This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/opinion/facebook-trump-iran.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why Politicians Get a License to Lie When Politicians Get a License to Lie
(about 20 hours later)
On Monday, Facebook announced a new policy to ban artificial intelligence-generated “deepfakes” as well as videos “edited or synthesized … in ways that aren’t apparent to an average person.” In theory that sounds like a welcome effort to curb disinformation.On Monday, Facebook announced a new policy to ban artificial intelligence-generated “deepfakes” as well as videos “edited or synthesized … in ways that aren’t apparent to an average person.” In theory that sounds like a welcome effort to curb disinformation.
But the new policy won’t, for example, cover subtly edited videos like last year’s slowed down viral Nancy Pelosi clip. And politicians and their ads remain off limits to Facebook’s third-party fact checkers. A company spokesman told me Tuesday that if Facebook determines a politician has shared manipulated media in an ad, Facebook will remove it. But, as far as I can tell, bogus content — even outright lies — is still allowed, as long as it isn’t manipulated by artificial intelligence.But the new policy won’t, for example, cover subtly edited videos like last year’s slowed down viral Nancy Pelosi clip. And politicians and their ads remain off limits to Facebook’s third-party fact checkers. A company spokesman told me Tuesday that if Facebook determines a politician has shared manipulated media in an ad, Facebook will remove it. But, as far as I can tell, bogus content — even outright lies — is still allowed, as long as it isn’t manipulated by artificial intelligence.
And the company left a big loophole: Facebook will not censor political speech if it is in the public interest to see it. “If a politician posts organic content that violates our manipulated media policy, we would evaluate it by weighing the public interest value against the risk of harm. Our newsworthy policy applies to all content on Facebook, not just content posted by politicians,” the spokesman wrote in an email.And the company left a big loophole: Facebook will not censor political speech if it is in the public interest to see it. “If a politician posts organic content that violates our manipulated media policy, we would evaluate it by weighing the public interest value against the risk of harm. Our newsworthy policy applies to all content on Facebook, not just content posted by politicians,” the spokesman wrote in an email.
In an effort to assuage the public on political disinformation, Facebook has only muddied the waters. Would Facebook allow distribution of a deepfaked video if it were shared by the president as rationale for the bombing of Iran? Such a hypothetical post would certainly be newsworthy, though such a video would be a clear violation of Facebook’s rules. What if the president shared a less manipulated “shallowfake” video, like the Pelosi video, of a potential 2020 opponent? These are, admittedly, edge cases, but when it comes to foreign policy, national security and election integrity, edge cases are often the highest profile and consequential.In an effort to assuage the public on political disinformation, Facebook has only muddied the waters. Would Facebook allow distribution of a deepfaked video if it were shared by the president as rationale for the bombing of Iran? Such a hypothetical post would certainly be newsworthy, though such a video would be a clear violation of Facebook’s rules. What if the president shared a less manipulated “shallowfake” video, like the Pelosi video, of a potential 2020 opponent? These are, admittedly, edge cases, but when it comes to foreign policy, national security and election integrity, edge cases are often the highest profile and consequential.
Facebook’s policy on those cases is a vague pledge to weigh “the public interest value against the risk of harm.” Who exactly at Facebook will be doing that weighing? Who determines the nature of potential harms? It’s unclear.Facebook’s policy on those cases is a vague pledge to weigh “the public interest value against the risk of harm.” Who exactly at Facebook will be doing that weighing? Who determines the nature of potential harms? It’s unclear.
But this much seems clear: It’s perfectly fine to lie, harass and manipulate by the millions online, provided you are an elected official or fall into the amorphous loophole of “newsworthiness.” It’s the one protected class of people who can get away with behavior that would see others banned.But this much seems clear: It’s perfectly fine to lie, harass and manipulate by the millions online, provided you are an elected official or fall into the amorphous loophole of “newsworthiness.” It’s the one protected class of people who can get away with behavior that would see others banned.
Politicians, it seems, have a license to behave badly, made possible by technology companies that kowtow to the powerful rather than stand up to them.Politicians, it seems, have a license to behave badly, made possible by technology companies that kowtow to the powerful rather than stand up to them.
[As technology advances, will it continue to blur the lines between public and private? Sign up for Charlie Warzel’s limited-run newsletter to explore what's at stake and what you can do about it.][As technology advances, will it continue to blur the lines between public and private? Sign up for Charlie Warzel’s limited-run newsletter to explore what's at stake and what you can do about it.]
It’s not just Facebook. Twitter has been using its newsworthiness clause as a justification to keep up tweets from President Trump and other world leaders that violate the company’s rules.It’s not just Facebook. Twitter has been using its newsworthiness clause as a justification to keep up tweets from President Trump and other world leaders that violate the company’s rules.
