Agreed, this is long overdue and the only sustainable solution that isn’t just tyranny in waiting. The problem is that teaching critical thinking to kids makes them less prone to bing manipulated, and governments want people they can push and pull, as do advertisers, and so do a lot of parents even if they don’t realize it. When little Billy comes home and starts questioning his devout parents about inconsistencies in their religion, that’s enough for Billy’s parents to be against it. It’s not a hard thing to imagine either, just look at anti-evolution campaigning.

I would guess that a majority of parents want kids that believe what they’re told by the parents regardless of merit. So it’s pushback from all sides, because so many people are strongly invested in manipulating each other. Critical thinking is like a broad spectrum antibiotic, insofar as you don’t really pick and choose what it acts against. From your and my perspective that’s the feature, but to a lot of people it’s the bug.

(Also, come back when the teachers are paid appropriately.)

Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not who does it.

> So on to the idea that Google and Facebook should be regulated, I think it's an absolutely horrible idea.

For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement.

Facebook or Google need to be regulated because they are radicalizing people in search of more engagement to sell more ads. That is not a good situation, and there is no incentive for them to stop doing it. As it is the best way to get more money.

Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected.

> Just fucking educate people on fact checking and elementary logic.

This supposes that the fault is in the individuals not in the system. And that it is easier to change all the population than to regulate a handful of companies. I am all for better education, but to solve the problem with the big tech companies regulation is needed.

I would still request evidence about the scope of this, because basic evidence suggests strongly that the influence was minuscule.

So I would heavily question "deeply impacted". Perhaps this whole story was just fake news?

I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election.

There are far more probable explanations for the result of the election.

Hillary didn't take any non-screened questions from the press for a period of several months during the heat of the campaign.

HRC campaign was overconfident in swing states and chose not to campaign there.

If advertising can win elections, then Hillary would have won since she far outspent Trump on media. Let's not forget she had a much larger army of astro turfers (Correct The Record) pushing her message on the internet and it was all for moot. It turns out people aren't as easy to sway as advertisers would have you believe.

It is impossible to know the full extent that Russian interference had on the election, but dismissing its impact because there is no proof of its 'effectiveness' is laughable. We know political ads work. It is why every single modern political campaign runs them. A google search gives you a rough idea of the reach this political campaign had. Put those simple principles together and you get why all western intelligence communities are in agreement that russia interfered and affected the US presidential election. Given how susceptible people are to advertising it shouldn't come as a surprise.

When someone posits a statement that is just insanely ignorant (and demonstrably wrong) like "I would even be satisfied with any ad from any country having the ability to significantly sway any election." then the intent to derail the conversation is clear. Any knowledge of political history (and advertising) would tell you that such a statement is clearly ridiculous. Being obstinate and a pedant doesn't make automatically make you a critical thinker. In this case, it blinds you from seeing the obvious.

Some sources for you even though you are probably too busy commenting something contrarian to google this shit yourself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-russians...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-googl...

Because a company can censor whatever they want, and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to. With the government, there is an inherent threat of violence if you don't comply. Very simple.

That must be a nice fantasy land you're living in.

If the public square has become the internet, it behooves the government to regulate it for political speech in the same way they do sex,race,religion, .etc.

Speaking as a child of communism, the difference is that in case the government is doing the censorship you're no longer free to build your own platform, you're no longer free to have your own voice.

In one case it's a matter of freedom, in another it's just a matter of cost. The difference is night and day.

---

> "For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement."

Introducing censorship won't help fix these issues and there's absolutely no evidence that regulation helps in increasing the quality of news. Worse, government mandated censorship is pretty much irreversible without a revolution.

This notion that people need protection from external influence has been the explanation for the censorship happening behind the Iron Curtain. It's the logic used by dictators and oligarchies.

---

> "Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me, the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people affected."

You still have the freedom to delete your Facebook account and note that I totally agree about privacy protections. I love the GDPR, but don't push censorship on me just because you are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Also don't lump privacy together with fake news, in order to appeal to emotions, because they are not the same thing. Why don't you throw a "think of the children" in there too.

Regulation does not equate censorship. There are other things that can be done. What do you think about this one "The report also said social media companies should agree to "code of conduct" to govern their commercial agreements with publishers."?

It looks like a good idea that the tech giants should be held accountable for how they run their advertisement business that affects the behaviour of all the population.

"Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision?" is a valid question. It is not censorship. What do you think about it?

Also "child of communism" is a combination appeal to emotion with an appeal to authority thrown in for good measure. It's an attempt to paper over a breathless strawman argument - so, triple threat, I guess.

I have massive issues with UK politics but knowing a few civil servants, they're not (widely) corrupt, and they're not incompetent.

In any department, they will normally be the force for good policy based on evidence, it's politicians who push random expedient ideas. Take grammar schools, the entire department of education knows they don't work and are being forced to push it. Or Brexit, the whole civil service pretty much opposes it, and especially the treasury/trade people in detailed knowledge that it's going to be an economic tire fire.

Finally, regulation != censorship, there's such a thing as a middle ground.

If the companies don't like this they can either spin off their news related products into a separate company or stop actively trying to control the news narrative.

This is simple.

I was taught this back in the 90s, UK GSCE History so a mandatory class at least for the first 3 years. I can't quite remember if it came later or earlier, but early would make sense.

Consider the source, bias, first hand account / second / here say etc., find and compare multiple sources.

Maybe this isn't common and I was lucky? Maybe it doesn't happen these days. My history teacher was brilliant, one of the few I remember fondly.

I would blame Google and Facebook for this though. G crafted the online marketing landscape to favor using their ads (since most brands use adwords the most), and Facebook's post model favors clickbait headlines so that users click them and continue to use FB.

Thankfully these news publications have figured out they can start charging a monthly fee, like it was before the internet, but I fear this will push out small players that don't get as many subscribers as the new york times.

EDIT: I don't know what I'm talking about with age ranges. I was 13 years old when I went to high school in 1989; my daughter turned 13 today and is in 7th grade.

No government is interested in educating their own people on fact checking and logic because a truly educated population is hard to control. All governments want their population fat, dumb and brainwashed.

Also, we are constantly told the lie that news companies hold power to account. But what's interesting is that every major news company was created by the government, banker, politician, etc. So power created these news companies to keep themselves to account? If Trump created "Trump news", would anyone believe he created it to keep himself in check?

Name any "credible" major news company. They were all founded by either a government, banker, politician, etc. Power created these companies to constrain power? I find that hard to believe and it's historically false.

“By giving students the proper tools to analyze the media they consume, we can empower them to make informed decisions...”

https://sd03.senate.ca.gov/news/20180917-governor-brown-sign...

> On or before July 1, 2019, the department shall make available to school districts on its Internet Web site a list of resources and instructional materials on media literacy, including media literacy professional development programs for teachers.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

It's funny how if alabama ran a state media indoctrination campaign, some people would be screaming propaganda. But california does it, some people think it is a good thing.

These kids should be thought logic and history of media. Not "how to analyze media". Teaching them logic and history helps them to analyze everything ( religion, media, science, literature, etc ). Not just "media".

What would be your opinion of china or russia running a media "literacy" campaign on their own children?