversive" were my particular favorites. So far of course its not officially Govt' but.. does anyone doubt that they aren't interested in the results?

 

[Charcat]

yeah, the hate speech and the 'subversive" were my particular favorites. So far of course its not officially Govt' but.. does anyone doubt that they aren't interested in the results?

Why....this administration would never dream of doing anything like that.

 

[connieb]

You mean the Govt' that signed the patriot act? or the one that expanded it? Yeah, I am sure the the Gov't that retains so much data on its citizens that they had to build an entire other facility to store it all has noooooo interest what so ever in what "hate speech" and "subversive speech" can be found online and who could possibly be saying those things.

 

[Colorforms]

You mean the Govt' that signed the patriot act? or the one that expanded it? Yeah, I am sure the the Gov't that retains so much data on its citizens that they had to build an entire other facility to store it all has noooooo interest what so ever in what "hate speech" and "subversive speech" can be found online and who could possibly be saying those things.

I notice that not a lot of neo-McCarthyists are coming on to defend this, especially after they defended so vigorously the metadata facility. We predicted this was the next step, but liberals were like "nah, Obama has no interest in your puny little opinion".

Something else they were wrong about. So far that's us = everything/ them = nothing.

 

[Arkady]

so, that the internet can be monitored to "mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate."


http://theweek.com/article/index/267097/the-government-is-getting-into-the-fact-checking-business-be-very-very-afraid

Well, i am sure many of our resident totalitarians will be happy to know that our tax dollars will be used to ferret out speech some researchers ( and more broadly our Gov't that gave them the grant) feel is subversive. In my opinion though - THESE are the kinds of things we should be protesting against. The idea that it is ok for the Gov't to financially support what amounts to monitoring of free speech is abhorrent, and should be to anyone who calls themselves Americans.


connie

It sounds bad, but depending on the details, I can see some justification. It's a bad idea for the government to get into intervening in partisan opinion squabbles, where the truth of the question is a matter of opinion and getting Uncle Sam involved seems like the intervention of the thought police, But to the extent straight falsehoods are making the rounds, shouldn't there be a decent way for the government to track that so they can get correct information out there? For example, if there's some Internet meme going around claiming that Obama is eliminating healthcare coverage for dependents of military personnel (the kind of nonsense I see making the rounds among right-wing "friends" on Facebook, designed to drum up outrage), it would be good to know about it and get the truth out there before a lot of military dependents start going online to try to buy separate healthcare, or otherwise wasting their time based on a lie.

There's all sorts of information that the FDA, FTC, SEC, etc., should be keeping track of, which can travel far and wide in this era of the Internet, but which is hard to track. For example, consider "pump and dump" schemes: somebody goes out and buys a bunch of penny stocks for some distressed small-cap company, then he uses a lot of sock puppets to disseminate false reports about the company being about to announce some huge government contract that'll make the stock soar, and as soon as the stock rises even a penny or two (representing a giant overnight percentage gain for him), he dumps it. It's illegal, but it has become quite hard to police in an era of Internet memes.

How the government handles this information is going to be the critical question. The ability to track the information isn't necessarily problematic. If you go to the actual page describing the research objectives, you'll see that it's focus on the science of determining how memes propagate, which is useful information for the government to have for completely legitimate reasons, like fighting pump-and-dump scams, misleading viral advertising, campaign advertising violations, and other functions that are analogous to traditional government roles outside the twitterverse.

 

[Guthrie]

so, that the internet can be monitored to "mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate."


http://theweek.com/article/index/267097/the-government-is-getting-into-the-fact-checking-business-be-very-very-afraid

Well, i am sure many of our resident totalitarians will be happy to know that our tax dollars will be used to ferret out speech some researchers ( and more broadly our Gov't that gave them the grant) feel is subversive. In my opinion though - THESE are the kinds of things we should be protesting against. The idea that it is ok for the Gov't to financially support what amounts to monitoring of free speech is abhorrent, and should be to anyone who calls themselves Americans.


connie

This is obviously a moronic policy. But again this to me seems like selective partisanship.

To be outraged over this is fine in my view, I find it absurd and pointless. But I am far, far more concerned about bi-partsian mass surveillance, documented in overwhelming detail by the Snowden documents, that runs in the billions and encompasses all Americans.

But, because this is a bi-partisan policy, nobody seems to care much about it.

In short, the government has been doing this for at least a decade on every American, in secret.

