
Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook - ghobs91
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48405661
======
ekianjo
> Misrepresented occurrences such as this are used to energise lies that have
> bubbled around in the far reaches of the internet for a while, waiting for
> their moment.

You don't need to wait for the Internet, most large media groups are
propaganda tools for their own political side. No need to do any "deep fake",
"selective editing" is all that's needed to take things out of context and
publish a different narrative based on what you want to portray.

Now the question is, what do we do about propaganda, regardless of the medium?

~~~
ajross
Sorry, do you have an example of a "large media group" "selectively editing" a
video to make someone look drunk for the purposes of propaganda? Anything
equivalent?

This sounds like a clever attempt to "both sides do it" a way out of actually
admitting that this video and its pushing by a bunch of partisans (right up to
and including the office of the President of the United States) was awful.

You agree this is awful, right?

~~~
insickness
> Sorry, do you have an example of a "large media group" "selectively editing"
> a video

You don't have to look too far to see large media groups selectively editing
videos, or at least choosing to not display portions of video that exonerate
someone. Nicholas Sandmann, the MAGA-hat wearing teen, was said to be part of
a group confronting a Native American protester. When you look at the full
video, it was the Native American who was confrontational. He walked over into
the middle of the group rather than the group confronting him.

~~~
kadendogthing
>When you look at the full video, it was the Native American who was
confrontational.

Absolutely false.

This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest the
reproductive rights of others, and in the midst of doing this did incredibly
racist stuff to a Native American protester who was merely trying to keep
balance of peace in these stressful engagements.

There is direct video evidence of students

* Shouting "go back to Africa"

* Doing the tomahawk chop

* Harassing other (even white) groups of women ([https://twitter.com/roflinds/status/1087486166939680768](https://twitter.com/roflinds/status/1087486166939680768))

All in a situation where they greatly outnumbered these people in the first
place, and all of them wearing MAGA hats.

Basically your post is either extremely dishonest or ignorant about the actual
facts. Not only does all available video evidence most definitely not
exonerate the group, it puts them squarely right where people initially pegged
them, and on top of all that no point is the Native American being the
confrontational one.

~~~
insickness
He walked up to them. They did not walk up to him. Therefore he was being the
aggressive one, end of story.

> This was a group of students who were using their free time to protest

Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be
there? Absolutely wrong.

~~~
kadendogthing
>He walked up to them.

That's not aggression. Don't be stupid.

>Because you disagree with what they were protesting, they had no right to be
there?

I never said they didn't have the right. Where did I say that? But allow me to
help clarify whatever misconceptions you have about what I plainly stated in
very few words: It's at best a fundamentally baseless position that has
extremely negative consequences for society. At worst its downright an act of
evil because you believe you should control other people based on faulty
religious grounds.

They were using their free time to support this position. Not really a good
look for them.

So I am absolutely correct in totality with my assessment of the situation.
And if you think otherwise, allow me to make the claim that you need to
evaluate some critical aspects of your perspective on this. If all you can say
about what's being said is that it's a disagreement, then you're better of not
saying anything at all. It makes you look better.

I noticed you couldn't or simply decided to not address the factual negations
to your assumptions. Might want to work on that.

~~~
insickness
>> He walked up to them.

> That's not aggression.

Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression beyond
merely saying something.

> Don't be stupid.

This will be my last interaction with you because you can't discuss ideas
without hostility. Try discussing things like an adult.

> [them protesting abortion is] at worst a downright act of evil

You have no tolerance of opposing opinion yet claim to be the one with
critical perspective. You've just proved my point: People _wanted_ to believe
that the Covington kids were aggressive and evil and so jumped to that
conclusion without seeing the totality of what actually happened.

~~~
ajross
> Getting in someone's face is an escalation of physical aggression

It's literally not. That's not what "physical" means. It's... provoking. The
guy with the drum was... I dunno, he was an asshole.

It's certainly possible that he knew the kids were loose cannons and was
hoping that by "getting in someone's face" he could get one of them to throw a
punch on camera. Could be. I mean, the guy clearly had an agenda, and it
probably doesn't align with your politics. But that's still not "aggression"
by any reasonable definition. Stop being a snowflake.

------
kodablah
Geez, is this an op-ed or news? The article goes on and on about it being too
late, energizing lies, human instinct, blah blah. It's clearly written to
encourage censorship yet it's at a /news URL written by someone with the title
of "reporter". Gross.

~~~
bqqyz
It's the BBC, they are not known for their quality.

------
Browun
> In other words, we allow people to post it as a form of expression, but
> we’re not going to show it at the top of News Feed.

So back to the mantra of, "trust us, we'll show you what you need to know"? I
thought that was exactly the attitude that got them in to this mess in the
first place?!?

------
nemild
For more context, see this piece by Renee DiResta highlighting the difference
between free speech and free reach (previously, there was little distinction
between the two at Facebook):

[https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-
as-f...](https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-
reach/)

------
p0cc
"a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots
on"

\- misattributed to Mark Twain, 1921

------
bqqyz
I think it's not Facebook's responsibility to censor stuff on that's posted in
their network but still:

Whoever receives and watches this video on Facebook is engaged in right-wing
groups/pages/circles and was unlikely to vote for Pelosi anyway.

(I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of
Clinton?)

~~~
asveikau
> (I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of
> Clinton?)

She has represented San Francisco in the US congress since the late 80s, and
has been in national democratic congressional leadership for about 20 years,
so, legislative rather than executive.

For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol
of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all
very over the top.

~~~
umvi
> For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a
> symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion
> it's all very over the top.

Both sides are guilty of smear campaigns. One little flub or gaffe and a video
taking it out of context will start circulating.

Just go to /r/politics if you want examples of the left smearing the right

~~~
3JPLW
Have Democratic presidents ever tweeted/emailed/promoted/sent out doctored
videos that make their rivals look bad?

~~~
OrangeManBad
The video Orange man posted on twitter wasn't doctored. Media has changed the
definition of doctored to suit them. It was edited to show only relevant parts
but there was nothing fake about it.

Why not let media show the original so called undoctored version?

~~~
asveikau
The reporting I saw on this was:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/pelosi-
doctor...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/us/politics/pelosi-doctored-
video.html)

Video at top has her speaking at normal pace, and then shows a slowed-down
version. Is this something you dispute? I have not followed the story at all,
beyond seeing that article.