For example, Mr. Trump’s 2017 tweets provoking North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and calling him “Rocket Man" were deemed “a declaration of war” by a North Korean foreign minister. Despite Twitter’s rules against inciting violence, the site preserved the president’s tweets, arguing that they were in the public interest.For example, Mr. Trump’s 2017 tweets provoking North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and calling him “Rocket Man" were deemed “a declaration of war” by a North Korean foreign minister. Despite Twitter’s rules against inciting violence, the site preserved the president’s tweets, arguing that they were in the public interest.
Last week, Twitter kept up a series of tweets by Mr. Trump threatening military escalation with Iran, including a tweet in which the president threatened to bomb Iranian cultural sites — a war crime. “The Tweets are not in violation of the Twitter Rules,” a Twitter representative told reporters on Monday.Last week, Twitter kept up a series of tweets by Mr. Trump threatening military escalation with Iran, including a tweet in which the president threatened to bomb Iranian cultural sites — a war crime. “The Tweets are not in violation of the Twitter Rules,” a Twitter representative told reporters on Monday.
Threats to commit war crimes are newsworthy. Got it.Threats to commit war crimes are newsworthy. Got it.
Social media companies can make whatever exceptions they desire to their own rules. After all, banning or censoring the president of the United States on Twitter would kick off a seismic debate about speech — one likely to extend to the halls of Congress — that the platforms, always timid to be seen as making editorial decisions, want nothing to do with. But make no mistake, it is this desire to steer clear of a protracted, nasty and troll-filled debate about censoring world leaders (specifically, Mr. Trump) and not a devotion to public interest that motivates the platforms. And their loophole, newsworthiness, is particularly large.Social media companies can make whatever exceptions they desire to their own rules. After all, banning or censoring the president of the United States on Twitter would kick off a seismic debate about speech — one likely to extend to the halls of Congress — that the platforms, always timid to be seen as making editorial decisions, want nothing to do with. But make no mistake, it is this desire to steer clear of a protracted, nasty and troll-filled debate about censoring world leaders (specifically, Mr. Trump) and not a devotion to public interest that motivates the platforms. And their loophole, newsworthiness, is particularly large.
Throughout the Trump era, the media has often found itself caught in the newsworthiness trap. In his new book, “Why We’re Polarized,” Ezra Klein, co-founder of Vox, describes this cycle as “a fortress of tautology: Whatever we are covering is newsworthy because everyone is covering it, and the fact that everyone is covering it proves that it is newsworthy.” Part of the reason for this is, as Mr. Klein writes, “to obscure the fact that the decisions being made [by the press] are decisions at all.”Throughout the Trump era, the media has often found itself caught in the newsworthiness trap. In his new book, “Why We’re Polarized,” Ezra Klein, co-founder of Vox, describes this cycle as “a fortress of tautology: Whatever we are covering is newsworthy because everyone is covering it, and the fact that everyone is covering it proves that it is newsworthy.” Part of the reason for this is, as Mr. Klein writes, “to obscure the fact that the decisions being made [by the press] are decisions at all.”
Mr. Trump exploits the media’s blind newsworthiness adherence masterfully, as the political journalists dance to his tune tweet after tweet. It is even easier for those same politicians to manipulate social media, which is designed to lure users into an endless maze of amplified newsworthiness. The press ultimately must own its editorial decisions; the tech giants refuse to even admit that they make deeply consequential editorial decisions with every approved political ad and rule change.Mr. Trump exploits the media’s blind newsworthiness adherence masterfully, as the political journalists dance to his tune tweet after tweet. It is even easier for those same politicians to manipulate social media, which is designed to lure users into an endless maze of amplified newsworthiness. The press ultimately must own its editorial decisions; the tech giants refuse to even admit that they make deeply consequential editorial decisions with every approved political ad and rule change.
Incendiary content from a newsworthy individual goes viral. It is given additional coverage because it went viral. The additional coverage makes it even more newsworthy and viral. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle. With each iteration misinformation spreads, outrage grows, polarization hardens and politicians and those lucky enough to be considered newsworthy grow ever emboldened.Incendiary content from a newsworthy individual goes viral. It is given additional coverage because it went viral. The additional coverage makes it even more newsworthy and viral. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle. With each iteration misinformation spreads, outrage grows, polarization hardens and politicians and those lucky enough to be considered newsworthy grow ever emboldened.
But newsworthiness is a choice masquerading as an inevitability. Amplifying lies and empowering our most divisive politicians with an endless supply of attention is not inevitable. When the press does it uncritically, citizens rightly demand accountability. We should demand the same from Big Tech.But newsworthiness is a choice masquerading as an inevitability. Amplifying lies and empowering our most divisive politicians with an endless supply of attention is not inevitable. When the press does it uncritically, citizens rightly demand accountability. We should demand the same from Big Tech.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email:letters@nytimes.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email:letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.