 

[Spamature]

so, that the internet can be monitored to "mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate."


http://theweek.com/article/index/267097/the-government-is-getting-into-the-fact-checking-business-be-very-very-afraid

Well, i am sure many of our resident totalitarians will be happy to know that our tax dollars will be used to ferret out speech some researchers ( and more broadly our Gov't that gave them the grant) feel is subversive. In my opinion though - THESE are the kinds of things we should be protesting against. The idea that it is ok for the Gov't to financially support what amounts to monitoring of free speech is abhorrent, and should be to anyone who calls themselves Americans.


connie

How about instead of taking someone else's possible misinformation as the truth. Why don't you just simply go to the site and see what they are doing.


http://truthy.indiana.edu/


BTW


They prefer you use Chrome as your browser.

 

[Guthrie]

How about instead of taking someone else's possible misinformation as the truth. Why don't you just simply go to the site and see what they are doing.


http://truthy.indiana.edu/


BTW


They prefer you use Chrome as your browser.

Haha nice Spam...while they are looking at this garbage they are silent on bi-partsian mass surveillanec cause there is no politcal points to be one.

Partisanship=imposing governance on ones self.
\
Some people here, Connie, need to read more then they write.

 

[write on]

Sounds to me like the precursor to ending Net Neutrality....championed by Republicans.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/20/1279022/-House-Republicans-Move-to-Stop-Net-Neutrality-It-s-Socialism

 

[Dawg]

so, that the internet can be monitored to "mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate."


http://theweek.com/article/index/267097/the-government-is-getting-into-the-fact-checking-business-be-very-very-afraid

Well, i am sure many of our resident totalitarians will be happy to know that our tax dollars will be used to ferret out speech some researchers ( and more broadly our Gov't that gave them the grant) feel is subversive. In my opinion though - THESE are the kinds of things we should be protesting against. The idea that it is ok for the Gov't to financially support what amounts to monitoring of free speech is abhorrent, and should be to anyone who calls themselves Americans.


connie

evidently 'O' and Company will take our rights in order.................. starting with the 1st Amendment

speaking of wasting taxpayers money.......read the other day of the $Millions spent to introduce the new $100 Bills...........SOS

 

[Dawg]

It sounds bad, but depending on the details, I can see some justification. It's a bad idea for the government to get into intervening in partisan opinion squabbles, where the truth of the question is a matter of opinion and getting Uncle Sam involved seems like the intervention of the thought police, But to the extent straight falsehoods are making the rounds, shouldn't there be a decent way for the government to track that so they can get correct information out there? For example, if there's some Internet meme going around claiming that Obama is eliminating healthcare coverage for dependents of military personnel (the kind of nonsense I see making the rounds among right-wing "friends" on Facebook, designed to drum up outrage), it would be good to know about it and get the truth out there before a lot of military dependents start going online to try to buy separate healthcare, or otherwise wasting their time based on a lie.

There's all sorts of information that the FDA, FTC, SEC, etc., should be keeping track of, which can travel far and wide in this era of the Internet, but which is hard to track. For example, consider "pump and dump" schemes: somebody goes out and buys a bunch of penny stocks for some distressed small-cap company, then he uses a lot of sock puppets to disseminate false reports about the company being about to announce some huge government contract that'll make the stock soar, and as soon as the stock rises even a penny or two (representing a giant overnight percentage gain for him), he dumps it. It's illegal, but it has become quite hard to police in an era of Internet memes.

How the government handles this information is going to be the critical question. The ability to track the information isn't necessarily problematic. If you go to the actual page describing the research objectives, you'll see that it's focus on the science of determining how memes propagate, which is useful information for the government to have for completely legitimate reasons, like fighting pump-and-dump scams, misleading viral advertising, campaign advertising violations, and other functions that are analogous to traditional government roles outside the twitterverse.

Libs lust to take away Americans rights..........figured you would be first lib to agree with this.

 

[Guthrie]

Libs lust to take away Americans rights..........figured you would be first lib to agree with this.

Haha. Yea the Patriot act was a lovely addition of rights. Brainwashed flower

 

[connieb]

It sounds bad, but depending on the details, I can see some justification. It's a bad idea for the government to get into intervening in partisan opinion squabbles, where the truth of the question is a matter of opinion and getting Uncle Sam involved seems like the intervention of the thought police, But to the extent straight falsehoods are making the rounds, shouldn't there be a decent way for the government to track that so they can get correct information out there? For example, if there's some Internet meme going around claiming that Obama is eliminating healthcare coverage for dependents of military personnel (the kind of nonsense I see making the rounds among right-wing "friends" on Facebook, designed to drum up outrage), it would be good to know about it and get the truth out there before a lot of military dependents start going online to try to buy separate healthcare, or otherwise wasting their time based on a lie.

There's all sorts of information that the FDA, FTC, SEC, etc., should be keeping track of, which can travel far and wide in this era of the Internet, but which is hard to track. For example, consider "pump and dump" schemes: somebody goes out and buys a bunch of penny stocks for some distressed small-cap company, then he uses a lot of sock puppets to disseminate false reports about the company being about to announce some huge government contract that'll make the stock soar, and as soon as the stock rises even a penny or two (representing a giant overnight percentage gain for him), he dumps it. It's illegal, but it has become quite hard to police in an era of Internet memes.

