The people who try to control others never seem to tire in their search for ways to hide what they are doing. And they are not trying to hide it because they are in the right.
This is a Public Admission that all these Social Media companies are in FACT Publishers and there should be NO section 230 immunity for any of them.
Certainly those fireball GOPers, who work so diligently in DC to protect our very few remaining freedoms, will be all over this kicking asses & taking names,,,
Using federal funds to violate the First Anendment should be made a felony.
Oh, the Biden Doctrine says no Amendment is absolute? Yes, that’s why we can make criminal violation of the First Amendment retroactive to Janauary 2020.
Basically, introduce “friction” into a communications system complex that is designed to move information fast.
“Virality circuit breaker” = selectively degrade the performance of the trending algorithm to slow down the rapid spread of disfavored content. (And, of course, hype the performance of the same algorithm for favored content. That’s not friction, that’s “grease.”)
“Nudge” = issue an undocumented warning about the article to slow down readers giving it a “like” rating and possibly reposting it. Both of those actions feed the trending algorithm.
“Undocumented warning” means implying that the article is undergoing fact-checking without providing a link to a fact checking website or posting what article claims are in dispute. Some thing along the lines of:
“Warning!: This article may contain misleading or factually inaccurate information. It has been submitted for fact-checking, and the results of that action will be posted in an update to this notice.“.
There is no update ever posted because there is no fact-check occurring. Posting a bogus warning will allow implementation of the slow down faster (a key objective), and also save money (always a factor for IT operations). The reader will not know that nor will they be able to checkup on progress and the warning will still come up every time the article is accessed.
This bogus notice has the knock-on effect of creating doubt in the reader’s mind about the author’s integrity: “doubt the story, doubt the source.” The disfavored article remains posted thereby refuting accusations of censorship. But its ability to spread virally is reduced.
The UW research study authors claim the article has had little notice outside academic circles. Sure. Just like those theoretical articles from liberal Ivy League law schools have no effect on the federal judiciary proceedings.
True but false.
I remember the internet in the 80’s, before corporations got online. Free speech reigned.