How the government handles this information is going to be the critical question. The ability to track the information isn't necessarily problematic. If you go to the actual page describing the research objectives, you'll see that it's focus on the science of determining how memes propagate, which is useful information for the government to have for completely legitimate reasons, like fighting pump-and-dump scams, misleading viral advertising, campaign advertising violations, and other functions that are analogous to traditional government roles outside the twitterverse.

Arkady,
I see your point, but at the same time, I think the value of Gov't being completely out of speech is more important. And, quite frankly, I think all the cases you listed above are examples of caveat emptor.
Or if even possibly a little bit of the concept that a fool and their money are soon parted.

Either way - I don't think the role of Gov't is to protect people from being dumb, or the consequences of such. If you go buy insurance that you didn't need because you bought into a rumor - that is on you. And, in no way does protecting people from their own stupidity trump an individuals right to freedom of Govt' interferrence.

And, while the concept of free speech is not absolute, I believe in erring on the side of free speech every time, and that only in some very very narrow select instances, should that be abriged. And, if that means that people go around lying, so be it. If and when their lies turn to something more criminal - then we can catch them if we can. But, I certainly don't advocate even a modest infringement on rights, in order to catch more criminals.

connie

 

[connieb]

This is obviously a moronic policy. But again this to me seems like selective partisanship.

To be outraged over this is fine in my view, I find it absurd and pointless. But I am far, far more concerned about bi-partsian mass surveillance, documented in overwhelming detail by the Snowden documents, that runs in the billions and encompasses all Americans.

But, because this is a bi-partisan policy, nobody seems to care much about it.

In short, the government has been doing this for at least a decade on every American, in secret.

I am every bit as outraged about the Gov't spying. The ONLY redeeming characteristic of Obama when he was running for office was that he at least seemed apalled at the Patriot Act, and I held out some small hope that while he had control of the House and Senate - he would do something to repeal it, which of course dint' happen. It is an abomination. And, this - is very much along the same vein The Gov't is getting a back door method to actually come right out and monitor communications - by having it go through academia. But, in the end, this is about them wanting to knwo what people are saying. That does not sit well with me.

connie

 

[connieb]

How about instead of taking someone else's possible misinformation as the truth. Why don't you just simply go to the site and see what they are doing.


http://truthy.indiana.edu/


BTW


They prefer you use Chrome as your browser.

I have checked it out. What is your point?

I don't want to fund it, and I do not like their stated purpose. Period. I do not like the Gov't even sniffing around in this backdoor method of monitoring "hate speech" or subversive speech.

From their own description:
We also plan to use Truthy to detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution. While the vast majority of memes arise in a perfectly organic manner, driven by the complex mechanisms of life on the Web, some are engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns. Truthy uses a sophisticated combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex networks models. To train our algorithms, we leverage crowdsourcing: we rely on users like you to flag injections of forged grass-roots activity. Therefore, click on the Truthy button when you see a suspicious meme!

So, hey come report to us when you see political speech we don't like. We'll check it out and monitor its effect. I am sure no one in Gov't is every going to be interested in what they find.

Hey, if someone wants to make this their pet project be my guest. But, not on my dime and not in a way that makes the Gov't a silent partner in the deal.

But, that is ok, people like you happy to be willfully ignorant and have your rights infringed are why we have the patriot act. Idiots who would trade feelings "safer" do not deserve their rights.

connie

 

[Spamature]

I have checked it out. What is your point?

I don't want to fund it, and I do not like their stated purpose. Period. I do not like the Gov't even sniffing around in this backdoor method of monitoring "hate speech" or subversive speech.

From their own description:
We also plan to use Truthy to detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution. While the vast majority of memes arise in a perfectly organic manner, driven by the complex mechanisms of life on the Web, some are engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns. Truthy uses a sophisticated combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex networks models. To train our algorithms, we leverage crowdsourcing: we rely on users like you to flag injections of forged grass-roots activity. Therefore, click on the Truthy button when you see a suspicious meme!

So, hey come report to us when you see political speech we don't like. We'll check it out and monitor its effect. I am sure no one in Gov't is every going to be interested in what they find.

Hey, if someone wants to make this their pet project be my guest. But, not on my dime and not in a way that makes the Gov't a silent partner in the deal.

But, that is ok, people like you happy to be willfully ignorant and have your rights infringed are why we have the patriot act. Idiots who would trade feelings "safer" do not deserve their rights.

connie

What rights are being infringed upon by analyzing the origins of widely spread public information.